Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance. And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile. To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance. The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it. So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
There's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's skull. The autopsy clearly describes the location.
You are in no way capable of making any further assessment because:
You are not a pathologist, in fact most MD's are not qualified to make pathological diagnosis either.
The other 40+ autopsy photos have not been released to the public, so you don't know what they show. The limited photos we have access to show extensive damage exclusive to the 6.5x52mm round.
Also: MicahJava's last post seems to posit the following, in place of any real theory:
1) The only thing he is certain of, is the small bullet wond next to the EOP (which he has not been able to identify in any existing evindence).
2) That the evidence does not show anything that would be expected by a high powered round of ammunition (which appears to say it does not contain whatever it is HE expects a high powered rifle round to do, as the wounds are fully compatible with a comparatively heavy Carricano round fragmenting in the skull. We must also note he offers no viable alternative).
3) That the expected exit wound was not caused by trauma displaced ejecta, but by another missile, (which we can ONLY assume was NOT a high powered rifle round, unless he has contradicted his claim that the wounds are "nothing we would expect from a high powered round. Which is odd, to say the least, as he already posited this was a silenced high calibre rifle, as stated in the CIA handbook).
4) That it is a mystery what happened to the bullet that struck in the wound he has yet to identify.(Assuming of course he is not going to simply admit he is wrong in his interpretation of the autopsy, and simply underestimated the distance suggested by the word "slightly".)
5) That the anomalies can not be conciliated by correcting his wound placement (despite it already having been shown that the 'anomalous' brain damage is accounted for by simply adjusting his placement, and that he has repeatedly shown that he has no clear idea where the correct placement is describing it as "four or five" inches, and failing to produce an actual measurement. As of yet, he has yet to respond to my posts asking for proof that his claims of the wound placement are what the autopsy surgeons claimed at the time, rather than remembered later).
It seems to me that when somebody believes their own opinion is a reason to for certainty, rather than scepticism, despite all he has FAILED to produce, we have reason to be wary.
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.
It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.
1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.
2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes
3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo
4. Dr. Humes
5. Dr. Boswell
6. Dr. Finck
7. John Stringer
8. Francis X. O'Neill
9. Roy Kellerman
10. Chester Boyers
11. Tom Robinson
12. Richard Lipsey
13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.
14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.
15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.
16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.
17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.
18. The open-cranium photographs.
How about you just get to the philosophy of why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance.
Why can you be certain of that? You doubt almost everything else about the autopsy report.
There's nothing murky about this case. Within 24 hours, the assassin was in custody, his rifle was discovered, his shells were recovered, the nearly whole bullet that fell out of Connally's leg was recovered, the two large fragments from the head shot that killed JFK were recovered, and the autopsy completed, and the fact that both shots that struck JFK were determined to have come from above and behind him.
You can't have a less murky case. You're confusing dumb arguments by conspiracy advocates for murkiness. Just because somebody makes a dumb argument doesn't make it true. And it doesn't make this case murky in any sense.
And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile.
To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance. The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it.
They were clear and affirmative that the bullet that struck the back of the head exited the top of the head through the massive wound visible in the Z-film, the autopsy radiographs, and the autopsy photos.
But you ignore that entirely and substitute your own opinion once more. Why do you think your opinion should overturn the opinion of the experts, MicahJava?
And of course, it wasn't 'raised' arbitrarily. The HSCA forensic pathology panel determined from their examination of the extant autopsy materials - including the radiographs - that the wound was above the EOP. The autopsy radiographs were determined to be those of JFK. So there you go.
The wound is where the HSCA forensic pathology says it was.
Not where you say it was.
It's quite simple -- you don't get to move the wound around to your heart's content simply to get the wound where you like. But that's exactly what you're doing here.
You don't get to substitute your own opinion for that of the experts. But that's exactly what you're doing here.
That's why you get no traction here with your assertions. Everyone can see exactly what you're doing.
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.
It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.
1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.
2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes
3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo
4. Dr. Humes
5. Dr. Boswell
6. Dr. Finck
7. John Stringer
8. Francis X. O'Neill
9. Roy Kellerman
10. Chester Boyers
11. Tom Robinson
12. Richard Lipsey
13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.
14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.
15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.
16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.
17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.
18. The open-cranium photographs.
How about you just get to the philosophy of why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
Because it's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a Gish Gallop.
For example, "Dr. Humes" does not constitute evidence of anything.
Neither does anyone else you listed.
What you're doing is re-interpreting almost everything to point to a conspiracy, then summarizing it as evidence for your interpretation of conspiracy. It's not. It's circular reasoning. It's still just your interpretation of the evidence. Don't confuse your opinion of the evidence with the evidence itself. Or with the expert opinion.
But everyone can see that's exactly what you're doing.
Once more: The experts are qualified to give their opinion and tell us their conclusions by dint of their education, training, and experience.
You are not qualified to give your opinion because you don't have the education, training, and experience. You're a layman. But so am I. That's why I restrict myself to the conclusions reached by the experts.
You draw your own opinion and reject the expert opinion, which is why your posts are all meaningless. They are just your layman's opinion, backed by nothing except your layman's opinion.
They will always be that.
They will always be meaningless.
No matter how many fringe resets you do, no matter how many times your repeat your arguments for us. They will always be meaningless.
NO-ONE HERE IS CONTESTING THE EXISTENCE AND POSITION OF THE EOP ENTRY WOUND
This wound is exactly where the autopsy photo on the back of JFK's head shows it to be.
This wound is exactly where we would expect it do be given where Oswald was shooting from, the position of JFK's head in Zapruder 312 and where we saw the blow out of his head in Zapruder 313.
Your problem is that you reinterpret the evidence to suit your own preconceived views, and then claim you are right because your views are backed up by your interpretation. This is a type of confirmation bias known as a self-fulfilling delusion. Further to this (and this is a problem that all conspiracy theorists share) is that you have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you cannot even see this is what you are doing. Its easy for us to see because we have all dealt with this before, and it is especially easy for me to see because I used to be down that very same rabbit hole!!
Was driving with a hangover. Not in the best position to see anything, confused shots with echoes of shots. No time to observe. Not a good witness. (Fun Fact: The Secret Service driver of the chase car swore all three of Oswald's bullets hit the limo, but was never questioned by the WC. Not sure it matters).
A Navy Corpsman who typed a receipt for Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963, and signed by the two agents, refers to a "receipt of a missle [sic]" (HSCA Record 180-10120-10362; JFK Document 014834). But the HSCA concluded that "the receipt was in error.
Not in the autopsy report. BTW, if you bother to read that section it confirms the approximate entry point (brain being inside the skull and so on).
16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.
NO-ONE HERE IS CONTESTING THE EXISTENCE AND POSITION OF THE EOP ENTRY WOUND
This wound is exactly where the autopsy photo on the back of JFK's head shows it to be.
This wound is exactly where we would expect it do be given where Oswald was shooting from, the position of JFK's head in Zapruder 312 and where we saw the blow out of his head in Zapruder 313.
Your problem is that you reinterpret the evidence to suit your own preconceived views, and then claim you are right because your views are backed up by your interpretation. This is a type of confirmation bias known as a self-fulfilling delusion. Further to this (and this is a problem that all conspiracy theorists share) is that you have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you cannot even see this is what you are doing. Its easy for us to see because we have all dealt with this before, and it is especially easy for me to see because I used to be down that very same rabbit hole!!
smartcooky, if you don't realize it, there's a difference between "next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". You seem to be open to the possibility that a single 6.5 round entered next to the EOP and exited the side of Kennedy's head.
A. Again, you seem to be mistaken about the official exit wound. Your straight line entering slightly above Kenendy's EOP would exit Kenendy's face or the right temple.
B. If you want to say it exited the right temple, I would like to hear your opinion about what mortician Tom Robinson said about working with an apparent hole in the right temple that he was under the impression represented an exit from a "fragment of bullet or bone".
C. And I need you to explain your opinion on the open-cranium photographs, that anatomical locations they show, what the beveled exit in the bone represents.
D. Wouldn't a lower trajectory exiting in the temporal area go into Connally's direction?
E. How do you account for the windshield fragment, dashboard damage, and James Tague fragment?
F. Why was Kennedy's entry wound recorded as an oval 15x6mm?
G. The official location for the exit wound is in the right frontal-parietal region. This would require a steep upwards trajectory from this round. What evidence do you have that a high-powered round would deflect to far upwards without...
H. Severely damaging the cerebellum?
I. leaving a trail of bullet fragments in the lower back of the head?
J. Why are there larger bullet fragments in the top of the head than there are in the front of the head on the lateral X-rays?
K. What do you think about the possible bullet fragment in the upper neck on the complete X-rays as reported by Wecht?
The great thing about that gif is that it is obvious that the skull cap had been sawed off, and the brain removed. The 3-D effect also CONFIRMS that they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is, and that those cut-away pieces have not been restored at the time these photos are taken. The circular outline of the remaining skull with the entry wound is clearly visible. More importantly, without the removed skull sections the scalp will rise higher due to the lack of bone.
So...yeah...great evidence for Oswald getting lucky...
The great thing about that gif is that it is obvious that the skull cap had been sawed off, and the brain removed. The 3-D effect also CONFIRMS that they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is, and that those cut-away pieces have not been restored at the time these photos are taken. The circular outline of the remaining skull with the entry wound is clearly visible. More importantly, without the removed skull sections the scalp will rise higher due to the lack of bone.
So...yeah...great evidence for Oswald getting lucky...
Axxman300, removing a brain requires reflecting the scalp much farther back than you see on the back-of-head photographs. It doesn't take an expert to read some medical web pages on the procedure to remove a brain. So even if the back-of-head photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, they show that the scalp had been peeled back up for the taking of the pictures. The scalp is covering most of the skull bone, or lack thereof, behind it.
Second, I am not sure about your interpretation that you can see the edge of sawed bone. What you think is a deep empty skull cavity appears to me that it may be an illusion of shadows.
And some of the brain was missing from that side (officially), remember.
Third, where do you get "they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is"? The entire area around the large defect was shattered to the point where very little sawing of the skull was needed. I don't know where you get the idea that such a procedure is even an option, let alone physically possible.
So even if the back-of-head photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, they show that the scalp had been peeled back up for the taking of the pictures. The scalp is covering most of the skull bone, or lack thereof, behind it.
Second, I am not sure about your interpretation that you can see the edge of sawed bone. What you think is a deep empty skull cavity appears to me that it may be an illusion of shadows.
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.
It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.
1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.
2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes
3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo
4. Dr. Humes
5. Dr. Boswell
6. Dr. Finck
7. John Stringer
8. Francis X. O'Neill
9. Roy Kellerman
10. Chester Boyers
11. Tom Robinson
12. Richard Lipsey
13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.
14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.
15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.
16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.
17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.
18. The open-cranium photographs.
How about you just get to the philosophy of why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
Because you have not been able to show any of that is evidence of your claim.
You have failed to meet my repeated requests to cite a precise measurement for the wound placement you try to debunk.
Now I am asking AGAIN for you to show me precisely where the wound really is, on the back of the head photo, and X-rays. If you are capable of interpreting these and telling what the autopsy got “wrong” then can show me the real wound. (Something that should have been step one in your discussion)
smartcooky, if you don't realize it, there's a difference between "next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". You seem to be open to the possibility that a single 6.5 round entered next to the EOP and exited the side of Kennedy's head.
A. Again, you seem to be mistaken about the official exit wound. Your straight line entering slightly above Kenendy's EOP would exit Kenendy's face or the right temple.
B. If you want to say it exited the right temple, I would like to hear your opinion about what mortician Tom Robinson said about working with an apparent hole in the right temple that he was under the impression represented an exit from a "fragment of bullet or bone".
C. And I need you to explain your opinion on the open-cranium photographs, that anatomical locations they show, what the beveled exit in the bone represents.
D. Wouldn't a lower trajectory exiting in the temporal area go into Connally's direction?
E. How do you account for the windshield fragment, dashboard damage, and James Tague fragment?
F. Why was Kennedy's entry wound recorded as an oval 15x6mm?
G. The official location for the exit wound is in the right frontal-parietal region. This would require a steep upwards trajectory from this round. What evidence do you have that a high-powered round would deflect to far upwards without...
H. Severely damaging the cerebellum?
I. leaving a trail of bullet fragments in the lower back of the head?
J. Why are there larger bullet fragments in the top of the head than there are in the front of the head on the lateral X-rays?
K. What do you think about the possible bullet fragment in the upper neck on the complete X-rays as reported by Wecht?
Those would be the four to five inches you have never cited a measurement for.
Is an inch a small margin for error?
If so.. yeah, then four to five inches is “slightly” above the OEP, and the rest of your post is so much hot air.
Axxman300, removing a brain requires reflecting the scalp much farther back than you see on the back-of-head photographs. It doesn't take an expert to read some medical web pages on the procedure to remove a brain. So even if the back-of-head photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, they show that the scalp had been peeled back up for the taking of the pictures. The scalp is covering most of the skull bone, or lack thereof, behind it.
Second, I am not sure about your interpretation that you can see the edge of sawed bone. What you think is a deep empty skull cavity appears to me that it may be an illusion of shadows.
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/daZkusQ.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/lyjQB2H.jpg[/qimg]
And some of the brain was missing from that side (officially), remember.
Third, where do you get "they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is"? The entire area around the large defect was shattered to the point where very little sawing of the skull was needed. I don't know where you get the idea that such a procedure is even an option, let alone physically possible.
Well, while we are talking about what is or is not physically possible....
HOW, given the fragmentation of some parts of the skull, would a textbook skull cap removal be viable?
Given your personal interpretation of what was bone and what was brain, or not, in the Z film?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
