Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Tomtomkent]

Hank, if you can stand an occasional sane question, I have one for you, or anyone else but MicahJava, whose opinion is too biased to be of any value:

When the autopsy report describes the entry wound as "slightly above and 2.5cm to the right of" the EOP, is it possible that this is simply a misrecording of a statement that the wound was 2.5cm above and slightly to the right of the EOP?

Dave

Edited:

I think it more likely it should have read "slightly above the occipital bone" not the EOP. This was explained to Robert Prey in one of the earlier threads. He was another one who liked to impose his own meaning on words like "slightly" or "big". The location is more or less correct, and the mistake is well within the realms of human error.

It is also worth noting: The measurement can be clarified by looking at photos and x-rays. Some might suggest the photos we have don't show the wound, or indeed, anything of importance, but then we have to ask why they were taken.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think it more likely it should have read "slightly above the occipital bone" not the EOP. He was another one who liked to impose his own meaning on words like "slightly" or "big".

Well, I wonder whether the original wording was something like "slightly above the occipital bone and 2.5cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance" and either (a) it got mangled by a typist who didn't realise that the two aren't the same thing or (b) he confused the two in his notes and removed what he thought was a repetition.

Dave

 

[Axxman300]

Hank, if you can stand an occasional sane question, I have one for you, or anyone else but MicahJava, whose opinion is too biased to be of any value:

When the autopsy report describes the entry wound as "slightly above and 2.5cm to the right of" the EOP, is it possible that this is simply a misrecording of a statement that the wound was 2.5cm above and slightly to the right of the EOP?

Dave

Here's the direct quote:

Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated measuring 15x 6mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull.

Source: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

The occipital protuberance is the closest landmark to the bullet hole, and that's where the easiest measurement was made from.

Even if the entry point is two inches lower it doesn't rule out Oswald from the 6th floor of the TSBD because of the known performance of the 6.5x52mm Carcano round.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, I wonder whether the original wording was something like "slightly above the occipital bone and 2.5cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance" and either (a) it got mangled by a typist who didn't realise that the two aren't the same thing or (b) he confused the two in his notes and removed what he thought was a repetition.

Dave

Either of those are pretty much what I had in mind. Having seen enough cocked up paperwork and confused documentation in my time, I can't imagine that doctors are any less likely to make mistakes than any other professional.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, if you can stand an occasional sane question, I have one for you, or anyone else but MicahJava, whose opinion is too biased to be of any value:

When the autopsy report describes the entry wound as "slightly above and 2.5cm to the right of" the EOP, is it possible that this is simply a misrecording of a statement that the wound was 2.5cm above and slightly to the right of the EOP?

Dave

In preparing the official autopsy report, Humes testified that he worked from notations made by himself, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, and Dr. Pierre Finck. Humes conducted most of the actual autopsy and made few notes of his own.

So he could have misread something Boswell wrote. However, against that, you must remember that Humes conducted the autopsy and even though he may not have noted that measurement himself, he almost certainly would remember whether the wound was above or to the right of the EOP by that measurement. I would think.

Humes testified this way to the Warren Commission in 1964:
Mr. SPECTER - May the record show that the Exhibit No. 397 is the identical document which has been previously identified as Commission No. 371 for our internal purposes.
Is the first sheet then in that group the notes you made when you talked to Doctor Perry?
Commander HUMES - That is correct. sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And do the next 15 sheets represent the rough draft which was later copied into the autopsy report which has been heretofore identified with an exhibit number?
Commander HUMES - That is correct. sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And what do the next two sheets represent?
Commander HUMES - The next two sheets are the notes actually made in the room in which the examination was taking place. I notice now that the handwriting in some instances is not my own, and it is either that of Commander Boswell or Colonel Finck.

These two pages:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0036a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0036b.htm

Mr. SPECTER - And was that writing made at the same time that the autopsy report was undertaken; that is, did you review all of the markings on those papers and note them to be present when you completed the autopsy report?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. From the time of the completion of this examination until the submission of the written report following its preparation, all of the papers pertinent to this case were in my personal custody.

Full Warren Commission testimony here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Fourteen years later, in 1978, he testified to the HSCA this way:
Mr. CORNWELL. Did you have any notes or records at that point as to the exact location of the----
Dr. HUMES. I had the draft notes which we had prepared in the autopsy room, which I copied.
Mr. CORNWELL. Was the distance between the wound and the external occipital protuberance noted on those notes?
Dr. HUMES. It was not noted in any greater detail than appears in the final report.
Mr. CORNWELL. So, the exact distance, then, above the external occipital protuberance was not noted--
Dr. HUMES. Was not noted, with the feeling, of course, that the photographs and X-rays that we had made would, of themselves suffice to accurately locate this wound.

HSCA testimony: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm

By the time of his ARRB testimony (Assassination Records Review Board), which was roughly 32.2 years after the event, he was crediting (or blaming, depending on where you stand) Boswell for making almost all the notations there.
Q. The next document is marked Exhibit 1. Would you identify that document?
A. Yes. This is a form which we used in the morgue routinely, more or less, to make certain notations about the findings at the autopsy. There's a place for the weights of certain organs and so forth and sketched diagrams of a human body on which certain notes have been made. These notes were made almost exclusively by Dr. Boswell.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Mr. CORNWELL. So, the exact distance, then, above the external occipital protuberance was not noted--
Dr. HUMES. Was not noted, with the feeling, of course, that the photographs and X-rays that we had made would, of themselves suffice to accurately locate this wound.

Which is of course entirely correct. We know that his "slightly" can mean "a few inches" because we can see a mark, of roughly the dimensions given, tot he right of the EOP and above the EOP.

 

[Axxman300]

It is also worth noting: The measurement can be clarified by looking at photos and x-rays. Some might suggest the photos we have don't show the wound, or indeed, anything of importance, but then we have to ask why they were taken.

Dr. Humes said the point of taking all of the photographs was to have something to refer back to at a later date. He also said that he had more pictures taken of JFK than he would have during a normal autopsy for reasons of clarity.

What MJ ignores is that no laymen have seen these photographs. The handful that you can find online were low resolution B&W back-up pictures, and not the 35mm color photos, of which there are over 40. Access to these pictures os restricted.

From the National Archives FAQ page:

I have seen the autopsy photographs and x-rays in books. Did NARA make them available?

Any photographs that have been published in books throughout the years were not obtained from NARA.

The autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy family by an agreement dated October 29, 1966. This agreement limits access to such materials to: (1) persons authorized to act for a Committee of Congress, a Presidential Commission, or any other official agency of the Federal government having authority to investigate matters relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and to (2) recognized experts in the field of pathology or related areas of science and technology whose applications are approved by the Kennedy family representative, Mr. Paul Kirk.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html#xray

This is were simple logic takes control of the conversation. How can claims be made without visual evidence?

The experts who reviewed the photographs and x-rays for the HSCA confirmed the original autopsy findings. I'm not a doctor, and I haven't seen these pictures either, so as a creature ruled by logic I have to accept the findings of the experts.

Even if I was a doctor, unless I was a pathologist, I would still not be in a position to make claims about the autopsy (like an electrical engineer arguing structural engineering for 9-11). Seriously, this is why you get a second opinion before someone operates.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. Humes said the point of taking all of the photographs was to have something to refer back to at a later date. He also said that he had more pictures taken of JFK than he would have during a normal autopsy for reasons of clarity.

What MJ ignores is that no laymen have seen these photographs. The handful that you can find online were low resolution B&W back-up pictures, and not the 35mm color photos, of which there are over 40. Access to these pictures os restricted.

From the National Archives FAQ page:

I have seen the autopsy photographs and x-rays in books. Did NARA make them available?

Any photographs that have been published in books throughout the years were not obtained from NARA.

The autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy family by an agreement dated October 29, 1966. This agreement limits access to such materials to: (1) persons authorized to act for a Committee of Congress, a Presidential Commission, or any other official agency of the Federal government having authority to investigate matters relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and to (2) recognized experts in the field of pathology or related areas of science and technology whose applications are approved by the Kennedy family representative, Mr. Paul Kirk.

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/faqs.html#xray

This is were simple logic takes control of the conversation. How can claims be made without visual evidence?

The experts who reviewed the photographs and x-rays for the HSCA confirmed the original autopsy findings. I'm not a doctor, and I haven't seen these pictures either, so as a creature ruled by logic I have to accept the findings of the experts.

Even if I was a doctor, unless I was a pathologist, I would still not be in a position to make claims about the autopsy (like an electrical engineer arguing structural engineering for 9-11). Seriously, this is why you get a second opinion before someone operates.

Oh, I agree. We have a few leaked photographs, and the various rounds of photographs taken have caused some confusion. But, again, even with the low quality images we have, there is what appears to be a wound, in what appears to be a reasonable location to meet the description, that fits what we know from other evidence.

In my opinion, as little as it is obviously worth, the correct response to seeing the photos is "Oh look, the wound was higher than I imagined reading the description" and not "Oh look! They put the wound in the wrong place, everything is fake! It doesn't match what I imagined! It's wrong!"

 

[HSienzant]

Well, I wonder whether the original wording was something like "slightly above the occipital bone and 2.5cm to the right of the external occipital protuberance" and either (a) it got mangled by a typist who didn't realise that the two aren't the same thing or (b) he confused the two in his notes and removed what he thought was a repetition.

Dave

Humes handwritten draft says the same thing. It's not a typo.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0031b.htm

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

True. But given the consilience of evidence, the only sane conclusion is that the autopsy report recorded the position of the entry wound incorrectly and that in fact it was significantly higher than stated in the report, so I'm just vaguely interested in why and how this might have occurred.

Dave

I can see the denial is strong here. I take it that you think the best evidence for the upper cowlick entry wound idea is the fact that the official autopsy concluded that a single bullet entered and exited the head, but at the same you you realize that it's ridiculous to ignore the autopsy report passage "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP".

A single gunshot to the head would make for a good official story. The small head wound reportedly had internal beveling, and the large defect had external beveling. Since the brain was allegedly not examined, that's not a bad start on a conclusion. But the fact that the cerebellum isn't severely damaged on the brain photographs and there are no bullet fragments in the occipital area on the X-rays excludes that possibility. Tangential wounds can have external beveling at the location where a missile actually entered on it's side.

These issues are more complicated that simply asking a man where they remember seeing a wound. When we ask the men who were there where they remember the wound, they say it was in their lower head area. Nobody from the autopsy examined the official autopsy photographs and said the red spot was an entry wound, in fact Dr. Boswell stated pretty clearly to the HSCA and ARRB that he considered the red spot a small scalp defect related to the large head wound.

 

[MicahJava]

Oh, I agree. We have a few leaked photographs, and the various rounds of photographs taken have caused some confusion. But, again, even with the low quality images we have, there is what appears to be a wound, in what appears to be a reasonable location to meet the description, that fits what we know from other evidence.

In my opinion, as little as it is obviously worth, the correct response to seeing the photos is "Oh look, the wound was higher than I imagined reading the description" and not "Oh look! They put the wound in the wrong place, everything is fake! It doesn't match what I imagined! It's wrong!"

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Tomtomkent, scroll down near the end this page on patspeer.com until you get to the steoscopic animated gif on Kennedy's head. Look at the red spot! Nobody can state for a fact that it even looks like an entry wound! There's just no depth, let alone texture. Definitely no corresponding missing skull bone. Unless I'm mistaken by an optical illusion, the red spot also appears to be about 2 inches above the EOP, not 4-5 inches above where the apparent skull defect on the X-rays is.

 

[MicahJava]

Photographs taken at the autopsy have gone missing. This includes close-up views of the outer and inner surfaces of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Photographs taken at the autopsy have gone missing. This includes close-up views of the outer and inner surfaces of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull.

How can you know they are missing while they are unavailable?
Given you haven't seen them, how can you know what they show?

 

[Tomtomkent]

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Tomtomkent, scroll down near the end this page on patspeer.com until you get to the steoscopic animated gif on Kennedy's head. Look at the red spot! Nobody can state for a fact that it even looks like an entry wound! There's just no depth, let alone texture. Definitely no corresponding missing skull bone. Unless I'm mistaken by an optical illusion, the red spot also appears to be about 2 inches above the EOP, not 4-5 inches above where the apparent skull defect on the X-rays is.

Unfortunately, your opinion is of no consequence, and seems from your wording to stem from the quality of the image, not the content.

But... here's your chance to show us your theory better fits the evidence!

Show us on that same photo where your EOP wound is. Show us it corresponds to the x-ray! That would be brilliant!

 

[Tomtomkent]

These issues are more complicated that simply asking a man where they remember seeing a wound. When we ask the men who were there where they remember the wound, they say it was in their lower head area.

Wow. We might as well not bother with all this nonsense about actual x-rays, photos, measurements and objective evidence then. We might as well just ask what people remember.

Of course, they remember in different locations, which is pretty weird, and those recollections change when they are looking at their notes, photos or x-rays... But never mind.

Nobody from the autopsy examined the official autopsy photographs and said the red spot was an entry wound, in fact Dr. Boswell stated pretty clearly to the HSCA and ARRB that he considered the red spot a small scalp defect related to the large head wound.

Not wanting to be pedantic, but an entry point would be a scalp defect, and would be "related" to the large wound, that enters at the back of the head and exits on the side... Just saying...

 

[HSienzant]

I can see the denial is strong here. I take it that you think the best evidence for the upper cowlick entry wound idea is the fact that the official autopsy concluded that a single bullet entered and exited the head, but at the same you you realize that it's ridiculous to ignore the autopsy report passage "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP".

A single gunshot to the head would make for a good official story.

No more or less so than two shots to the head, or three, or a dozen. Whatever the autopsy determined. You're using innuendo to suggest the official story is not true, and that there was more than a single shot to the head that wasn't reported. We all see that.

And what we also see is innuendo is not evidence.

You never produce any evidence. You never have any evidence to produce.

The small head wound reportedly had internal beveling, and the large defect had external beveling. Since the brain was allegedly not examined, that's not a bad start on a conclusion.

Alleged by whom? Some conspiracy theorist you're reading for your information?

The brain was examined. It's right in the Warren Report. I thought you read it.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm

How are you wrong so often?

...But the fact that the cerebellum isn't severely damaged on the brain photographs and there are no bullet fragments in the occipital area on the X-rays excludes that possibility. Tangential wounds can have external beveling at the location where a missile actually entered on it's side.

Excludes what possibility? That the bullet entered where you like to pretend it did?

These issues are more complicated that simply asking a man where they remember seeing a wound. When we ask the men who were there where they remember the wound, they say it was in their lower head area.

You read this post?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12057395&postcount=2359

Continue to pretend not to understand the point I made here: "But it astounds me that three years from now, if a witness remembers the driver of the Home Depot pick up truck as getting out of a Ryder truck, that some knucklehead would argue that means the driver didn't commit the attack.

And that is precisely the type of argument JFK conspiracy theorists put forward as arguments for a cover-up / conspiracy / Oswald's innocence (pick one or more)."

Nobody from the autopsy examined the official autopsy photographs and said the red spot was an entry wound, in fact Dr. Boswell stated pretty clearly to the HSCA and ARRB that he considered the red spot a small scalp defect related to the large head wound.

And that was how many decades after the assassination? You said recently you could prove you point from statements made in the 1960s. But here you are, once more citing claims from the 1990s.

Remember this claim:

As for JFK, you can prove exactly what I'm talking about using only sources from the 60's.

Hank

 

[bknight]

Not wanting to keep flogging the same point, but everything he thinks has to be explained by an additional bullet: The exit wound, the damage to the brain, the fractures in the skull, all of it, could be explained as well by his simply placing the wound too low.

Given the choice of all the experts trying to tell us there was a conspiracy, then immediately contradicting this within a few pages of testimony, the presence of a silent rifle, being able to pull off additional wounds, while leaving no physical trace, with a range, accuracy, and power that was not known in technology at the time, and expertly covering all physical traces of the additional bullets... and a leyman being wrong and cherry picking the evidence he thinks supports his idea, without being able to address the "evidence" when context is applied...

I'm going for one guy being wrong.

If we aren't convinced, that is not because we "don't get it" or are "Lone nuts", or whatever. It is because he is not presenting an argument that convinces us.

A lot of posts have taken a lot of time to explain why the "evidence" does not offer a more convincing take than LHO being the lone assassin. If the intention was to actually prove the assertions, or at the very least to present them as viable, it is entirely possible to read back and work out what evidence would be required to be taken seriously.

Yes but all doctors signed the autopsy that had one bullet wound to the head and remembered the same evidence years later. Not one of them has ever said there were two wounds. Although MJ has tried to establish that if the brain would have been thin sliced the matter of a single GSW would have been invalidated.

 

[bknight]

Photographs taken at the autopsy have gone missing. This includes close-up views of the outer and inner surfaces of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull.

I'm sure that you can enlighten us as to the numbers of the images that are missing.

 

[Axxman300]

Oh, I agree. We have a few leaked photographs, and the various rounds of photographs taken have caused some confusion. But, again, even with the low quality images we have, there is what appears to be a wound, in what appears to be a reasonable location to meet the description, that fits what we know from other evidence.

In my opinion, as little as it is obviously worth, the correct response to seeing the photos is "Oh look, the wound was higher than I imagined reading the description" and not "Oh look! They put the wound in the wrong place, everything is fake! It doesn't match what I imagined! It's wrong!"

I know you agree. Just trying to flesh it out.

The problem with not seeing all of the photos is we've never seen the pre-autopsy pictures of the entry wound to the head. The one MJ keeps harping on it taken after the brain has been removed and skull cap removed, and the scalp is being pulled back into place. It is just not a good photograph to base anything on other than JFK had great hair.

 

[Axxman300]

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Tomtomkent, scroll down near the end this page on patspeer.com until you get to the steoscopic animated gif on Kennedy's head. Look at the red spot! Nobody can state for a fact that it even looks like an entry wound! There's just no depth, let alone texture. Definitely no corresponding missing skull bone. Unless I'm mistaken by an optical illusion, the red spot also appears to be about 2 inches above the EOP, not 4-5 inches above where the apparent skull defect on the X-rays is.

You know those aren't true 3-D, right?

You know this guy is a CT loon, right?