Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

It literally makes no difference with or without a brain in the cranium, so let's simmer down here.

It makes a difference for a number of reasons, first: it blows away your assertion that the brain wasn't removed the conventional way, when sawing of the skull is CLEARLY VISIBLE.

Second, the scalp is being pulled over a damaged, excised section of the skull, so it's not a true fit, and I doubt the laceration is visible.

The official brain photographs show a "large gap" in the frontal region. Scroll down 3/4ths of this page and see the morphing gif:

Just a waste of time. Why? We don't know what all the other autopsy photos show. The only thing these pictures show is a catastrophic GSW to the head, and everyone already knows this.

I am not sure if the "gap" is as big as it looked to you. I think there may still be a brain in there.

It is as big and there ain't no brain. THE SCALP HAD to be cut BEFORE THEY COULD SAW THE SKULL.

Vague gibberish is not an argument.

At least I make on instead of running away.

 

[RoboTimbo]

The red spot is 2-4 inches above the EOP, not next to the EOP and not within the hairline. The people at the autopsy denied several times that the red spot was the wound described in the autopsy report. You should know this by now.

Answer the question asked. What was the red spot?

 

[smartcooky]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/wj998fS.png[/qimg]

Can you read well? Because this is not made up.

"a lacerated wound" - laceration: a deep cut or tear in skin or flesh.
This does not necessarily mean the bullet entered at a steep angle. JFK's body and the limo were not immediately treated as a crime scene. He was still alive so their first objective was to get him to a hospital. He was driven there in the back of the Presidential Limo a trip that took eight minutes and was complete at high speed. His body could have been, and probably was, manhandled somewhat. The tearing could have take place at any time after he was shot.

"In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound.." - corresponding: similar in position, purpose, form.
You need to understand that the term "corresponding wound" in the pathology sense does NOT mean identical would, it means refers to a wound that is in the same place as the wound in the overlying tissue, and that they were probably both caused by the same bullet.

which exhibit bevelling on the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull
Now this is interesting. Bevelling on the inside of the hole in the skull is caused by the shock wave of the bullet entry, and as small particles of shocked bone are dragged out by the bullet's exit. That there was bevelling does not mean what you think it does. This is a really complex subject that is difficult to explain in simple terms, so I'll leave it to the experts....

The analysis of trauma to the skeleton is an important aspect of forensic case work, but most major pathology references devote limited attention to this topic. The aim of this paper is to analyze bevelling in exit gunshot wounds from a series of 14 cases with 17 exit wounds. Assessment of bevelling was made by measuring the endocranial and ectrocranial size of the wound, locating the most pronounced bevelling, and determining if there is a correlation between the direction of bevelling and the direction of shooting. The results indicate outward bevelling of exit wounds in nearly two thirds of cases. No bevelling was observed in the orbits, sphenoid, and in some cases, the occipital and parietal bones. Internal bevelling of exit wounds was not found in this series. Bevelling may be partly understood using a glass model. The inconsistent correlation of the direction of bevelling in exit wounds with the direction of shooting leads to the conclusion that this characteristic cannot be relied upon to determine the direction of fire.

 

[MicahJava]

smartcooky, the sharp upwards trajectory required for a high-powered round to enter next to the EOP and exit the right frontal-parietal region, the lack of bullet fragments in the lower head area on the X-rays, and the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum indicates that such a thing just didn't happen. That's why some people want to raise the entry wound 4-5 inches to the top of the head, in the right parietal bone.

Also, why did you highlight the text about the science of beveling in the bone of gunshot wounds? Are you trying to say the doctors were wrong and the EOP wound is actually an exit? An exit wound on the back of the head? What?

 

[RoboTimbo]

smartcooky, the sharp upwards trajectory required for a high-powered round to enter next to the EOP and exit the right frontal-parietal region, the lack of bullet fragments in the lower head area on the X-rays, and the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum indicates that such a thing just didn't happen. That's why some people want to raise the entry wound 4-5 inches to the top of the head, in the right parietal bone.

Your opinion is worthless for evaluating how gunshot wounds should behave. What did the autopsy, which you've been citing, find?

Also, why did you highlight the text about the science of beveling in the bone of gunshot wounds? Are you trying to say the doctors were wrong and the EOP wound is actually an exit? An exit wound on the back of the head? What?

Aside from your reading comprehension problems, answer the question asked: what was the red spot?

 

[BStrong]

smartcooky, the sharp upwards trajectory required for a high-powered round to enter next to the EOP and exit the right frontal-parietal region, the lack of bullet fragments in the lower head area on the X-rays, and the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum indicates that such a thing just didn't happen. That's why some people want to raise the entry wound 4-5 inches to the top of the head, in the right parietal bone.

Also, why did you highlight the text about the science of beveling in the bone of gunshot wounds? Are you trying to say the doctors were wrong and the EOP wound is actually an exit? An exit wound on the back of the head? What?

Your interpretation of the facts aren't material.

The findings of the Doctors stood then and stand now.

Just as an aside, you have your trajectory compass upside down. The projectiles impacted at a downwards trajectory. Not knowing which way is up is a long time slang term for someone that has no idea what they're talking about. It's awfully nice of you to graphically prove that the description still has validity.

 

[Axxman300]

"a lacerated wound" - laceration: a deep cut or tear in skin or flesh.
This does not necessarily mean the bullet entered at a steep angle. JFK's body and the limo were not immediately treated as a crime scene. He was still alive so their first objective was to get him to a hospital. He was driven there in the back of the Presidential Limo a trip that took eight minutes and was complete at high speed. His body could have been, and probably was, manhandled somewhat. The tearing could have take place at any time after he was shot.

Yes.

Jackie scooped brain matter back into the wound, and closed the flap of skull to put pressure on the wound. I don't imagine she was delicate about it.

 

[abaddon]

Just when one thinks it cannot get any sillier, the irony gets turned up to 11

#111!!!eleventy!!!

 

[smartcooky]

smartcooky, the sharp upwards trajectory required for a high-powered round to enter next to the EOP and exit the right frontal-parietal region, the lack of bullet fragments in the lower head area on the X-rays, and the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum indicates that such a thing just didn't happen. That's why some people want to raise the entry wound 4-5 inches to the top of the head, in the right parietal bone.

Really. OK then, listen carefully

The vast majority "second shooter" nuts have almost zero powers of observation. This is especially so when it comes to the fact that they are ignorant of the relative positions of Oswald, the Limo, JFK and JC. Almost to a man, they get this wrong, and they fail to understand important aspects of this positional relationship. They have Kennedy sitting upright, directly behind JC and looking straight forward..... THIS IS WRONG!

This is a snapshot of Zapruder Film Frame 312; its the last frame before the bullet strikes JFK, and shows the position of his head..

He's not sitting upright and looking straight ahead is he? He is bent forward - his head is tilted down at an angle of about 40° and turned inward toward Jackie by about the same amount. When you superimpose the trajectory of the kill shot bullet (yellow line) about 16° downwards, it passes through the area where the entry wound is, and out near the point where we saw his brains blown out.

Also, why did you highlight the text about the science of bevelling in the bone of gunshot wounds? Are you trying to say the doctors were wrong and the EOP wound is actually an exit? An exit wound on the back of the head? What?

Sheesh! I was all up and ready to start a meaningful discussion with somebody who could grasp the easy stuff I'm posting here. Why do I bother?

Do you not understand what is meant by "viewed from the inner aspect of the skull"? It means looking back at the hole from the inside of the skull. Bullets fired into bone either lodge in the bone, shatter the bone, or exit the bone. Its is no different for the skull - the bullet enters the bone of the skull case, and then exits the bone into the skull case. The bevelling they refer to is on the inside of the skull. As the experts have stated, it is not possible to characterise the bullet direction from the bevelling.

 

[MicahJava]

smartcooky, are you meaning to say that you believe the entry wound in the back of the head was right next to the external occipital protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above like some say? And, likewise, the red spot in the cowlick on the back-of-head photographs is not an entry wound?

P.S. the red blob on the right side of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder Film is not brain tissue extruding from a wound. It's a piece of skull that split outwards above the ear and stayed attached by the scalp. The inner surface of the skull bone is red. You can't see the actual large wound very well in the Zapruder Film, which is supposed to be on the top of the head.

 

[RoboTimbo]

smartcooky, are you meaning to say that you believe the entry wound in the back of the head was right next to the external occipital protuberance, and not 4-5 inches above like some say? And, likewise, the red spot in the cowlick on the back-of-head photographs is not an entry wound?

P.S. the red blob on the right side of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder Film is not brain tissue extruding from a wound. It's a piece of skull that split outwards above the ear and stayed attached by the scalp. The inner surface of the skull bone is red. You can't see the actual large wound very well in the Zapruder Film, which is supposed to be on the top of the head.

Since you continue to fail to answer the question of what was the red spot, I'll have to assume that the autopsy got it correct and that it was the entrance wound to the skull.

Where do you think the shot that made that entrance wound came from, MicahJava?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I’m sorry, but I really don’t get the “four to five” inches. Where is the five inches measurement sourced from? Can we have a citation of a precise measurement please. It would be nice to think that MicahJava at least understood the given evidence before deciding to argue against it.

 

[HSienzant]

You see, what I said goes double for a damaged skull. Since the area around the large skull defect was so fractures, surrounding bone fragments would just come loose. So Dr. Finck could not have arrived late to the autopsy, after the brain had been removed, to examine a beveled entrance wound which couldn't have even existed. Again, Dr. Finck always insisted that the small skull wound was intact within the open cranium, and was not only visible when previously-separated skull fragments were placed back.

P.S. the red blob on the right side of Kennedy's head in the Zapruder Film is not brain tissue extruding from a wound. It's a piece of skull that split outwards above the ear and stayed attached by the scalp. The inner surface of the skull bone is red. You can't see the actual large wound very well in the Zapruder Film, which is supposed to be on the top of the head.

Can you reconcile your admission that the skull bone is still attached to the scalp in the second quote above with your claim that bone fragments "would just come loose" and detach from the scalp in the first quote above.

We are making real progress here since you admitted that a piece of skull could remain attached to the scalp even through the autopsy.

Given there were comminuted fractures of the skull - with the bone still adhering to the scalp in many of those cases - why couldn't the brain be removed with a minimum of cutting?

After the bullet strike, the skull was no longer an integral unit, but a mass of individual pieces of skull still held together by the scalp.

That's why the autopsy report mentions no bone cutting, but says the brain was removed by two incisions in the scalp down to the ears.

That's why Finck could still see the entry wound in the back of the head, and how they knew the entry wound in the scalp was directly over the entry wound in the skull.

We covered all this a year ago. Your refusal to admit to any of this doesn't change the facts any. But it is curious you would admit that the skull bone is still adhering to the scalp above and in front of the right temple, while elsewhere denying that could happen at the back of the skull.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Since you continue to fail to answer the question of what was the red spot, I'll have to assume that the autopsy got it correct and that it was the entrance wound to the skull.

False.

Where do you think the shot that made that entrance wound came from, MicahJava?

It probably not an entrance wound, it could be a fragment that exited or an otherwise small tear in the scalp related to the large head wound.

Definitely not the wound described in the autopsy report.

 

[MicahJava]

Can you reconcile your admission that the skull bone is still attached to the scalp in the second quote above with your claim that bone fragments "would just come loose" and detach from the scalp in the first quote above.

We are making real progress here since you admitted that a piece of skull could remain attached to the scalp even through the autopsy.

Given there were comminuted fractures of the skull - with the bone still adhering to the scalp in many of those cases - why couldn't the brain be removed with a minimum of cutting? after the bullet strike, the skull cap was no longer an integral unit, but a mass of individual pieces of skull still held together by the scalp.

That's why the autopsy report mentions no bone cutting, but says the brain was removed by two incisions in the scalp down to the ears.

That's why Finck could still see the entry wound in the back of the head, and how they knew the entry wound in the scalp was directly over the entry wound in the skull.

We covered all this a year ago. Your refusal to admit to any of this doesn't change the facts any. But it is curious you would admit that the skull bone is still adhering to the scalp above and in front of the right temple, while elsewhere denying that could happen at the back of the skull.

Hank

Hank, Finck said the small wound was intact within the open cranium, as an undisturbed perforation in the occipital bone. He specifically denied exactly what you are trying to state as fact. And also, leaving skull fragments attached to the scalp after reflection and while removing the brain could damage the brain. Such an idea is a mockery of a very delicate procedure. And the autopsy doctors specifically denied doing that. And is that even physically possible? Nevermind, don't bother answering, we know it's wrong either way.

 

[MicahJava]

I’m sorry, but I really don’t get the “four to five” inches. Where is the five inches measurement sourced from? Can we have a citation of a precise measurement please. It would be nice to think that MicahJava at least understood the given evidence before deciding to argue against it.

The lower mark is where the autopsy pathologists placed the small head wound. The upper mark is where the government wishes it was.

 

[Tomtomkent]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/kBGQfl0.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/HYqcQTW.jpg[/qimg]

The lower mark is where the autopsy pathologists placed the small head wound. The upper mark is where the government wishes it was.

Sorry, but none of that is what I asked for.
I asked for a precise measurement on the skull of the victim.
Not a recreation some years later.
Not their memory.
A measurement, contemporary, or taken from extant materials by suitable analysis.

 

[RoboTimbo]

False.

No, it's actually true. I assume you know that it's the entrance wound which is why you ran away from answering.

It probably not an entrance wound, it could be a fragment that exited or an otherwise small tear in the scalp related to the large head wound.

Definitely not the wound described in the autopsy report.

No, it definitely is the entrance wound. Remember, you cited the autopsy report which stated one entrance wound and one exit wound. If your CT websites tell you otherwise, you'll need to have compelling evidence for what else it might be.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just to be clear: Three people placing marks in three different places is not an accurate measurement. It is an example of why we rely on measurements and photographs OVER memory. It shows why people write information down, and take photographs.

So what is meant by a precision measurement: a measurement from a known datum, to a known limit. For example, four inches from the nearest edge of the protruberence” is a measurement. A photography of a three dimensional object without reference is not. “Four to five inches” is not. A variation of upto 25% of the total, is not a reliable measurement on the scale under discussion.

For an estimate, sure, but then if you think four to five inches is a reasonable margin for precision, then you should be conceding four inches can be “slightly” above the proteubrance, given the amount of play being offered.

 

[MicahJava]

tomtomkent, the posters here are the ones claiming the x-rays show a defect indicating an entry wound rather than a regular fracture, 4-5 inches above the EOP. It's YOUR stupid theory. I think it's baloney and there is no entry wound on the X-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP. I think the wound was right next to the EOP like the autopsy pathologists always said.