JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
To be fair to MicahJava, Cyril Wecht, who was a member of the medical panel of the HSCA strongly believed that there were two headshots. He based this belief on "evidence" (read as personal confirmation bias) other than the medical evidence, however.

His explanation of why there wasn't any medical evidence of a headshot from the front was that the headshot from the rear miraculously obliterated all the evidence of the shot from the front. Even he wasn't crazy enough to buy into any "THEY altered the body!" or "THEY faked all the evidence!" theories so he merely adopted a stance that the evidence just coincidentally happened to support one shot from the rear.

Unfortunately, Ceril Wecht buys into the cowlick entry wound idea AND the idea that a bullet entered the back and exited the throat (although I did see a video of him at a 2013 conference making fun of the idea of that trajectory, saying "He was leaning over? What, was he tying his shoes?")
 
Last edited:
I still would like to know exactly what it is about the quote that you supplied, that re-awakened this thread, that you think helps your argument?

Here it is again:



Nothing there indicates two head shots.

Nothing.

So what is it you think that shows?

Tolls, the nature of the brain damage doesn't make sense with the EOP entry wound exiting the top-right side of the head. It only makes sense if the missile that struck the EOP brushed past the cerebellum and hit the floor of the skull. The large head wound would then be created by a separate missile.
 

cmikes, this isn't an issue of trajectory, it's an issue of the damage to the brain. There is no sign of an entry to the cerebellum or the lower occipital lobe. The right cerebellum was right behind the entry wound described in the autopsy report and everybody who saw the body. Please grasp this.
 
MichaJava, I posted this question a while ago, but you chose not to answer it...

That's not every pathologist who examined the body, that's not every pathologist who examined the X-rays, and all of them don't agree that the head wounds were caused by one bullet from the rear. The original location of the entry wound, behind the ear near the EOP, cannot have exited the top-right side of the head because the nature of the damage to the brain doesn't support that. What kind of verbal diarrhea are you spewing?
 
Would it be a simple mistake to not mention the second wound at all? Is that something an experienced guy like Finck would do.

You seem willing to tar Finck as completely incompetent, but for some reason that incompetence doesn't extend to him possibly misremembering the exact location of the entrance wound years after the fact.


You're the one posting a grossly inaccurate drawing of a head in in attempt to prove your flawed position and you're accusing me of using red herrings. That's rich.

I'm just here to correct your false statements and misinformation.

I don't think you grasp what I'm suggesting at all. The large head wound, the one big hole that everybody at the autopsy saw, could have been created by a missile not leaning any obvious entry or exit. It's called a tangential wound. Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy once skull fragments were already taken out to remove the brain, so any possibility of him recognizing this as an expert was lost (or he never told everything he knew).
 
As I understand it, the National Archives have no say in releasing the photos and x-rays from the autopsy. Those have always been controlled by the Kennedy family. First by Robert Kennedy, then by Teddy. I actually have no idea what the line of succession with the the Kennedy family is, so I don't know who would have the say in whether or not to release them now.

That's always been one of areas where conspiracy believers look foolish. When they're railing that releasing the autopsy materials would "totally expose the evil forces of THEY!", until a few years ago, they were accusing Ted Kennedy of being in on the conspiracy that killed his brother. :rolleyes:

From the National Archives:

The autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy family by an agreement dated October 29, 1966. This agreement limits access to such materials to: (1) persons authorized to act for a Committee of Congress, a Presidential Commission, or any other official agency of the Federal government having authority to investigate matters relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and to (2) recognized experts in the field of pathology or related areas of science and technology whose applications are approved by the Kennedy family representative, Mr. Paul Kirk.

So getting access is possible, but it's a chore, and the materials cannot be reproduced.

Maybe the Kennedys will change their minds on this subject someday.
 
You don't see more than one head shot in the films?

No. Nobody does. There isn't more than one bullet to the head.


Well, since the EOP shot apparently didn't cause any severe brain damage, I would not expect a huge ejecta splatter to show up on the photographic evidence or to be seen by the witnesses, as it was only a small hole within Kennedy's hair.

ALL ENTRY WOUNDS ARE SMALL HOLES.

Every bullet, no matter the caliber, will hit the head like a hammer.


The EOP shot could have been at z190-224 or after the z313 shot. I'm thinking it was z190-224 because Kennedy's behavior after he emerges behind the sign is something you would expect from someone with some damage to their cerebellum.

I have damage to my cerebellum, Cerebral Palsy, so let me clue you into the signs of someone's cerebellum being damaged by a bullet:

Complete loss of motor skills below the neck.

JFK would have gone limp. Instead he reached for his throat. Ergo no damage to the cerebellum.

You are really bad at this.

You choose to believe one "expert" with limited contact with the body over a long list of others who disagree. You want there to be a conspiracy and you want a second shooter in Dealey Plaza, so you ignore the majority of the facts of this case to embrace the unreliable fringes to support your tragically wrong view.

You have told us you're new to this event, and you have obviously come to it with a CT mind set. I spent over 20 years embracing the lies that you are spreading now, and I'm telling you that you're eating a lot of red herrings.

If you insist on a conspiracy in the death of JFK you are not going to find it in Dealey Plaza. You need to look at Oswald - the lone shooter - and who he knew, hung out with, or was affiliated with in Dallas during the time between his return from Russia until he killed the President.

I doubt you will find anything there either, but that's where any conspiracy will be found, and maybe you might be the guy who unlocks Oswald's driving motive to kill JFK.
 
No. Nobody does. There isn't more than one bullet to the head.




ALL ENTRY WOUNDS ARE SMALL HOLES.

Every bullet, no matter the caliber, will hit the head like a hammer.




I have damage to my cerebellum, Cerebral Palsy, so let me clue you into the signs of someone's cerebellum being damaged by a bullet:

Complete loss of motor skills below the neck.

JFK would have gone limp. Instead he reached for his throat. Ergo no damage to the cerebellum.

You are really bad at this.

You choose to believe one "expert" with limited contact with the body over a long list of others who disagree. You want there to be a conspiracy and you want a second shooter in Dealey Plaza, so you ignore the majority of the facts of this case to embrace the unreliable fringes to support your tragically wrong view.

You have told us you're new to this event, and you have obviously come to it with a CT mind set. I spent over 20 years embracing the lies that you are spreading now, and I'm telling you that you're eating a lot of red herrings.

If you insist on a conspiracy in the death of JFK you are not going to find it in Dealey Plaza. You need to look at Oswald - the lone shooter - and who he knew, hung out with, or was affiliated with in Dallas during the time between his return from Russia until he killed the President.

I doubt you will find anything there either, but that's where any conspiracy will be found, and maybe you might be the guy who unlocks Oswald's driving motive to kill JFK.

Not to give anything to the CTist bandwagon, but iirc somewhere along the lines of 20 - 25% of gsw to the head produce a larger entrance wound than exit wound.

Area of the skull impacted, trajectory and projectile diameter/velocity are the variables involved.
 
Axxman

Here is a book describing the behavior associated with certain types of cerebellar damage:

"...damage to the flocculus, nodulus, and uvula result in a pronounced loss in equilibrium, including truncal ataxia..." (Impairment of the ability to perform smoothly coordinated voluntary movements)

"There is an inability to incorporate vestibular information with body and eye movements."

https://books.google.com/books?id=sor_roKluskC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=damage+to+the+flocculus,+nodulus,+and+uvula+result+in+a+pronounced+loss+in+equilibrium,+including+truncal+ataxia&source=bl&ots=JaL5m0zlkz&sig=OUrA0PxhW6HgbFls_FE2F4dI97Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ3JfU8szSAhUJJiYKHYVKDxoQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=damage%20to%20the%20flocculus%2C%20nodulus%2C%20and%20uvula%20result%20in%20a%20pronounced%20loss%20in%20equilibrium%2C%20including%20truncal%20ataxia&f=false

Like you said, loss of motor skills below the neck. Cerebellar damage makes it difficult to grasp an object. Notice in the Zapruder film how Kennedy appears to be trying to touch his throat and point to it, however he seems to miss and move his hands up more towards his face. It's as if he was hit by a bullet that made him instantly stinking drunk.
 
Last edited:
No. Nobody does. There isn't more than one bullet to the head.




ALL ENTRY WOUNDS ARE SMALL HOLES.

Every bullet, no matter the caliber, will hit the head like a hammer.




I have damage to my cerebellum, Cerebral Palsy, so let me clue you into the signs of someone's cerebellum being damaged by a bullet:

Complete loss of motor skills below the neck.

JFK would have gone limp. Instead he reached for his throat. Ergo no damage to the cerebellum.

You are really bad at this.

You choose to believe one "expert" with limited contact with the body over a long list of others who disagree. You want there to be a conspiracy and you want a second shooter in Dealey Plaza, so you ignore the majority of the facts of this case to embrace the unreliable fringes to support your tragically wrong view.

You have told us you're new to this event, and you have obviously come to it with a CT mind set. I spent over 20 years embracing the lies that you are spreading now, and I'm telling you that you're eating a lot of red herrings.

If you insist on a conspiracy in the death of JFK you are not going to find it in Dealey Plaza. You need to look at Oswald - the lone shooter - and who he knew, hung out with, or was affiliated with in Dallas during the time between his return from Russia until he killed the President.

I doubt you will find anything there either, but that's where any conspiracy will be found, and maybe you might be the guy who unlocks Oswald's driving motive to kill JFK.

I agree with this. IMO, the evidence that Oswald was the sole shooter is overwhelming, notwithstanding all the BS from conspiracy theorists attempting to raise doubt about it.
I think it's very likely that Oswald really was a lone nut, but it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that he wasn't part of some conspiracy.

I suppose there is a remote possibility that there was somebody else in Dealy Plaza taking shots at Kennedy, but there is no credible evidence to support that. Besides, even if it was a conspiracy, there really was no need for more than one shooter. Oswald got the job done. More people there simply increases the risk of being exposed.

The evidence that Oswald had contact with the Cuban Embassy in Mexico is perhaps the one thing that might point to a conspiracy, or that, if nothing else, the Cubans encouraged Oswald to shoot Kennedy. Then again, maybe he was just planning to flee to Cuba after shooting Kennedy.

Of course, Ruby's shooting of Oswald suggests the possibility that co-conspirators wanted to make sure Oswald didn't talk, but it's far from certain that he wasn't a second lone nut. Besides, how did they (whoever they were) know Ruby wouldn't talk? Ruby is plausible as a Mafia hit man, but Oswald really isn't.

After fifty-three years, it is highly unlikely that a conspiracy, if any will be uncovered.
 
Last edited:
CORed, it would be physically impossible for Oswald to cause all of the damage to Kennedy if the entry wound in the back of the head was at the original EOP location. Having the entry wound higher than that is a radical revision that nobody who was there agrees with.
 
Not to give anything to the CTist bandwagon, but iirc somewhere along the lines of 20 - 25% of gsw to the head produce a larger entrance wound than exit wound.

Area of the skull impacted, trajectory and projectile diameter/velocity are the variables involved.

I was thinking high-powered rifles, but I defer. :thumbsup:
 
Axxman
Like you said, loss of motor skills below the neck. Cerebellar damage makes it difficult to grasp an object. Notice in the Zapruder film how Kennedy appears to be trying to touch his throat and point to it, however he seems to miss and move his hands up more towards his face. It's as if he was hit by a bullet that made him instantly stinking drunk.

He was reaching for the exit wound in his throat, the one everyone saw his receive. Nobody saw a shot to the head...prior to the one shot to the head.
 
I forgot to add one more bit about Dr. Burkley. Here's a passage from Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:

"7. I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and take the time for necessary completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=436&tab=page
 
Please review my past posts.

I have.

There is no evidence to support a second gunshot wound to the head.

Testimony by a guy who thought he saw something 13 years prior is not evidence.

Then you have the problem of a second unseen gunman BEHIND the motorcade:

He would have had to used a Carcano as well to maintain the illusion of a single shooter, and we all know that the Carcano round is devastating, and obvious. If the plan was not to frame Oswald, then there was no reason to fabricate forensic evidence supporting a single shooter. Plus, there was no way for the second shooter to know if Oswald could even get into position in time to make a shot, and synchronizing two shooters in separate locations is tricky even today with radios, and unrealistic in 1963. Your scenario would be very hard to sign onto for any rifleman under the conditions of the assassination.

You can hear them ask, "Are you kidding?"
 
cmikes, this isn't an issue of trajectory, it's an issue of the damage to the brain. There is no sign of an entry to the cerebellum or the lower occipital lobe. The right cerebellum was right behind the entry wound described in the autopsy report and everybody who saw the body. Please grasp this.


Wait, you're trying to determine the where the entrance and exit wounds are on JFK's skull and you don't think it's an issue of trajectory? Huh?

I honestly don't want this to come off as an attack but seriously? Is this a Poe or are you just completely uninformed on any issue of ballistics? I'll be the first to admit that I'm certainly no expert on ballistics but even I realize that where the entrance and exit wounds are in a shooting depend heavily on the position of the shooter in relation to the victim and the victim's posture when he was shot.

Where do you think the bullet entered JFK's head from? It's pretty clear from the autopsy report and the photos and x-rays that it's been in the same place for more than 50 years now, above and slightly to the right of the external occipital protuberance. If you have any evidence that all the pathologists that have examined the evidence have lied and the evidence that has gotten out to the public is faked I would like to see your proof.
 
That's not every pathologist who examined the body, that's not every pathologist who examined the X-rays, and all of them don't agree that the head wounds were caused by one bullet from the rear. The original location of the entry wound, behind the ear near the EOP, cannot have exited the top-right side of the head because the nature of the damage to the brain doesn't support that. What kind of verbal diarrhea are you spewing?


What do you mean by the highlighted? The wound is exactly where it's been for the last more than 50 years, above and slightly to the right of the EOP. It's where the original autopsy put it, it's where the Clark panel put it, it's where the Rockefeller Commission put it, it's where the HSCA medical panel put it, and it's where the ARRB put it. Again, if you have any evidence that all these doctors are completely incompetent, being blackmailed, or members of the evil forces of THEY, let's see it.

What other pathologists have examined the evidence? Can you link to their findings?

You seem to be arguing for an entry wound below the EOP that no one else has ever seen. Could you mark on a picture exactly where you believe that you're seeing a second entrance wound on JFK's head and upload so we can see what you're talking about?
 
From the National Archives:



So getting access is possible, but it's a chore, and the materials cannot be reproduced.

Maybe the Kennedys will change their minds on this subject someday.



Thanks for the clarification. I remembered that the Kennedy family had ultimate control of the materials but forgot that they had designated a representative to deal with requests.

While I believe that ultimately the autopsy materials should be released so that they could studied by other people, I completely understand the Kennedy family's reluctance. After dealing with the conspiracy buffs ******** for so long I'm sure they don't want high quality pictures of their family member's autopsy plastered all over the internet and in books making money for conspiracy theorists.
 
Having the entry wound higher than that is a radical revision that nobody who was there agrees with.


The photos, the x-rays and the lead debris pattern document exactly where the entry wound was located. No guess work required.
 
cmikes, you are either very confused or you are trying to confuse others. The autopsy report, the autopsy professionals, and the autopsy witnesses unanimously place the rear entry wound no higher than the level of the ears. Anything higher than that is a revision specifically denied by everybody who was there. Nobody who was there at the autopsy recognizes the red spot on the back-of-head photographs or the cowlick fracture on the head X-ray as the entry wound. They all insist it was lower than that. You may also be interested in the possibility that the skull photographs show the cranial the entry wound, low in the head.
 
Last edited:
cmikes, you are either very confused or you are trying to confuse others. The autopsy report, the autopsy professionals, and the autopsy witnesses unanimously place the rear entry wound no higher than the level of the ears. Anything higher than that is a revision specifically denied by everybody who was there. Nobody who was there at the autopsy recognizes the red spot on the back-of-head photographs or the cowlick fracture on the head X-ray as the entry wound. They all insist it was lower than that. You may also be interested in the possibility that the skull photographs show the cranial the entry wound, low in the head.


I don't think I'm the one that's confused. But let's be clear, are you claiming an entrance wound below the EOP, in contradiction to every pathologist that has examined the autopsy materials?

Still waiting for a citations and links to any pathologist that agrees with your claim that every other pathologist that has examined the evidence is wrong or lying. Or alternatively a link to any evidence that all the photos and x-rays of JFK are forged.

BTW, I notice that you're cribbing most of your claims from Pat Speer. You should do a little research before hitching your wagon to his "evidence". Even most CTers accept that he's not to be taken seriously since he has no medical training and has proven that he has no idea how to orient photos or read x-rays.
 
cmikes, the autopsy professionals all say the entry wound was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP, no higher than the level of the ears. That's what the autopsy report says, and any autopsy witness who remembers seeing it or hearing them discuss the wound places it around that area. The current official story is that the entry was 4 inches higher than the original location and slightly to the right of the midline as opposed to 2.5 centimeters.

One of the Rydberg drawings, showing the original location of the small head wound:

WtLF9qL.jpg


HSCA drawing, showing the "new-and-improved" location of the small head wound:

CgraFoM.jpg


Am I done explaining this for the millionth time? Maybe you should try listening. You act like you have some grasp of this but your words indicate you have no idea.
 
Last edited:
cmikes, the autopsy professionals all say the entry wound was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP, no higher than the level of the ears. That's what the autopsy report says, and any autopsy witness who remembers seeing it or hearing them discuss the wound places it around that area. The current official story is that the entry was 4 inches higher than the original location and slightly to the right of the midline as opposed to 2.5 centimeters.

One of the Rydberg drawings, showing the original location of the small head wound:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/WtLF9qL.jpg[/qimg]

HSCA drawing, showing the "new-and-improved" location of the small head wound:

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

Am I done explaining this for the millionth time? Maybe you should try listening. You act like you have some grasp of this but your words indicate you have no idea.

It's a good thing we have the photos and x-rays, isn't it? We don't have to rely on the fallibility of human memory, we have definitive proof where the entry wound was located.
 
cmikes, the autopsy professionals all say the entry wound was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP, no higher than the level of the ears. That's what the autopsy report says, and any autopsy witness who remembers seeing it or hearing them discuss the wound places it around that area. The current official story is that the entry was 4 inches higher than the original location and slightly to the right of the midline as opposed to 2.5 centimeters.

One of the Rydberg drawings, showing the original location of the small head wound:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/WtLF9qL.jpg[/qimg]

HSCA drawing, showing the "new-and-improved" location of the small head wound:

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

Am I done explaining this for the millionth time? Maybe you should try listening. You act like you have some grasp of this but your words indicate you have no idea.


Wait, now you're back to claiming that the entry wound is above the EOP? Maybe the reason I'm confused is because you can't get your story straight? If you're arguing in this post that the entry wound is above the EOP why did you post a diagram in post #2340 that has the entry wound below the EOP?

If the point that you're struggling to make is that there is a disagreement between where the autopsy pathologists located the wound and where every subsequent medical panel found the wound, that's been a known issue for decades. Everyone acknowledges that the Humes, Boswell and Finck were under tremendous time pressure from Robert Kennedy* via Admiral Burkley, to the point that Burkley told Humes "They got the son of a bitch who did it, we just need the bullet!" Add that to the fact that neither Humes nor Boswell had much experience with gunshot wounds (Finck, who did have a lot of expertise with gunshot wounds, arrived after the autopsy had already started), and the fact that JFK's skull was literally blasted apart by Oswald's bullet and it's not surprising that they were off on the precise location. There's a whole section in the HSCA report that criticizes how the autopsy was handled if you were actually interested in the evidence.

The point is, though, we don't have to rely on the autopsy. One thing they did get right was to take lots of pictures and x-rays of all the damage to JFK's head. Again, unless you have some evidence that all the photos and x-rays from the autopsy were faked somehow in such a way that to this day can't be detected, what exactly is your claim?

Even if Humes, Boswell, and Finck were correct in where the entry wound was and all the other pathologist that have examined the evidence since were either completely incompetent, being blackmailed, or members of THEY, so what? It's hard to tell at exactly what angle JFK was holding his head in the Zapruder film. You can tell he's leaning forward with his chin down towards his chest reacting to Oswald's second bullet that went through his throat but that doesn't tell us what exact angle that Oswald's bullet to JFK's head hit at. Also, it's common for bullets to deflect to a different angle when striking a hard, heavy bone like the skull so even if we did know the precise angle that Oswald's bullet hit at it wouldn't necessarily give us a good trajectory.

So please lay it out for us. What exactly is your claim regarding JFK's head wound?


*Regarding RFK's control of the autopsy, I should make it clear that I don't blame Robert Kennedy at all for his actions. He was absolutely devastated by his brother's assassination and shouldn't be expected to have been thinking clearly at the time. The person I hold responsible for botching the autopsy is Admiral Burkley. When RFK made it clear that he and Jackie weren't leaving until JFK's body was released to the funeral home and he wanted it done as soon as possible, Burkley should have been the one to tell RFK that it was absolutely essential for there to be a complete and thorough autopsy and maybe RFK and Jackie should go home and he would contact them when the autopsy was done. But the Kennedy's didn't have advisers, they had sycophants, so Burkley just said OK and went to harass Humes into hurrying it up.
 
It's a good thing we have the photos and x-rays, isn't it? We don't have to rely on the fallibility of human memory, we have definitive proof where the entry wound was located.

Photographs? You mean the red spot? Well, I don't think there's any proof that red spot correlates to the depressed fracture on the X-rays 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. The scalp is being pulled back in the back-of-head photographs, and the red spot appears to be at least 3 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck, and photographer John Stringer never recognized that red spot as the entry wound they saw, instead suggesting it was just a bit of blood. Dr. Boswell is the only one who told HSCA and the ARRB that he thinks the thinks the red spot was a tear in the scalp related to the large head wound. I tend to go with Boswell's interpretation.

X-Rays? Here's a list of some experts who examined the X-rays and never identified a specific location for the entry wound (some of them have noted the depressed fracture at the cowlick, but never specifically said it could be an entry):

Dr. Fred Hodges

Dr. Robert McMeekin

Dr. Alfred Olivier

Dr. Norman Chase

Dr. G.M. McDonnel

Dr. David O. Davis

Dr. Douglas Ubelaker

Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick

Dr. Robert Kirschner

Dr. David Mantik has explained that the cowlick spot on the X-rays could just be an ordinary fracture related to the large head wound.

Dr. Peter Cummings used to subscribe to the cowlick entry theory, but later changed his mind and decided the X-rays could be consistent with an entry low in the head, by default making the cowlick spot just a fracture related to the large head wound.

And of course, the radiologist at Kennedy's autopsy Dr. John Ebersole never agreed with the cowlick entry wound theory, nor did any other professional at Kenendy's autopsy who examined the X-rays.
 
Last edited:
Photographs? You mean the red spot? Well, I don't think there's any proof that red spot correlates to the depressed fracture on the X-rays 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance.

With all due respect Micah, who gives a rats ass what you think? Entire teams of pathologists have examined the photos and the x-rays. The red spot is the entry wound. The pattern of lead debris cinches it. No guess work needed.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com//wecht smith frags.jpg

If you think the red spot is something else, explain why the autopsy surgeons felt it was important enough to part the hair around it and make it the focal point of multiple photographs, yet made no mention of it in their notes and could not recall what it was under questioning.
 
Traxy, the scalp is being pulled back in the BOH photographs. The red spot appears to be about a couple of centimeters above the level of the ears, and yet it had to be about 4 inches higher to correlate to the depressed cowlick fracture. If they were photographing it because they thought it was an entry wound, why would they pull the scalp back that far as to create a misleading photograph?

Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and ARRB that the red spot was some kind of laceration to the scalp related to the large head wound. Dr. Humes told the HSCA that he ruler in that photograph isn't there to measure anything, just to "provide scale".

And, of course, several people have said the emperor is wearing no clothes by pointing out that the fragment dispersal is too high and to the right of the depressed cowlick fracture, creating anything but a straight line. Also, the fragment near the depressed cowlick fracture is a whole centimeter below it. If the open-cranium photographs is the one which shows the EOP wound in plain view, then we also have a good case that the depressed cowlick fracture and maybe the red spot was created by an exiting fragment.

Maybe you should review the past several pages of posts, because you're just reshasing BS.
 
Last edited:
Are you asserting that the x-rays are fake? If so, stop nibbling at the edges and just say it.

If they aren't fake, the path of the bullet is spelled out in black and white.
 
Are you asserting that the x-rays are fake? If so, stop nibbling at the edges and just say it.

If they aren't fake, the path of the bullet is spelled out in black and white.

No.

Your last several posts have been you misunderstanding simple things and being incoherent.
 
No.

Your last several posts have been you misunderstanding simple things and being incoherent.


OK, so where does your EOP entry wound appear on the x-rays? And while you're at it, explain the lead debris pattern in a way that supports an EOP entry wound.
 
OK, so where does your EOP entry wound appear on the x-rays? And while you're at it, explain the lead debris pattern in a way that supports an EOP entry wound.

He can't.

MJ seems to be incapable of independent thought. If you read through his posts he has drifted from one dead-end theory to the next, all taken from JFK-CT sites - rarely an impartial source. He wants or needs this to be a conspiracy, and like all CTists he ignores facts, evidence, and ballistics which undermine CT.

Last year he was arguing a second gunman whose weapon had a silencer, right after someone else tried to run wild with that claim and was shot down in flames.

He says he doesn't claim the autopsy results are fake, he implies that they are fake. When I was a JFK-CTer the argument was that the fatal head-shot came from the front, and that debate went back and forth until VHS provided private access to the Zapruder Film, and within five years the Grassy Knoll theory fell by the wayside. MJ's angle is that there was a second head wound, which is asking a lot from a skull that has already been 30% destroyed by Oswald's round. A second head-shot that NOBODY saw, and is invisible on film, X-ray, and to two sets of MDs.

MJ has admitted to being a CTist in search of a CT, having come to the JFK nonsense from the 9-11 nonsense. Maybe it appeals to him because it is so old, and there is a medium sized library of books dedicated to everything but what actually happened in Dallas, or maybe he has bought into a prepackaged CT world view where the JFK assassination is a "Gateway Conspiracy" which initiates the unwashed into a world where everything is controlled, and people like you and I are mindless puppets.

Whatever his motivations, it's great comedy.
 
Here is all (or most) of the material where Dr. Burkley ...expressed that he believed or suspected multiple shooters, at least twice suggesting two head shots.

Not according to what you quoted:

1977 HSCA interview report:
...DR. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and if it had been done, it might be able to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes of the possibility of there having been two.

Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:
Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated.

Hank
 
To be fair to MicahJava, Cyril Wecht, who was a member of the medical panel of the HSCA strongly believed that there were two headshots. He based this belief on "evidence" (read as personal confirmation bias) other than the medical evidence, however.

His explanation of why there wasn't any medical evidence of a headshot from the front was that the headshot from the rear miraculously obliterated all the evidence of the shot from the front. Even he wasn't crazy enough to buy into any "THEY altered the body!" or "THEY faked all the evidence!" theories so he merely adopted a stance that the evidence just coincidentally happened to support one shot from the rear.

He admitted in his testimony to the HSCA there was no evidence of a second shot to the head.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscawech.htm

Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, what evidence is there which supports the possibility that there was a shot from the side or from the lower right rear?
Dr. WECHT. Very meager, and the possibility based upon the existing evidence is extremely remote. There is a small piece of some material that is present at the base of the external scalp, just above the hairline, which has never been commented on before except by me following the 1972 investigation of the material at the Archives, and later commented upon by this forensic pathology panel. There is a total deformation of the right side of the cranial vault with extensive fractures of the calvarium, the top portion of the skull, and extensive scalp lacerations and loss of soft tissue, so that we cannot exactly know where the exit wound was. It is, therefore, possible that that extensive deformity of the scalp, underlying galea, underlying bone calvarium, could also be the locus of the second shot of some kind of frangible ammunition which would not have penetrated deeply or at all through the calvarium. I want to emphasize that this is remote but I have pointed this out because it is a possibility. The question of the President's movement after he was struck in the head makes us direct our attention toward such a possibility and, of course, the absence of the brain and the failure of the original pathologists to have conducted studies that are routine, perfunctory in any kind of an autopsy where the brain has been fixed in formalin, to serially section the brain 10 to 14 days later, and the absence of the brain and the inability or the failure of the staff to obtain that medical evidence, all of these things, I believe, make it important to just raise that possibility, remote as it may be, that a second shot might have struck the President in the head in synchronized or simultaneous fashion.
...
Mr. PURDY. Dr. Wecht, does the present state of available evidence permit the conclusion that to a reasonable degree of medical certainty there was not a shot from the side which struck the President?
Dr. WECHT. Yes, with reasonable medical certainty I would have to say that the evidence is not there. I have already said it is a remote possibility and I certainly cannot equate that with reasonable medical certainty.
...
Mr. CORNWELL. And if the single-bullet theory is not correct, how many bullets, in your view, did strike the two occupants of the car?
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head.


Wecht is more careful in his language when testifying for the record than for the TV cameras. Then he gets far more expansive and tends to conjecture all sorts of stuff he has no evidence for.

Hank
 
Unfortunately, Ceril [sic] Wecht buys into the cowlick entry wound idea AND the idea that a bullet entered the back and exited the throat ...

You mean, 'Unfortunately for MicahJava', don't you?

In other words, even the leading conspiracy advocate with the expertise to dispute the autopsy conclusions [Cyril Wecht] agrees with those autopsy conclusions.

Where does that leave amateur forensic pathologists like yourself?

Out in the cold, I would say.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Tolls, the nature of the brain damage doesn't make sense with the EOP entry wound exiting the top-right side of the head. It only makes sense if the missile that struck the EOP brushed past the cerebellum and hit the floor of the skull. The large head wound would then be created by a separate missile.

And?
I am picking on that one quote you seemed to think was important.
And yes, it was important, as it showed that there was a single entry point, exiting where everyone else has been saying.

If you want to show that there was more than one bullet then might I recommend not using, as part of your argument, quotes that state categorically that there was only the one bullet!
 
I forgot to add one more bit about Dr. Burkley. Here's a passage from Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:

"7. I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and take the time for necessary completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=436&tab=page

And of course, that instruction was issued prior to the autopsy and prior to the subsequent study of the brain. How is that evidence for two bullets again? It's not. It's simply an attempt to be thorough in the instructions given. It's not a statement that Burkley believed in two head shots.

Hank
 
Photographs? You mean the red spot? Well, I don't think there's any proof that red spot correlates to the depressed fracture on the X-rays 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. The scalp is being pulled back in the back-of-head photographs, and the red spot appears to be at least 3 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck, and photographer John Stringer never recognized that red spot as the entry wound they saw, instead suggesting it was just a bit of blood. Dr. Boswell is the only one who told HSCA and the ARRB that he thinks the thinks the red spot was a tear in the scalp related to the large head wound. I tend to go with Boswell's interpretation.

X-Rays? Here's a list of some experts who examined the X-rays and never identified a specific location for the entry wound (some of them have noted the depressed fracture at the cowlick, but never specifically said it could be an entry):

Dr. Fred Hodges

Dr. Robert McMeekin

Dr. Alfred Olivier

Dr. Norman Chase

Dr. G.M. McDonnel

Dr. David O. Davis

Dr. Douglas Ubelaker

Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick

Dr. Robert Kirschner

Dr. David Mantik has explained that the cowlick spot on the X-rays could just be an ordinary fracture related to the large head wound.

Dr. Peter Cummings used to subscribe to the cowlick entry theory, but later changed his mind and decided the X-rays could be consistent with an entry low in the head, by default making the cowlick spot just a fracture related to the large head wound.

And of course, the radiologist at Kennedy's autopsy Dr. John Ebersole never agreed with the cowlick entry wound theory, nor did any other professional at Kenendy's autopsy who examined the X-rays.

How many of the above are qualified forensic pathologists?

Can you post that list?

Hank
 
I am far from being your typical conspiracy theorists. For anyone who knows of my participation in the 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists fiasco knows I was prominent in defeating parts of that stupid supposition.

For years I believed in the Warren Commissions conclusion of the lone assassin. But, I was always bothered by the Dallas Surgeons observations of the wounds to JFK's head and the obvious entry wound to the throat area, consequently I rejected it based on the forensic evidence observed at the Bethesda Naval Hospital Pathologists who performed the autopsy. I think I've changed my mind. I previously merely labeled it as another typical conspiracy theorist's delusions.

I do believe I've changed my mind. I just sat thru the youtube (yea I know) video of Douglas P. Horne's synopsis of his book. Horne was a prominent researcher on the ARRP review beginning in 1993. His presented evidence is overwhelming. Of all of the questions generated he's answered with one exception. The one exception is how the Secret Service knew about the Zapruter video before it reached the Time/Life organization. That question he doesn't address. He provides justification for his other suppositions and conclusions.

JFK's assassination changed America forever. That era began the distrust of Government. Maybe that was justified....

The entire video is very long.. It's about 6 hours duration, so it takes a long time to watch the entire thing.

 
You do realise very few people are going to bother with a you tube vid?
Especially 6 hours worth.

We've been over pretty much everything in this thread and its predecessors, but if you have something new (or at least something you think is new) then present away. It'll make a nice change from Micah.

Note...there was no throat entry wound.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom