JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tom Robinson corroborated Lipsey in a 1/12/77 HSCA interview.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md63.pdf

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/med_testimony/audio/HSCA_Robinson.htm

A track between the base of the head and the throat wound

ESpinFD.jpg


The probing

GAuFKQ6.jpg


vELEnkw.jpg


And even something corroborating Paul O'Connor's recollections about a bullet fragment being found in the right intercostal muscle

zd2lpxo.jpg
 
And your point is?

Ten years after the fact a man remembered a bullet hole being closer to the base of the head than it was?

Well... it is a good job we have photographs, xrays, and that autopsy you have not read to clarify where he is in error.
 
Asked and answered above.

The conclusions of the autopsy changed when Humes spoke to Perry after the autopsy concluded and discovered there was originally a bullet wound in the neck.

So Robinson's recollection about the autopsy matching Lipsey's is already explained, if you understand my original point. Which you apparently didn't, because you're raising Robinson's recollection as if it's meaningful, and somehow overturns the conclusion the autopsy doctors reached. Moreover, Robinson wasn't at the autopsy, he cannot speak meaningfully of the autopsy doctors conclusions, he arrived at the end of the autopsy, and he was responsible for preparing the body for burial. He's a funeral director.

Moreover, Robinson admits he may have read about issues with the throat wound (obviously, in the conspiracy literature), not that he necessarily got that information from the autopsy doctors:

Something about the bullet exiting from there. I don't know whether I heard the physicians talking about it or whether I read it now.

So how valuable - exactly - is this recollection you cite?

Then you quote Robinson's self-professed hazy recollection of the autopsy surgeons using a probe in the HEAD (which he then includes himself somehow in the probing):

It was about an 18-inch piece of metal that we used.

Imagine that: A funeral director helping the autopsy doctors out with the probing of the President's body! This after you referenced a probe used on the back wound and the throat wound. How many more places are you going to suggest they used that probe? You appear to think that Robinson's recollection of a probe on the head somehow confirms the recollections of probes used elsewhere. It doesn't. It points out there's no uniformity on that issue whatsoever. And, could Robinson's recollection again be affected by what he read in the conspiracy literature?

And, as there's no mention of the thorax at all in Humes Warren Commission testimony (1964), and only this brief mention as an aside in his HSCA testimony (1978):

Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax.
Mr. CoRNWELL. Would it be accurate to state that the photographs and the X-rays were taken not only to document the condition of the body at the time you examined it, but also to provide a record of that event?
Dr. HUMES. I think that's obvious, yes, sir.

What should we conclude about Robinson's hazy recollection from 1977 to the HSCA?

Somehow I feel like there was something found in the thorax.

Not exactly sure of his recollections, is he?

Moreover, you appear to be ignoring the parts of Robinson's recollection that are inconvenient to your argument. For instance, he remembers the large exit wound in the head in the back of the skull, directly between the ears. Is that where you think the exit wound was? Where do you think the entry wound was?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image01.htm

Does his recollection from 14 years after the fact overturn the Zapruder film, the Dealey Plaza witnesses like Zapruder and Newman, the autopsy, the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays and the testimony of Dr. Humes?

Or was he just wrong about some things?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
The evidence points to Oswald for a simple reason - not because Oswald is the victim of a massive plot to frame him for killing Kennedy - but because he really did kill Kennedy with his rifle from the sixth floor of the Depository. That's why the evidence points to Oswald. To believe otherwise, you'd have to believe that framing Oswald was the goal of the conspiracy from the beginning, and killing JFK just a by-product of that goal.

Why'd "they" bother planting a WWII surplus weapon in the Depository and faking paperwork to make it look like Oswald bought it? Why'd "they" go to the trouble of altering wounds to make it look like Oswald did the shooting? Why'd "they" alter the autopsy photos and x-rays? Why'd "they" kill a policeman at 10th and Patton to make Oswald look more guilty? Why'd "they" swap the nearly whole bullet recovered in Parkland for another fired from Oswald's rifle? Why'd "they" plant Oswald's fingerprints on the triggerguard and a palmprint on the barrel? Why'd "they" kill witnesses years after the fact? Why'd "they" give Oswald a history as a political serial killer, shooting at General Walker in April of that year?

Think about it - all of that was supposedly done after killing Kennedy was already accomplished. "They" had gotten the deed done. Yet they kept at it for years, merely to frame a loser with a menial job filling book orders in a warehouse. And to hear some people talk, we're - oops - "they" are still at it, sending shills to argue misinformation on web forums more than five decades after the fact.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

I keep saying that if he wants to find a conspiracy he's not going to find it in Dealey Plaza, and he's not going to find it in medical evidence he clearly doesn't understand. Worse, this is all ancient Tomfoolery that has been dead and buried and dug up and re-buried hundreds of times in the past 50 years.

It's just a parlor game.
 
Axxman300 said:
:thumbsup:

I keep saying that if he wants to find a conspiracy he's not going to find it in Dealey Plaza, and he's not going to find it in medical evidence he clearly doesn't understand. Worse, this is all ancient Tomfoolery that has been dead and buried and dug up and re-buried hundreds of times in the past 50 years.

It's just a parlor game.
Click to expand...

It's the antecedent to the current mass cluster homicide incident CT's - it isn't this-or-that mental defective with a firearm that they are connected with and committed suicide with at the scene, it's THEM!
 
HSienzant said:
Asked and answered above.

The conclusions of the autopsy changed when Humes spoke to Perry after the autopsy concluded and discovered there was originally a bullet wound in the neck.
Click to expand...

Well that's what we're arguing, aren't we? I am very dissatisfied with the explanation that Humes et. al only realized the throat wound was an actual bullet hole after the autopsy. That could be a lie or a half-truth so they can say "Yes, Arlen Specter, the throat wound can be whatever you want it to be".

So Robinson's recollection about the autopsy matching Lipsey's is already explained, if you understand my original point. Which you apparently didn't, because you're raising Robinson's recollection as if it's meaningful, and somehow overturns the conclusion the autopsy doctors reached. Moreover, Robinson wasn't at the autopsy, he cannot speak meaningfully of the autopsy doctors conclusions, he arrived at the end of the autopsy, and he was responsible for preparing the body for burial. He's a funeral director.
Click to expand...

Nope, I really don't understand your original point. The concept of the throat wound as an exit wound, let alone an exit wound for a bullet that entered the base of the head, doesn't seem like an invention after the autopsy. While Robinson does admit that he might have "hazy recollections", it's a little pointless bringing that up if what he says matches Lipsey perfectly. They were there, and he remembers the doctors debating about what the throat wound could represent. He remembers that the doctors concluded the throat wound was an exit for a bullet that entered the base of the head, exactly what the early news leaks and Lee Rankin said. I am also not very sure that he arrived at the end of the autopsy, but that is not an issue I wish to spend my time arguing because I am not sure myself.

Moreover, Robinson admits he may have read about issues with the throat wound (obviously, in the conspiracy literature), not that he necessarily got that information from the autopsy doctors:

Something about the bullet exiting from there. I don't know whether I heard the physicians talking about it or whether I read it now.

So how valuable - exactly - is this recollection you cite?
Click to expand...

It certainly doesn't seem like Robinson has read conspiracy literature, most likely ordinary newspaper reports if anything. He doesn't remember the autopsy professionals thinking the throat wound as an entrance, he remembers them thinking the throat wound was an exit just like Lipsey did. If Robinson was literally the only person saying the things that he said, it wouldn't be very valuable. Unfortunately, you must deal with him as yet another confirmation of how Lipsey remembers the autopsy. That is fair.

Then you quote Robinson's self-professed hazy recollection of the autopsy surgeons using a probe in the HEAD (which he then includes himself somehow in the probing):

It was about an 18-inch piece of metal that we used.

Imagine that: A funeral director helping the autopsy doctors out with the probing of the President's body! This after you referenced a probe used on the back wound and the throat wound. How many more places are you going to suggest they used that probe? You appear to think that Robinson's recollection of a probe on the head somehow confirms the recollections of probes used elsewhere. It doesn't. It points out there's no uniformity on that issue whatsoever. And, could Robinson's recollection again be affected by what he read in the conspiracy literature?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you, it definitely seems like probing, with a special rod intended for the purpose, was done at the autopsy. Not just with fingers. He remembers them probing the base of the head just like Lipsey did, and Lipsey remembered the probe coming out of the throat wound.

And, as there's no mention of the thorax at all in Humes Warren Commission testimony (1964), and only this brief mention as an aside in his HSCA testimony (1978):

Dr. HUMES. Well, the first thing we did was make many photographs which we knew would obviously be required for a wide variety of purposes, took basically whole body X-rays and then proceeded with the examination of the two wounds that we very shortly detected were present, starting with the wound in the head and proceeding to the wound in the back of the neck, upper thorax.
Mr. CoRNWELL. Would it be accurate to state that the photographs and the X-rays were taken not only to document the condition of the body at the time you examined it, but also to provide a record of that event?
Dr. HUMES. I think that's obvious, yes, sir.

What should we conclude about Robinson's hazy recollection from 1977 to the HSCA?

Somehow I feel like there was something found in the thorax.

Not exactly sure of his recollections, is he?
Click to expand...

Since we have two separate witnesses, O'Connor and Robinson, remembering a bullet fragment being found in that area of the body, any person with problem solving skills should be slightly suspicious that there is a cover-up afoot involving Humes and perhaps others. We must consider the possibility not only that a fragment exited the throat, but that another fragment took a similar path and got lodged in that part of the body.

Moreover, you appear to be ignoring the parts of Robinson's recollection that are inconvenient to your argument. For instance, he remembers the large exit wound in the head in the back of the skull, directly between the ears. Is that where you think the exit wound was? Where do you think the entry wound was?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md63/html/Image01.htm

Does his recollection from 14 years after the fact overturn the Zapruder film, the Dealey Plaza witnesses like Zapruder and Newman, the autopsy, the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays and the testimony of Dr. Humes?

Or was he just wrong about some things?

Hank
Click to expand...

Well, Consider that Robinson admitted that he mostly viewed the autopsy from the left side of Kennedy's body. I am really not here to argue that there was no big hole on the right-rear of the head. I can not ignore the Dealey Plaza witnesses who described seeing the right side of Kennedy's head explode, but I do get a creepy feeling when I see the Zapruder Film with those pitch-black shadows coincidentally obscuring the back of the head. Any real skeptic should. If there was a hole in the back of the head, I tend to think it has to co-exist with the right side of the head also having the appearance being damaged in the shooting.
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
It's the antecedent to the current mass cluster homicide incident CT's - it isn't this-or-that mental defective with a firearm that they are connected with and committed suicide with at the scene, it's THEM!
Click to expand...

I've been hanging out over at WebSleuths.com and the first thing you learn there is that the fastest way to get caught is the stage a crime scene. The perps get caught up in thinking how the crime scene "should" look that they incriminate themselves.

Instead of coming up with a theory that Oswald was talked into shooting JFK by the dark force of his choice, MJ is driving in circles with non-existent evidence.:thumbsup:
 
Alexandra Zapruder (Abraham's grand daughter) has a book out this week:

Twenty-Six Seconds: A Personal History of the Zapruder Film

Might be worth a look for history buffs, not so much if you're a CT buff.

:thumbsup:
 
Also HSienzant, do you find it likely that at any point in time during the autopsy, a metal probe was shoved from Kennedy's back wound to his throat wound?
 
When are we going to get a complete theory of who did the shooting, who manipulated the evidence, and why?
 
I find the whole topic of who killed the Kennedys stupid. I have it from a reliable source that it was you and me.
 
Tomtomkent said:
When are we going to get a complete theory of who did the shooting, who manipulated the evidence, and why?
Click to expand...

In my home, it was Sam Giancana as instigator, LHO as fallguy (my Old Man - "that ******* won't last a week...) and some Chicago shooter doing the actual deed.

Motive - JFK was allowing RFK to go after The Outfit and RFK wasn't going to be bought off or scared off. Kill RFK and Uncle would never stop going after them, hit JFK and RFK goes away.

Carlos Marcello did not figure into the plan because modern nonsense notwithstanding, Carlos settled problems with money, not lead. The famous quote on CM was that "he knew how eveyrbody liked their coffee."

Training and experience in adult life lead me to discard the above.
 
BStrong said:
In my home, it was Sam Giancana as instigator, LHO as fallguy (my Old Man - "that ******* won't last a week...) and some Chicago shooter doing the actual deed.

Motive - JFK was allowing RFK to go after The Outfit and RFK wasn't going to be bought off or scared off. Kill RFK and Uncle would never stop going after them, hit JFK and RFK goes away.

Carlos Marcello did not figure into the plan because modern nonsense notwithstanding, Carlos settled problems with money, not lead. The famous quote on CM was that "he knew how eveyrbody liked their coffee."

Training and experience in adult life lead me to discard the above.
Click to expand...

Funny (but nor really surprising) how what passes for a complete theory in CT-land as to who did it rarely gets much beyond "why" and almost never concretely into "how." They have no details for their devils...
 
Wolrab said:
I find the whole topic of who killed the Kennedys stupid. I have it from a reliable source that it was you and me.
Click to expand...

And I told you to make sure Oswald didn't leave the building, which he did, and so I didn't have time to break the rifle down, hide it in the elevator shaft, and get to Parkland to fake enough X-rays.

That's the last conspiracy I work with you.:thumbsup:
 
62VoHev.png


I think Doug Horne's summary is the closest to the truth regarding the history of the autopsy "conclusions", although he is working from the theory that the throat wound was an entrance. The autopsy doctors did investigate the throat wound as a bullet wound. While they did seem to toy around with the idea of a trajectory from the back wound to the throat wound, by shoving a probe between the two, they discarded that idea. We know at least three reasons why they initially rejected that: 1. Because they probed the back wound with a tool meant for the purpose and determined that it was most likely shallow, 2. the back wound was at a downward angle, and 3. a track between the back wound and throat wound would be an anatomical upwards trajectory. We know that the doctors were at least told that the suspected shooter was firing from above and behind. They considered the possibility that the bullet that hit the back deflected and lodged in a completely random part of the body more than the possibility of that bullet exiting the throat. If they were ordered not to dissect the throat wound, we know they they dissected the torso area and retrieved organs, so how sure can we be that somebody there wasn't peeking inside the body for more evidence of what the throat wound could represent?

So Humes, Boswell and Finck downplayed how thoroughly they investigated the throat wound in testimonies so they didn't have to list the reasons why they thought that theory wouldn't work. Also known as lying and withholding information. That's the minimum amount of cover-up that we know Humes et. al were engaged in.
 
Last edited:
And you've never considered that Doug Horne is a delusional cherry-picker with an agenda that gets his name linked to JFK? (like Oswald).

How about you demonstrate some original thinking and reasoning skills and get back to us.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
I think Doug Horne's summary is the closest to the truth regarding the history of the autopsy "conclusions"...
Click to expand...

Nah. Not even close.

Of your four points above (quoting Doug Horne), concerning the supposed FOUR changing autopsy conclusions, two are false.

1. 2 Hits from Behind before 11am on 11/22 as reported by Sibert & O'Neill. This is legit, and stems from the original autopsy conclusions prior to the revision from Humes talking to Perry and finding out about the throat wound. I previously pointed out there's an excellent exposition of the facts of the two different sets of autopsy conclusions (not four) in Lifton's book, BEST EVIDENCE.


2. 3 Hits from Behind by 11:45pm on 11/22/63. This is false, as it doesn't rely on any first day evidence whatsoever, but relies on recollections made in 1978 by Lipsey and in 1998 by Robinson. There is absolutely no evidence for a three hits from behind conclusion by 11:45 pm on 11/22/63.


3. 2 Hits from Behind (throat wound caused by a fragment of head shot) on 11/24. This is another falsehood by Horne, as it was a speculation of the Dallas doctors (specifically Dr. Perry) on 11/22/63, and the illustration accompanying this reference was even cited by you from a Boston Globe article of 11/23/63. It was Doctor Perry who made that speculation; it doesn't stem from the autopsy whatsoever, and it doesn't stem from 11/24/63 as Horne claims. The story accompanying the picture you cited even says "more complete details are not expected until the autopsy is performed..."; clearly, the story was written on 11/22/63 and published the next day.

The story also says: "The rather meager medical details attributed to Dr. Malcolm Perry, the attending surgeon, described the bullet as entering just below the Adam's Apple and leaving by the back of the head. Since that statement Friday afternoon, it is believed from determining the site of the firing that the bullet entered the back of the head first and came out just under the Adam's Apple." Clearly, this is a speculation of someone at the newspaper based on the speculation of Dr. Perry. But the key point is this is just monkey business by Doug Horne in attributing this to the autopsy.

The speculation about a connection between the head and anterior neck wounds came originally from Dr. Perry, and it's important to note those are the only two wounds the Parkland doctors were aware of on 11/22/63 - the large wound in the head, and the small wound in the throat. So Perry speculated one bullet could do all the damage, by entering the throat, hitting the spine, and deflecting up and out the large head wound. He was wrong about that.

Someone at the newspaper (unattributed, but most likely the author, Ian Menzies), understanding the shots came from above and behind, speculated Perry got the direction of the bullet travel backwards, and suggested the bullet entered the head and exited the throat. He's wrong too.

Here's the link to the complete story as published:
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Globe11-23-63.jpg

Here's your post with the image from that article:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11585798&postcount=2156
Your post even references a speculation by another Parkland doctor (McClelland) in his 11/22/63 memorandum for the record that the throat wound was caused by a fragment. Given that, I fail to understand why you can't see through Horne's argument about this speculation stemming from the Bethesda autopsists' conclusions on 11/24/63, when it's clear it stemmed from the Parkland doctors' speculations on 11/22/63.


4. 2 Hits from Behind, throat wound caused by transit of bullet from back wound. This is the revised conclusion the autopsist reached after Humes spoke with Perry and learned of the throat bullet wound. This is the only revision the autopsists made, and it is admitted in the autopsy testimony of Dr. Humes.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Also HSienzant, do you find it likely that at any point in time during the autopsy, a metal probe was shoved from Kennedy's back wound to his throat wound?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I recently learned, that the autopsy doctors were not allowed to examine the bullet channel.
 
HSienzant, the concept of the throat wound as an exit for a head shot is not just based on a reversal of the initial speculation that a bullet entered the throat and exited the back of the head. The diagram in the Boston Globe article CLEARLY depicts a bullet entering in the exact area of the head noted in the autopsy. Nobody at Parkland remembered that small head wound. Therefore, this is most likely information leaked to the media directly from the autopsy. You'd have to believe in a pretty big coincidence otherwise.

Lipsey clearly remembered this scenario being discussed at the autopsy, and remembered a metal probe being pushed through low in the back of the head and it coming out of the throat.

Robinson, corroborating Lipsey, also suggested (in 1977) that this scenario was discussed at the autopsy. He also remembered a probe being stuck in the base of the head. In 1998, he doubled down on his recollection and added that he remembered seeing the probe that entered the base of the head come out of the throat.

Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission casually mentioned that the autopsy findings were that a fragment exited the throat.

The 1/4/1964 JAMA article specifically stated that the autopsy pathologists concluded the throat wound was a fragment from a head shot. The Journal of the American Medical Association has more integrity than to just confuse outsider speculation with autopsy findings.

We can only speculate on how and why McClelland said the throat wound was a fragment wound that early in the day, but you're assuming he had no contact with any of the autopsy professionals at the time. We have the autopsy doctors sticking a probe in the base of the head and exiting the throat, and discussing this scenario, so there's not much point in playing "what came first, the chicken or the egg".

This isn't speculation from those who never examined the body. We have historical basis for this possibility. We at least know that the conclusions of the autopsy were malleable.
 
Last edited:
All it suggests is that journalists using partial information reached the wrong conclussion. It is nothing new, it is nothing shocking, it does not suggest the autopsy reports were fudged, faked, or covering up.

The autopsy records, the photographs, and the XRays prove the entry wound was higher than you are claiming. There was no wound where you insist, you are 100mm too low. You have no objective evidence to suggest the wound moved, or that there was ever a wound where you claim.
 
MicahJava said:
HSienzant, the concept of the throat wound as an exit for a head shot is not just based on a reversal of the initial speculation that a bullet entered the throat and exited the back of the head. The diagram in the Boston Globe article CLEARLY depicts a bullet entering in the exact area of the head noted in the autopsy. Nobody at Parkland remembered that small head wound. Therefore, this is most likely information leaked to the media directly from the autopsy. You'd have to believe in a pretty big coincidence otherwise.
Click to expand...

What part of "more complete details are not expected until the autopsy is performed..." (from the very story I cited and you now reference) did you not understand? You're cherry-picking and speculating and ignoring contrary evidence from the same source you're building your argument upon.


MicahJava said:
Lipsey clearly remembered this scenario being discussed at the autopsy, and remembered a metal probe being pushed through low in the back of the head and it coming out of the throat.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. It's fifteen years after the fact. Recollections are not reliable. He 'clearly' remembered it?


MicahJava said:
Robinson, corroborating Lipsey, also suggested (in 1977) that this scenario was discussed at the autopsy. He also remembered a probe being stuck in the base of the head. In 1998, he doubled down on his recollection and added that he remembered seeing the probe that entered the base of the head come out of the throat.
Click to expand...

And you think that recollection overturns the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays, the autopsy report, and the conclusions of every qualified pathologist to review the extant materials exactly why?


MicahJava said:
Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission casually mentioned that the autopsy findings were that a fragment exited the throat.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered. This is the FBI Friday night conclusion as quoted by Lifton.


MicahJava said:
The 1/4/1964 JAMA article specifically stated that the autopsy pathologists concluded the throat wound was a fragment from a head shot. The Journal of the American Medical Association has more integrity than to just confuse outsider speculation with autopsy findings.
Click to expand...

Can you cite for what they name as their source?


MicahJava said:
We can only speculate on how and why McClelland said the throat wound was a fragment wound that early in the day, but you're assuming he had no contact with any of the autopsy professionals at the time.
Click to expand...

You're assuming he did. And we know he didn't. His speculation is his speculation only. As noted earlier.

McClelland's memo is from Friday, 11/22/63, at 4:45 Central time. That's 5:45 Eastern time. That's the time McClelland put on his memo.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0275b.htm

The plane landed back in Washington at 5:58-5:59 pm Eastern time.
Kellerman: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0053b.htm
Clint Hill: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0076a.htm

So we know it wouldn't have mattered if McClelland had talked to any of the autopsy pathologists before his memorandum for the record, because the autopsy pathologists didn't even have the body in their possession yet. Heck, the body was still on the plane, still in the air. Try another speculation that ignores the facts.


MicahJava said:
We have the autopsy doctors sticking a probe in the base of the head and exiting the throat, and discussing this scenario, so there's not much point in playing "what came first, the chicken ]or the egg".
Click to expand...

Only this stems completely from the recollections of two men 15 and 33 years after the fact, by your own admission.


MicahJava said:
This isn't speculation from those who never examined the body.
Click to expand...

Neither Lipsey nor Robinson are pathologists. You can't even put Robinson in the autopsy room at any time during the autopsy.

Kellerman testified (2H100) that the morticians were allowed in only near the end of the autopsy. Clint Hill (2H143) said the same, "...the autopsy had been completed, and the Lawler [sic - Gawler] Mortuary Co. was preparing the body for placement in a casket."

Joe Hagan (Tom Robinson's boss) said that the Gawler embalming team didn't even go to Bethesda until 11:00pm. The autopsy concluded about midnight.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=713#relPageId=3&tab=page

This of course contradicts Robinson's statement that they hadn't opened the chest yet and he arrived relatively early in the autopsy. You should be aware that people almost always inflate their own importance in the stories they tell. Why should we presume Lipsey and Robinson are different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#Personnel_present_during_autopsy


MicahJava said:
We have historical basis for this possibility. We at least know that the conclusions of the autopsy were malleable.
Click to expand...

The conclusion changed from no transit to transit when Dr. Humes learned from Dr. Perry that there was a bullet wound in the throat. Period. Full stop. Anything beyond that is your speculation built upon 'recollections' from 15 years after the fact and 33 years after the fact.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Just peeking my head in to say something quick until later.

Today I went to Dallas and saw the Sixth floor museum, the grassy knoll, etc.

I am appealed at the museum's display of the discredited Warren Commission diagrams depicting a trajectory with a bullet entering the neck and going anatomically downwards to exit the throat, as well as some plaques referring to the back wound as a "neck wound". They could've at least shown the HSCA sketch reproduction of the autopsy back wound photo. I can't help but wonder if they kept it that way to keep newcomers from wondering if such a trajectory was possible (anatomically upwards through the body) at the sharp angle of the sixth floor without Kennedy being hunched over in a way not seen on any pictures.
 
HSienzant said:
What part of "more complete details are not expected until the autopsy is performed..." (from the very story I cited and you now reference) did you not understand? You're cherry-picking and speculating and ignoring contrary evidence from the same source you're building your argument upon.
Click to expand...

Where does that quote come from? I think the Boston Globe article with the diagram was published on the afternoon of 11/23/1963. The autopsy was obviously over by then, and you're saying it's pure coincidence that the diagram depicts a trajectory with the same exact head entry location detailed in the autopsy materials and recalled by the autopsy witnesses?

Doesn't matter. It's fifteen years after the fact. Recollections are not reliable. He 'clearly' remembered it?
Click to expand...

Sure, HSienzant. Two close autopsy witnesses were hallucinating about the same exact thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIM7Tj2s4Hg

Here's Lipsey's full interview audio. Anybody can hear it and judge for themselves.

And you think that recollection overturns the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays, the autopsy report, and the conclusions of every qualified pathologist to review the extant materials exactly why?
Click to expand...

lol

Asked and answered. This is the FBI Friday night conclusion as quoted by Lifton.
Click to expand...

What? Was the FBI ripping off McClelland too?

Can you cite for what they name as their source?
Click to expand...

The autopsy pathologists.

You're assuming he did. And we know he didn't. His speculation is his speculation only. As noted earlier.

McClelland's memo is from Friday, 11/22/63, at 4:45 Central time. That's 5:45 Eastern time. That's the time McClelland put on his memo.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0275b.htm

The plane landed back in Washington at 5:58-5:59 pm Eastern time.
Kellerman: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0053b.htm
Clint Hill: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0076a.htm

So we know it wouldn't have mattered if McClelland had talked to any of the autopsy pathologists before his memorandum for the record, because the autopsy pathologists didn't even have the body in their possession yet. Heck, the body was still on the plane, still in the air. Try another speculation that ignores the facts.
Click to expand...

If this interpretation is correct, then of course let's remember that it would be totally natural to speculate that the throat wound was a shrapnel wound by 5 PM. Dr. McClelland didn't see the back wound, and by then the world was being told that the sniper was in the Depository from above and behind. McClelland may have been trying to reconcile the tiny throat wound he saw with a shot from above and behind. He was probably under the impression that Kennedy was only shot once, in the head, somehow causing a large posterior hole like he remembered.

Here's what McClelland says about what he can remember about his impressions of the throat wound from a 2008 interview (In The Eye Of History):

7ApcI8K.jpg


Let's also remember that Lipsey remembered that the doctors may have considered the possibility that a whole bullet, not just a piece of shrapnel, exited the throat (a three-shot scenario). I maintain, this information to too specific to have no basis in reality. Humes, Boswell and Finck certainly didn't talk about this, but it probably happened.

Neither Lipsey nor Robinson are pathologists. You can't even put Robinson in the autopsy room at any time during the autopsy.

Kellerman testified (2H100) that the morticians were allowed in only near the end of the autopsy. Clint Hill (2H143) said the same, "...the autopsy had been completed, and the Lawler [sic - Gawler] Mortuary Co. was preparing the body for placement in a casket."

Joe Hagan (Tom Robinson's boss) said that the Gawler embalming team didn't even go to Bethesda until 11:00pm. The autopsy concluded about midnight.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=713#relPageId=3&tab=page

This of course contradicts Robinson's statement that they hadn't opened the chest yet and he arrived relatively early in the autopsy. You should be aware that people almost always inflate their own importance in the stories they tell. Why should we presume Lipsey and Robinson are different?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#Personnel_present_during_autopsy
Click to expand...

Sure, HSienzant. Two close autopsy witnesses were hallucinating about the same exact thing.

The conclusion changed from no transit to transit when Dr. Humes learned from Dr. Perry that there was a bullet wound in the throat. Period. Full stop. Anything beyond that is your speculation built upon 'recollections' from 15 years after the fact and 33 years after the fact.

Hank
Click to expand...

Even Boswell was willing to concede to the HSCA "by the end of the autopsy, we realized we had an exit wound" (in the throat). Finck admitted to the ARRB that a probe rod was involved at some point in the autopsy, but said he couldn't remember details. If Humes won't budge on this issue and admit that the throat wound was probed, that's kind of troubling.


HSienzant, do you consider it likely that a probe rod was shoved from the back wound to the throat wound at some point in the autopsy? Because that's another issue that's pretty troubling if Humes et. al aren't willing to talk about it.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I am appealed at the museum's display of the discredited Warren Commission diagrams depicting a trajectory with a bullet entering the neck and going anatomically downwards to exit the throat, as well as some plaques referring to the back wound as a "neck wound". They could've at least shown the HSCA sketch reproduction of the autopsy back wound photo. I can't help but wonder if they kept it that way to keep newcomers from wondering if such a trajectory was possible (anatomically upwards through the body) at the sharp angle of the sixth floor without Kennedy being hunched over in a way not seen on any pictures.
Click to expand...

That's because the 6th Floor Museum is run by sane people.
 
MicahJava said:
Just peeking my head in to say something quick until later.

Today I went to Dallas and saw the Sixth floor museum, the grassy knoll, etc.

I am appealed at the museum's display of the discredited Warren Commission diagrams depicting a trajectory with a bullet entering the neck and going anatomically downwards to exit the throat, as well as some plaques referring to the back wound as a "neck wound". They could've at least shown the HSCA sketch reproduction of the autopsy back wound photo. I can't help but wonder if they kept it that way to keep newcomers from wondering if such a trajectory was possible (anatomically upwards through the body) at the sharp angle of the sixth floor without Kennedy being hunched over in a way not seen on any pictures.
Click to expand...
Cool story bro'.

With your propensity for making things up and disregarding any facts thrown your way, how am I to believe you actually went to Dallas, let alone the TSBD? Did you get a ticket or take some time stamped photos? If you did, please post here. If you don't, I will continue to believe you are just spinning another yarn.
 
Wolrab said:
Cool story bro'.

With your propensity for making things up and disregarding any facts thrown your way, how am I to believe you actually went to Dallas, let alone the TSBD? Did you get a ticket or take some time stamped photos? If you did, please post here. If you don't, I will continue to believe you are just spinning another yarn.
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe it either. Anybody who's been to the sixth floor museum can back me up, though.
 
MicahJava said:
Just peeking my head in to say something quick until later.

Today I went to Dallas and saw the Sixth floor museum, the grassy knoll, etc.

I am appealed at the museum's display of the discredited Warren Commission diagrams depicting a trajectory with a bullet entering the neck and going anatomically downwards to exit the throat, as well as some plaques referring to the back wound as a "neck wound". They could've at least shown the HSCA sketch reproduction of the autopsy back wound photo. I can't help but wonder if they kept it that way to keep newcomers from wondering if such a trajectory was possible (anatomically upwards through the body) at the sharp angle of the sixth floor without Kennedy being hunched over in a way not seen on any pictures.
Click to expand...

Did you burn your copy of the Warren Commission report there in protest?
 
You know what we could do?

We could stop relying on sketches that are several degrees from the data, and consider the photographs.

Those show us the bullet hole, even if somebody hand waves it away as a splotch. They show the WC was correct, and the xrays back it up.

Why play silly games. There is no evidence for MichaJavas alternate wounds, there is for the real wounds. Unless he is suggesting somebody altered the body (in which case he needs to explain how) before xrays and photos were taken, his inability to understand the evidence, and looking for mismemories decades later, mean nothing. At all.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Why should a museum be expected to give any sort of nod much less credence to the fertile imaginings of the ill informed?
Click to expand...

Good question- are natural history museums expected to give equal time to creationist fancies?

Ken Ham- "I am appalled at the museum's display of the discredited science behind plaques referring to fossils being millions of years old. They could've at least shown AIG's reproduction of Noah's Ark and the pre-Deluge Earth. I can't help but wonder if they kept it that way to keep newcomers from wondering if a world millions of years old is even possible in a way not mentioned in Scripture."
 
Wolrab said:
Cool story bro'.

With your propensity for making things up and disregarding any facts thrown your way, how am I to believe you actually went to Dallas, let alone the TSBD? Did you get a ticket or take some time stamped photos? If you did, please post here. If you don't, I will continue to believe you are just spinning another yarn.
Click to expand...

You can see some of the Sixth Floor Museum displays online at google maps.

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.779...4!1sERhZKPuMAz4AAAQIL8DDVg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.779...4!1sXcmF15ElYxkAAAQIL8C-1g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom