Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Dave Rogers]

The autopsy doctors. Have many times have I quoted Humes and Boswell for how the brain was removed?

I see, the usual bait-and-switch where you answer a different question to the one that was asked. You commented on "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" in support of your opinion on the unrecorded details of what happened in the autopsy, and now you're completing the circle by citing the autopsy. Where is your source for your claim that "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" is what you say it is? Or are you simply making up some technical knowledge you don't possess and hoping you'll get away with it?

And, incidentally, we know that the skull was shattered, that a lateral incision in the scalp was made, that the scalp was reflected (i.e. broken parts of skull were folded back) in order to remove the brain, and that therefore the brain was not removed through a hole equal in size to the parts of the skull that had actually been separated by the exit wound, but through one that could easily be changed in size and shape due to the pliability of the scalp, which was the only thing holding the pieces together. We also know that no "reconstruction" would be needed after removal, because the pieces would simply fold back into something fairly close to their original positions. And this is a simple, parsimonious explanation based on the available knowledge, rather than one that requires a bullet that can pass through the cerebellum without damaging it fired from a position that nobody could possibly have been in.

Dave

 

[Tomtomkent]

The autopsy doctors. Have many times have I quoted Humes and Boswell for how the brain was removed?

Quoting and understanding are two different beasts.
If you believe the doctors at the autopsy, but fail to believe the scalp was reflected, then we can only assume you do not understand the autopsy, and have to doubt you have read the autopsy at all.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The autopsy doctors. Have many times have I quoted Humes and Boswell for how the brain was removed?

Ok, I'll play. How many times did you quote the autopsy doctors saying this:

This is the normal, proper way to remove a brain, slightly modified for the large damage to the skull. You're supposed to take the parts of the skull out and leave them on a dish for safekeeping.

I assume you were simply in error rather than lying about it being the autopsy doctors saying it instead of it being your opinion, which has already been shown to be worthless for this purpose?

 

[bknight]

I see, the usual bait-and-switch where you answer a different question to the one that was asked. You commented on "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" in support of your opinion on the unrecorded details of what happened in the autopsy, and now you're completing the circle by citing the autopsy. Where is your source for your claim that "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" is what you say it is? Or are you simply making up some technical knowledge you don't possess and hoping you'll get away with it?

And, incidentally, we know that the skull was shattered, that a lateral incision in the scalp was made, that the scalp was reflected (i.e. broken parts of skull were folded back) in order to remove the brain, and that therefore the brain was not removed through a hole equal in size to the parts of the skull that had actually been separated by the exit wound, but through one that could easily be changed in size and shape due to the pliability of the scalp, which was the only thing holding the pieces together. We also know that no "reconstruction" would be needed after removal, because the pieces would simply fold back into something fairly close to their original positions. And this is a simple, parsimonious explanation based on the available knowledge, rather than one that requires a bullet that can pass through the cerebellum without damaging it fired from a position that nobody could possibly have been in.

Dave

In addition they had the pieces sent by Parkland.

 

[HSienzant]

What does "1 inch to the right center of the back of the head" mean?

Wait, what? You just changed the subject! Are we supposed to not notice?

Your original complaint was this:

The December 6 1963 version of the Death Certificate signed by Theron Ward also fails to mention a throat wound.

I pointed out that Ward was the Justice of the Peace in Dallas, and his death certificate was from December 6th, long after the body had already been buried. I also quoted the fact that the death certificate says JFK died from gunshot wounds of the head *AND NECK*, and that the throat is in the front of the neck. Your claim above is therefore just another in a long line of falsehoods by you concerning the JFK assassination.

Apparently satisfied for the moment that Ward mentioned a wound in the neck contrary to your assertion quoted above, you now switch to the head, changing the subject. I have no doubt that at some point in the near future, you will again bring up all over again that false assertion that Ward's death certificate doesn't mention the throat wound, much like you're treating us to your nonsense claim that the brain couldn't be taken out of a five-inch hole in the skull so the head wound must have been lower (ignoring the fact that you've been informed dozens of times -- no exaggeration -- that the five inch hole was enlarged by the autopsists before the removal of the brain, and this is mentioned in the autopsy report as well as the doctors' testimonies.

Doesn't that mimic the small head wound, which was "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". Did Parkland know about the small head wound?

Sorry, I already answered that here:

Let's note a few things. He was a Justice of the Peace in Dallas, Texas. His death certificate (executed in Dallas on December 6th, 1963, from what the doctors in Parkland told him as well as other sources) is a hearsay document. On the first page, it says the President died as a result of "MULTIPLE GUNSHOT WOUNDS OF THE HEAD AND NECK" only.

As always, you're a day late and a dollar short. It does appear you only skim my posts for claims you feel you can rebut, rather than reading for knowledge.

You are constantly raising issues even after I've answered them. He had two weeks to gather information for the death certificate. As I noted, it wasn't something executed as the body was taken back to Parkland:

The Parkland doctors were unaware of the existence of a wound in the back because they never turned JFK over. And Ward's Dallas, Texas death certificate says the body was removed to Washington, so this was executed after the President's body was gone. So did he ever examine the body? And where does the language about the wounds you claim come from?

It must be second-hand information from other sources. And was obviously an afterthought, as no one got around to completing a proper death certificate at the time JFK's body was removed to Washington.

What other complaints that I've already addressed will you be bringing up next?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Who from Parkland said they saw a small bullet entry in the back of the head?

No one. The exit wound was so massive they tried to stem the blood flow from that, but they never had the chance. And JFK's head had so much damage, there was never any realistic chance to save his life in any case.

But they had to try.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

The skull was found to be so shattered that virtually no sawing was needed to successfully remove the brain, unless you want to think Humes and Boswell are lying and the body actually arrived with the brain already removed.

I...Have...Posted...a...link...to...DR Humes' deposition...4 times.

He says the brain was removed in the conventional way by sawing, and they had to be careful in the area where the skull was shattered.

Just by looking at the x-rays you can see the ENTIRE LEFT SIDE OF THE SKULL WAS INTACT, and that meant they had to saw it open.

The doctors also denied doing any sort of reconstruction for the open-cranium photos.

Pulling the scalp up is not reconstruction, what it does is make for a clear picture because the white of the bone will cause glare that obscures what they're trying to photograph.

They did not have a lot of time, and precautions were taken.

 

[Axxman300]

The autopsy doctors. Have many times have I quoted Humes and Boswell for how the brain was removed?

How many times have you accurately quoted them? Zero.

 

[Axxman300]

No one. The exit wound was so massive they tried to stem the blood flow from that, but they never had the chance. And JFK's head had so much damage, there was never any realistic chance to save his life in any case.

But they had to try.

Hank

Weird, almost as if they were ER doctors and not CSI agents trying to solve the crime of the century.

 

[HSienzant]

The skull was found to be so shattered that virtually no sawing was needed to successfully remove the brain, unless you want to think Humes and Boswell are lying and the body actually arrived with the brain already removed.

Which is why the autopsy reports no sawing but a coronal incision down each side of the head were all that was necessary to remove the brain.

Did you look up the word 'coronal' yet?

Your pretense that all this wasn't addressed yet is just that, pretense. It doesn't change the facts any.

There's five different posts in this thread from me pointing this out.

Here's the FIRST:

Nope.

The autopsy doctors said the cuts were from the large exit wound at the top of the head extended down to the ears. This has been quoted to you numerous times. The autopsy report is also quite clear: "The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content..." (page 5).
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Look up "coronal plane" if you don't know what that means.

It totally destroys the argument you've been advancing here for the past months. There is nothing about a cut around the back of the head along the axial plane (look that up too) to remove the remaining portion of the skull cap as you like to pretend. It wasn't necessary because of how extensively fractured the skull itself was due to the entry and exit of a bullet. The multiple fractures left the skull completely devoid of integrity and those cuts along the coronal plane were sufficient to examine the brain and remove it.

Again: Your repetition of untrue claims doesn't make them more true. It just destroys your credibility.

Hank

And here's the SECOND:

No, the autopsy report does say the scalp wound was extended IN THE CORONAL PLANE before the brain was removed.

Those are the only incisions noted to the head in the autopsy report.

Do research to determine what this means, and get back to us when you understand the point made.

Is this the fifth or sixth time the words coronal plane have been pointed out to you?

Autopsy report, page 5: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Definition of coronal plane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronal_plane

Yes, the skull was badly fractured by the bullet passing through it, making it relatively easy to remove the brain by cutting the scalp only. Also the fifth or sixth time you're ignoring this information.

And here's the THIRD:

Right, except for the words 'silly', and "except" which I excised for you. You pretend the two sentences conflict, but they don't.

The autopsy report says coronal cuts to the scalp were the only incisions made to the head, and this was done to examine the brain.

You are so close to understanding the point. Looks like it's time for a fringe reset and a change of subject.

Hank

And the fourth and fifth:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12040878&postcount=2044

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12040896&postcount=2047

The doctors also denied doing any sort of reconstruction for the open-cranium photos.

Quote that.

They also described separating pieces of the skull from the scalp before trying to access the brain.

And quote that.

This is the normal, proper way to remove a brain, slightly modified for the large damage to the skull.

Aha. The doctors were clear they didn't perform a normal craniotomy. Here's what the autopsy report says (under "INCISIONS"):
"The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content..." (page 5).
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Nothing about sawing off bone. They said they didn't need to, because of the comminuted fractures of the skull. Did you look up 'comminuted' yet?

You're supposed to take the parts of the skull out and leave them on a dish for safekeeping.

And they did that exactly as they said, via the two incisions in the coronal plane. Did you look up that word 'coronal' yet?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Without Boswell's Freudian slips, I wouldn't be so sure that him and Humes are lying about when they learned about the throat wound. Love the way you dismissed TWELVE WITNESSES (I forgot to add James Curtis Jenkins to my list), as if their memory could be wrong in the same way several times over.

What part of "It's still bovine excrement no matter how high you pile it" did you not understand?

Your defense is that if recollections from thirty years after the fact agree, they must be true?

No, we've already seen that's not the case. Witnesses recollections can be influenced in any number of ways, from what they read after the incident, to what they hear from others or on the radio or television, to even how questions by conspiracy theorists are phrased.

I saw it firsthand myself on 11/22/93 -- the day Dealey Plaza was dedicated as a National Historic Site.

Two purported middle-aged witnesses were located by one of the local stations in Dallas who had never been identified previously. They claimed they were school kids watching the motorcade in Dealey Plaza on the day of the assassination. Thirty years later, they were back in Dealey Plaza and being interviewed by a reporter for that station. I'm going to call them "Bert and Ernie", because I forgot their real names. "Bert" said for the camera, while I stood off to the side listening, that he thought the shots came from the Depository. "Ernie" said he wasn't sure where the shots came from. After the camera crew wrapped up, "Bert and Ernie" hung around. Later that day, I mentioned to a conspiracy theorist I knew (who wasn't there earlier for the filming) that two new witnesses had been located, and pointed them out to him. Within thirty minutes or so he destroyed their credibility, asking them leading questions and badgering them until "Bert", who originally named the Depository as the source of the shots, now wasn't sure, and "Ernie, who originally said he wasn't sure, was now naming the knoll as the source of the shots. A year later I saw them paraded out at a conference both as conspiracy witnesses.

I saw it happen with my own eyes and ears. These claims you cite from 33 years after the fact still come after decades of them hearing stuff and being questioned by conspiracy buffs. If "Bert and Ernie" could be turned around that quickly, after less than a hour of questioning, what about these others?

It's still bovine excrement.

No matter how much you shovel or how high you pile it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I have saved for last what is probably the most fascinating piece of information that the ARRB garnered from Knudsen's survivors. All three of them said "Knudsen appeared before an official government body again some time in 1988, about six months before he died in January of 1989." They all agreed "Knudsen came away from this experience very disturbed, saying that four photographs were missing, and that one was badly altered." Gloria Knudsen continued by saying that Knudsen felt "that the wounds he saw in the photos shown to him in 1988 did not represent what he saw or took." (p. 252) One reason he was disturbed by the experience was that "as soon as he would answer a question consistent with what he remembered, he would immediately be challenged and contradicted by people whom he felt already had their minds made up." (ibid) Knudsen told his wife that he knew who had possession of the autopsy photographs he took. That based on that, he could then find out who had made some of them disappear and who had altered the back of the head picture. But he was not going to stick his neck out on something this huge because he had a family to protect. (p. 253)

What government body was this? Since there is no known government body looking into the Kennedy Assassinaton in 1988 (and the ARRB tried to locate one, and failed), this is obviously complete BS by Knudson.

You think he's credible? He's not. He talks of things happening at the autopsy that no one else mentions, like a photo of a probe in JFK's body ("Again, Purdy reminded him that no one else recalled such a photo"), and he told his family stories that we know are not true -- like being the only photographer at the autopsy.

He has no credibility, so of course you feel he's trustworthy and his story is credible.

No matter how much you shovel, or how high you pile it...

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Literally none of them? Most are from ~15 years after. It doesn't somehow help your case if they reported the same thing ~33 years later.

15 or 33 years, it's still all recollections and hearsay.

You can pile it to the moon. It doesn't change what it is.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I see, the usual bait-and-switch where you answer a different question to the one that was asked. You commented on "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" in support of your opinion on the unrecorded details of what happened in the autopsy, and now you're completing the circle by citing the autopsy. Where is your source for your claim that "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" is what you say it is? Or are you simply making up some technical knowledge you don't possess and hoping you'll get away with it?

And, incidentally, we know that the skull was shattered, that a lateral incision in the scalp was made, that the scalp was reflected (i.e. broken parts of skull were folded back) in order to remove the brain, and that therefore the brain was not removed through a hole equal in size to the parts of the skull that had actually been separated by the exit wound, but through one that could easily be changed in size and shape due to the pliability of the scalp, which was the only thing holding the pieces together. We also know that no "reconstruction" would be needed after removal, because the pieces would simply fold back into something fairly close to their original positions. And this is a simple, parsimonious explanation based on the available knowledge, rather than one that requires a bullet that can pass through the cerebellum without damaging it fired from a position that nobody could possibly have been in.

Dave

And he doesn't get it because he doesn't want to get it.

This has been explained to him over and over, at least 30 different times, in 30 different ways.

Since it destroys his argument entirely about where the bullet wound in the back of the head "HAD TO BE", expect him to not get it into perpetuity.

Doesn't change the facts any.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy doctors. Have many times have I quoted Humes and Boswell for how the brain was removed?

You mean two of the three doctors you elsewhere suggested were lying?

If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things...

The autopsy doctors could simply be dishonest about what they saw.

We already exposed that canard of yours. You don't get to suggest they are liars and part of the cover-up and then quote their words elsewhere as if they are credible.

They can't be both.

So you need to decide which assertion of yours you're going to retract, because both can't be true.

And anytime you reference the autopsy doctors and anything they said as a source for your interpretations of the evidence I will remind you of your contradiction.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I see, the usual bait-and-switch where you answer a different question to the one that was asked. You commented on "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" in support of your opinion on the unrecorded details of what happened in the autopsy, and now you're completing the circle by citing the autopsy. Where is your source for your claim that "the normal, proper way to remove a brain" is what you say it is? Or are you simply making up some technical knowledge you don't possess and hoping you'll get away with it?

In usual cases in which the skull is not shattered by a gunshot wound, the top of the skull is obviously separated from the scalp. In this case, you would also want to still separate the shards of skull bone from the scalp to avoid damaging the brain. Surgical procedures are based on what works the most.

Furthermore, the autopsy doctors described the scalp as "loose" when the body was being handled, and that pieces of skull would separate from the scalp and fall into the skull cavity.

And the skull photographs show no loose pieces of skull bone stuck to the scalp.

And, incidentally, we know that the skull was shattered, that a lateral incision in the scalp was made, that the scalp was reflected (i.e. broken parts of skull were folded back) in order to remove the brain, and that therefore the brain was not removed through a hole equal in size to the parts of the skull that had actually been separated by the exit wound, but through one that could easily be changed in size and shape due to the pliability of the scalp, which was the only thing holding the pieces together. We also know that no "reconstruction" would be needed after removal, because the pieces would simply fold back into something fairly close to their original positions. And this is a simple, parsimonious explanation based on the available knowledge, rather than one that requires a bullet that can pass through the cerebellum without damaging it fired from a position that nobody could possibly have been in.

Dave

Reconstruction for mortuary reasons, but there is no evidence or reason to think that the doctors let pieces of loose skull bone stick to the scalp upon reflection.

 

[MicahJava]

Dave, you have this strange idea that the EOP-throat connection literally requires a 45-degree angled shot. Wrong. When a bullet encounters a curved portion of the skull, it is likely to deflect. A bullet could have entered near the EOP, and barely missed the cerebellum while deflecting downward and smashing the base of the skull.

 

[MicahJava]

Which is why the autopsy reports no sawing but a coronal incision down each side of the head were all that was necessary to remove the brain.

Did you look up the word 'coronal' yet?

Your pretense that all this wasn't addressed yet is just that, pretense. It doesn't change the facts any.

There's five different posts in this thread from me pointing this out.

Here's the FIRST:


And here's the SECOND:


And here's the THIRD:


And the fourth and fifth:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12040878&postcount=2044

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12040896&postcount=2047




Quote that.




And quote that.




Aha. The doctors were clear they didn't perform a normal craniotomy. Here's what the autopsy report says (under "INCISIONS"):
"The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content..." (page 5).
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

Nothing about sawing off bone. They said they didn't need to, because of the comminuted fractures of the skull. Did you look up 'comminuted' yet?




And they did that exactly as they said, via the two incisions in the coronal plane. Did you look up that word 'coronal' yet?

Hank

Dude, you are like the king of Red Herrings.

 

[HSienzant]

Dude, you are like the king of Red Herrings.

Oh, good. You learned one logical fallacy.

Now you just have to learn the meaning.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

And the skull photographs show no loose pieces of skull bone stuck to the scalp.

FALSE!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dHWHkn9eQVM/TyOZrvTut5I/AAAAAAAAEKs/sKrb-H5SKM0/s320/JFK_Autopsy_Photo.jpg

Photo of the empty skull with a flap of skull bone stuck to the scalp. This flap is above and forward of the right ear and is also visible in the Zapruder film.

How can you be so wrong so often?

Hank