Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[Tomtomkent]

Bonus: As I've said a thousand times, 4-5 inches above the EOP is too close to the large "exit" defect to not have that area of the parietal bone shattered like the rest of that area of skull. Humes and Boswell always said that the skull was so shattered they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a cavity large enough to remove the brain. The skull photographs corroborate this, jagged spiked edges instead of straight saw cuts. Their statements also always indicated that the skull cavity only involved the top-right and occipital sides.

I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.

Is it four or five inches? When will we get a more precise location?

 

[smartcooky]

Smartcooky, I should not have said it's impossible to remove a brain without separating the occipital bone, you can if you're doing it on an undamaged skull in a typical case. And I bet that it would even be possible to leave a little bit of the right side of the parietal bone, 4-5 inches above the EOP

But...

Where do you think the skull photographs come into play? Whether a frontal or posterior view, they show the left side of the skull intact. So you can not rely on an open left side of the skull to get your fingers under the lobes of the skull to lift it very far. No open space on the left side of the skull also means that autopsists most likely could not have maneuvered under the brain like in your example.

Bonus: As I've said a thousand times, 4-5 inches above the EOP is too close to the large "exit" defect to not have that area of the parietal bone shattered like the rest of that area of skull. Humes and Boswell always said that the skull was so shattered they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a cavity large enough to remove the brain. The skull photographs corroborate this, jagged spiked edges instead of straight saw cuts. Their statements also always indicated that the skull cavity only involved the top-right and occipital sides.

I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.

Look at the example I gave.

The person depicted in that link does not get his fingers under left or right to lift the brain out, he pulls it back from the forehead until it clears the sawn part of the frontal bone, rotates it backwards and upwards (presumably to access the stem for cutting) and then lifts it clear. Having a large part of the skull case missing on the right side would have made it easier to remove the brain, not moire difficult as you are claiming.

4-5 inches
1. Which is it? Four inches, five inches or somewhere in between. You will have to be more precise

2. How do you recocile you view with that of the Ramsay Clark panel, which said

"The majority of these fragments lie anteriorly and superiorly. None can be visualized on the left side of the brain and none below a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull. On one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100^*1 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also, there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film lies 25 mm to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues. Small fragments of bone lie within portions of these tissues and within the hole itself. These changes are consistent with an entrance wound of the skull produced by a bullet similar to that of exhibit CE 399. The metallic fragments visualized within the right cerebral hemisphere fall into two groups. One group consists of relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed. The second group consists of finely divided fragments, distributed in a posteroanterior direction in a region 45 mm long and 8mm wide. As seen on lateral film this formation overlies the position of the coronal suture; its long axis, if extended posteriorly, passes through the above-mentioned hole. It appears to end anteriorly immediately below the badly fragmented frontal and parietal bones just anterior to the region of the coronal suture. The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head. In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that there is no evidence of projectile fragments in the left cerebral tissues or in the right cerebral hemisphere below a horizontal plane passing through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull. Also, although the fractures of the calvarium extend to the left of the midline and into the anterior and middle fossa of the skull, no bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction other than that described above."

*1 "approximately 100 mm" is not 4 to 5 inches (which would be 100 to 125mm).

1. Check the position I have marked as EOP. (compare with the right ear and check your own EOP position on your own head. You will see that I have that correct.

2. Note that I have marked off the EOP and the entry wound with the metric ruler in the photo.... is 8 cm (80mm)

3. Keep in mind that we are looking at something flat in the photo, whereas the measurement is actually around the curvature of the skull, making it slightly longer than 80 mm.

Therefore "a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull/.../can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance." seems to be fairly reasonable to me.

 

[HSienzant]

Humes and Boswell always said that the skull was so shattered they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a cavity large enough to remove the brain.

Now tell us what this quote means:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Any idea?

I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.

There's an obvious joke there, but it's so obvious I don't need to post it here.

 

[Axxman300]

But...

Where do you think the skull photographs come into play? Whether a frontal or posterior view, they show the left side of the skull intact. So you can not rely on an open left side of the skull to get your fingers under the lobes of the skull to lift it very far. No open space on the left side of the skull also means that autopsists most likely could not have maneuvered under the brain like in your example.

First off, the ones you have posted show the skull as been sawed open per standard autopsy procedure.

Second, you ignore that a large portion of JFK's brain was shredded making the removal somewhat easier than an undamaged brain.

Bonus: As I've said a thousand times, 4-5 inches above the EOP is too close to the large "exit" defect to not have that area of the parietal bone shattered like the rest of that area of skull. Humes and Boswell always said that the skull was so shattered they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a cavity large enough to remove the brain. The skull photographs corroborate this, jagged spiked edges instead of straight saw cuts. Their statements also always indicated that the skull cavity only involved the top-right and occipital sides.

So again you have yet to actually read what Humes said, and you are basing your inaccurate assessment on less than four photographs out of the existing 40 in the archives.

What is not clear is why you cannot grasp that they CUT AROUND THE SHATTERED SKULL SECTIONS YOU SEEM MYSTIFIED BY IN THE PICTURES.

All of the damage to the skull and brain was caused by a single 6.5x52mm Carcano round fired by Oswald,

 

[MicahJava]

Now tell us what this quote means:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Any idea?




There's an obvious joke there, but it's so obvious I don't need to post it here.

I dare you to speak like a normal human being.

 

[MicahJava]

Look at the example I gave.

The person depicted in that link does not get his fingers under left or right to lift the brain out, he pulls it back from the forehead until it clears the sawn part of the frontal bone, rotates it backwards and upwards (presumably to access the stem for cutting) and then lifts it clear. Having a large part of the skull case missing on the right side would have made it easier to remove the brain, not moire difficult as you are claiming.

4-5 inches
1. Which is it? Four inches, five inches or somewhere in between. You will have to be more precise

2. How do you recocile you view with that of the Ramsay Clark panel, which said

"The majority of these fragments lie anteriorly and superiorly. None can be visualized on the left side of the brain and none below a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull. On one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100^*1 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed. Also, there is, embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment which on the anteroposterior film lies 25 mm to the right of the midline. This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues. Small fragments of bone lie within portions of these tissues and within the hole itself. These changes are consistent with an entrance wound of the skull produced by a bullet similar to that of exhibit CE 399. The metallic fragments visualized within the right cerebral hemisphere fall into two groups. One group consists of relatively large fragments, more or less randomly distributed. The second group consists of finely divided fragments, distributed in a posteroanterior direction in a region 45 mm long and 8mm wide. As seen on lateral film this formation overlies the position of the coronal suture; its long axis, if extended posteriorly, passes through the above-mentioned hole. It appears to end anteriorly immediately below the badly fragmented frontal and parietal bones just anterior to the region of the coronal suture. The foregoing observations indicate that the decedent's head was struck from behind by a single projectile. It entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The projectile fragmented on entering the skull, one major section leaving a trail of fine metallic debris as it passed forward and laterally to explosively fracture the right frontal and parietal bones as it emerged from the head. In addition to the foregoing, it is noteworthy that there is no evidence of projectile fragments in the left cerebral tissues or in the right cerebral hemisphere below a horizontal plane passing through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull. Also, although the fractures of the calvarium extend to the left of the midline and into the anterior and middle fossa of the skull, no bony defect, such as one created by a projectile either entering or leaving the head, is seen in the calvarium to the left of the midline or in the base of the skull. Hence, it is not reasonable to postulate that a projectile passed through the head in a direction other than that described above."

*1 "approximately 100 mm" is not 4 to 5 inches (which would be 100 to 125mm).

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/522kort2fbpaepm/JFK_posterior_head_wound.jpg?raw=1[/qimg] [qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/16/JFK_skull_trajectory.jpg/330px-JFK_skull_trajectory.jpg[/qimg]

1. Check the position I have marked as EOP. (compare with the right ear and check your own EOP position on your own head. You will see that I have that correct.

2. Note that I have marked off the EOP and the entry wound with the metric ruler in the photo.... is 8 cm (80mm)

3. Keep in mind that we are looking at something flat in the photo, whereas the measurement is actually around the curvature of the skull, making it slightly longer than 80 mm.

Therefore "a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull/.../can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance." seems to be fairly reasonable to me.

Yeah... 100 mm is technically 3.93701 inches. Thanks for the pointlessly long correction of semantics designed to confuse and obfuscate. Do you remember the list I posted of the government's own authorities giving varying measurements of where the "cowlick" entry wound was supposed to have been located on the x-ray?

 

[MicahJava]

First off, the ones you have posted show the skull as been sawed open per standard autopsy procedure.

Second, you ignore that a large portion of JFK's brain was shredded making the removal somewhat easier than an undamaged brain.



So again you have yet to actually read what Humes said, and you are basing your inaccurate assessment on less than four photographs out of the existing 40 in the archives.

What is not clear is why you cannot grasp that they CUT AROUND THE SHATTERED SKULL SECTIONS YOU SEEM MYSTIFIED BY IN THE PICTURES.

All of the damage to the skull and brain was caused by a single 6.5x52mm Carcano round fired by Oswald,

Axxman, if you think the BOH-photographs (showing the posterior scalp and the red spot) shows a bit of the outline of a neat saw cut along the frontal bone, then what is your favored orientation of the skull photographs (the close-ups of the empty skull cavity with reflected scalp)? The skull photographs show the edge of a skull cavity with jagged, broken outline.

 

[HSienzant]

Now tell us what this quote means:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Any idea?

I dare you to speak like a normal human being.

The point respond to you dare not.

At least five times posted, all five posts avoided.

Why, he asked?

INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us, to you, what means this?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Duplicate posting deleted.

 

[HSienzant]

I dare you to speak like a normal human being.

Isn't 't it simply amazing how conspiracy addicts will pretend not to see the post or the point? Or will raise some senseless issue ('speak like a normal human being') instead of addressing the issue?

Why would they think that's indicative to anyone here of anything except an inability to address the issue? Any port in the storm when you're desperate, I guess.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

I cannot use my right hand right now, but eventually I can respond with more.

Repetitive motion injury from excessive hand waving. You keep it up and you'll never be able to pull off a good Ctist "Jazz Hands" move to ward off any factual information you're unable to competently address.

 

[MicahJava]

Repetitive motion injury from excessive hand waving. You keep it up and you'll never be able to pull off a good Ctist "Jazz Hands" move to ward off any factual information you're unable to competently address.

That was a good one, but what are you referring to?

 

[MicahJava]

The point respond to you dare not.

At least five times posted, all five posts avoided.

Why, he asked?

INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us, to you, what means this?

Hank

What do you think it means?

 

[Wolrab]

Repetitive motion injury from excessive hand waving. You keep it up and you'll never be able to pull off a good Ctist "Jazz Hands" move to ward off any factual information you're unable to competently address.

Jaqing off.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What do you think it means?

You know what, I'm going to actually assume you DO know what it means...

So... the wounds were extended, and the front of the skull was lifted away, to allow removal of the brain, from the front.

Explain how, or why, you think any of the later testimony contradicted this.
Explain how, or why, you claimed, repeatedly, that such a procedure would require the brain to be removed through a wound the size of the exit wound.

It is worth noting "I did not understand what the autopsy described" is a valid response.

 

[MicahJava]

You know what, I'm going to actually assume you DO know what it means...

So... the wounds were extended, and the front of the skull was lifted away, to allow removal of the brain, from the front.

Explain how, or why, you think any of the later testimony contradicted this.
Explain how, or why, you claimed, repeatedly, that such a procedure would require the brain to be removed through a wound the size of the exit wound.

It is worth noting "I did not understand what the autopsy described" is a valid response.

It means the pre-existing large scalp wound in the parietal-temporal area was surgically enlarged to extend to the front portion.

Do you want this passage to mean that only the top-front of the skull was exposed and separated through the entire procedure like in SmartCooky's link? "INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content" is literally referring to the separation of the scalp from the skull, not the skull bone.

BTW all my questions to axxman apply to you too.

 

[HSienzant]

What do you think it means?

You're supposedly the expert on all things autopsy and have droned on and on about the time it started, the time it ended, what various witnesses recalled 33 years or 15 years after the fact and how that contrasted with or favorably compared to other witnesses 33 or 15 years after the fact recollections.

You quoted extensively from the testimony of Doctor Humes, Doctor Finck, and Doctor Boswell to try to push your arguments about the head wound.

You cited conjecture from a newspaper quoting a doctor in Boston who wasn't involved in any fashion in the autopsy or the treatment of the President to argue for the bullet entering at the EOP and exiting the throat.

Now, given one sentence from the autopsy and told where to find it in context, and asked what it means to you, suddenly you've decided discretion is the better part of valor and you should just shut up?

Hilarious.

Tell us what this means to you:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

It means the pre-existing large scalp wound in the parietal-temporal area was surgically enlarged to extend to the front portion.

Did you look up "CORONAL PLANE" yet? It's apparent you're ignoring the clear wording of the passage from the autopsy report or you have no clue what "CORONAL PLANE" means.

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, see my comment I already posted above.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, see my comment I already posted above.

See my pointing out above you're ignoring the clear wording of the quote.

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Tell us what the 'coronal plane' means. In your own words. If you know.

And as pointed out by TomTomKent: It is worth noting "I did not understand what the autopsy described" is a valid response.

Hank