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

[smartcooky]

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?

1. You didn't answer the question (again). Was it four inches or five inches?

2. It wasn't pointlessly long. The "point" was to cover all of the ground because it obvious you don't understand the material or the issue being debated here.

You are saying that the "4 to 5" inches could not possibly be right... I have shown you that;

a. it was never "4 to 5" inches, it was "approximately" 100mm (which allows for less than 100mm while 4-5 inches does not).

b. the measurement on the photo is 80mm (flat), which is near enough for "approximately" given the measurement would be around the skull


3. What I have shown you (and what you wilfully refuse to understand, and keep hand-waving away) is that the entry wound you claim to be shown and described in the wrong place, it is fact shown and described in the correct place. The X-rays, the photographs and the explanations from the various pathologists are all in agreement. JFK was hit in the head by ONE and only ONE bullet; a bullet that came from behind and above, and that the damage to the skull and the brain was consistent with the type of bullet fired by Oswald from the sixth floor of the TSBD.

 

[MicahJava]

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

Simmer down, Hank. This autopsy report's passage has a clear meaning, that the large scalp wound was wide enough to facilitate cranial examination by simply extending it forward. Humes and Boswell always remembered and relayed that they had to do a "modified" scalp reflection this way.

 

[Elagabalus]

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.

http://www.machinedesign.com/medica...etween-sagittal-coronal-and-transverse-planes

Your welcome!

 

[MicahJava]

1. You didn't answer the question (again). Was it four inches or five inches?

2. It wasn't pointlessly long. The "point" was to cover all of the ground because it obvious you don't understand the material or the issue being debated here.

You are saying that the "4 to 5" inches could not possibly be right... I have shown you that;

a. it was never "4 to 5" inches, it was "approximately" 100mm (which allows for less than 100mm while 4-5 inches does not).

b. the measurement on the photo is 80mm (flat), which is near enough for "approximately" given the measurement would be around the skull


3. What I have shown you (and what you wilfully refuse to understand, and keep hand-waving away) is that the entry wound you claim to be shown and described in the wrong place, it is fact shown and described in the correct place. The X-rays, the photographs and the explanations from the various pathologists are all in agreement. JFK was hit in the head by ONE and only ONE bullet; a bullet that came from behind and above, and that the damage to the skull and the brain was consistent with the type of bullet fired by Oswald from the sixth floor of the TSBD.

How about you draw a specific outline around the area of the available x-rays where you think an entry wound exists?

 

[MicahJava]

http://www.machinedesign.com/medica...etween-sagittal-coronal-and-transverse-planes

Your welcome!

The front portion, yes. Kennedy's large scalp wound was extended towards the front in order to peel it back to examine the cranium.

 

[MicahJava]

Reminder: how much frontal bone you think was separated has crucial implications on where you think the open-cranium photographs depict the beveled exit notch.

 

[Elagabalus]

And? Which direction did the bullet come from? Eyes on the prize. Think about your hand. This isn't worth it.

 

[MicahJava]

Reminder: how much frontal bone you think was separated has crucial implications on where you think the open-cranium photographs depict the beveled exit notch. If you want to say a lot of frontal bone was removed, then you must invoke a small hole in the forehead above the right eyebrow the doctors never photographed or described existing.

 

[HSienzant]

Simmer down, Hank. This autopsy report's passage has a clear meaning, that the large scalp wound was wide enough to facilitate cranial examination by simply extending it forward. Humes and Boswell always remembered and relayed that they had to do a "modified" scalp reflection this way.

Still wrong. Look up "coronal plane" before you embarrass yourself further. Or see the link provided by the kind poster Elagabalus.

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

You're supposed to be the expert on all things autopsy and you don't know where the incisions were made as described in the autopsy report?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The front portion, yes. Kennedy's large scalp wound was extended towards the front in order to peel it back to examine the cranium.

That would be in the SAGITTAL plane.

The autopsy report says something different:

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

Admit it, you never looked at the link, did you?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

That would be in the transverse plane.

The autopsy report says something different:

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

Admit it, you never looked at the link, did you?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The front portion, yes. Kennedy's large scalp wound was extended towards the front in order to peel it back to examine the cranium.

That would be in the SAGITTAL plane.

The autopsy report says something different:

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

Admit it, you never looked at the link, did you?

Hank

Corrected my mistake. You're talking about the SAGITTAL plane. The autopsy is talking about the CORONAL plane.

And there you have it. MicahJava can't bother to explain what the autopsy report clearly says. He's dodged the quote at least ten times now.

Here it is once more, MicahJava:

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

Let us know when you've looked up CORONAL PLANE and when you're willing to discuss what the above sentence says.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Corrected my mistake. You're talking about the SAGITTAL plane. The autopsy is talking about the CORONAL plane.

And there you have it. MicahJava can't bother to explain what the autopsy report clearly says. He's dodged the quote at least ten times now.

Here it is once more, MicahJava:

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

Let us know when you've looked up CORONAL PLANE and when you're willing to discuss what the above sentence says.

Hank

No, don't worry, I know how to read, thank you for your concern though. What if you used your 4,000th post to address the questions I've asked in the last 2 pages.

 

[HSienzant]

No, don't worry, I know how to read, thank you for your concern though. What if you used your 4,000th post to address the questions I've asked in the last 2 pages.

Still dodging a simple statement from the autopsy:

Here it is once more, MicahJava:

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

Let us know when you've looked up CORONAL PLANE and when you're willing to discuss what the above sentence says.

How about you use your next post to tell us what coronal plane means, and how that relates to the above quote from the autopsy report?

Or you can dodge it for the FIFTEENTH time (I just checked, this is the fifteenth post with that quote in the last few days).

Hank
___________________
PS: If one includes the prior thread this one was split off from, MicahJava has dodged the point over TWENTY TIMES: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12069504&postcount=2730

 

[RoboTimbo]

Simmer down, Hank. This autopsy report's passage has a clear meaning, that the large scalp wound was wide enough to facilitate cranial examination by simply extending it forward. Humes and Boswell always remembered and relayed that they had to do a "modified" scalp reflection this way.

Where did the shot come from then?

 

[Axxman300]

BTW all my questions to axxman apply to you too.

Humes processed the head using standard autopsy procedure. He said they were careful when cutting around the wound. Everything has been explained to you multiple times.

You can't hide behind CT mythology of fake x-rays and stolen autopsy photos. The Zapruder Film is clear, one shot to the head from behind.

You can't allege that the autopsy physicians were pressured to lie nor can you demonstrate that they have lied.

You are looking for something that isn't there based on your misreading of the medical evidence, or as you consistently demonstrate - the intentional misreading of the medical evidence.

 

[Axxman300]

Reminder: how much frontal bone you think was separated has crucial implications on where you think the open-cranium photographs depict the beveled exit notch. If you want to say a lot of frontal bone was removed, then you must invoke a small hole in the forehead above the right eyebrow the doctors never photographed or described existing.

Because it didn't exist.

The assassination is on film. There is no shot to the front of the head.

 

[Tomtomkent]

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.

How would extending the wounds in that direction seperate the scalp from the skull?
How would that allow the contents (on the interior) of the cranium to be examine, if the scalp alone was removed (which would reveal the exterior of a cranium)?
Most people would read that as the scalp being reflected with the skull bones still attached, to allow the contents of the cranium to be examined.

Now the question is if you are failing to understand, or if refusing to cede the point is more important to you than being correct.

Admitting you don’t understand and don’t know is a valid answer.

 

[smartcooky]

How about you draw a specific outline around the area of the available x-rays where you think an entry wound exists?

Its not as simple as that.

I am no expert in reading x-rays, and nor are you judging by what you have been posting. Even if I were, I would need the actual x-ray transparencies themselves, mounted on a properly back-lit viewing box, not a photograph of the transparency in a book or a scanned version from a website. This is because an x-ray has a huge range of densities (called the tonal range), in layman's terms this is the range of shades of grey from white to black. X ray transparencies have a dynamic range of about 500:1, i.e., the black areas are more than 500 times darker than the white areas.

When an x-ray is copied and printed, much of the tonal range (the difference between two similar shades of grey) is lost due to the print media's inability to display that range. Even good quality photographs such as glossy plates will struggle to have a dynamic range greater than about 64:1. An image published in a book has an even lower range, and a consequent loss of the ability to distinguish between minutely different shades if grey. This results a compromised ability to distinguish the finer detail that would have been visible on the original X-ray. Many important features are completely undetectable.

Now, since I am not a pathologist or a radiologist (and nor are you, or I'll bet, is anyone else on this forum), I leave it to the acknowledged experts in the field. They are qualified to make such judgements, and have had access to the actual x-ray transparencies themselves, and viewed them using a properly back-lit viewing box.

I have posted a link for lurkers and others with open minds.

I suggest you read this link (although I don't expect you to because your mind is bolted shut and your are allergic to facts, especially those that contradict your fantasy world).

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/

 

[Axxman300]

He'll come back saying that HSCA experts (meaning one or two) say that the x-rays show something nefarious.

When we point out that we've seen maybe six out of the 40+ autopsy photos he'll say the important ones showing a second bullet are gone from the archives. Same with the x-rays.