Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
HSienzant said:
So according to Boswell and Finck, the "red spot" you reference was a laceration, and according to Finck, that laceration corresponded to the entry wound on the skull underneath.

Doesn't that make the red spot the entry wound on the scalp - the one visible on the back of the head autopsy photos?

Hank
Click to expand...

I simply can't believe that I've missed this all these years!

After examining the various photos and drawings and a review of my own extensive archives, I've come to the conclusion that not only is The Great American Lee Harvey Oswald innocent, The "red spot" on JFK's head wasn't a impact wound and JFK was not killed by gunfire.

It is the burn mark left by an early, highly classified laser aiming device later adopted as the PEQ15A, based on technology adapted from UFO's stored at Area 51. (confirmed by John Lear)

The early versions had the undesirable side effect of cooking the target from the inside-out before the target could be shot. That side effect is much like the cousin of the PEQ unit, the microwave oven. (Confirmed by Irwin Corey)

In the conspiracy to frame poor Lee, he was encouraged to bring his rifle to work so he could fire celebratory gunfire out the window at the TSBD to celebrate JFK's arrival in Dallas. (Confirmed by Oliver Stone)

At the moment that Lee fired his Carcano out the window on the sixth floor, not even aiming at anyone, he got excited and was too carried away to notice that people didn't understand he was happy firing, not mad firing. (confirmed by many witnesses)

While that was happening, Richard Nixon, Bebe Rebozo, Lyndon Johnson and Sonny Liston were on the roof of the Dal-Tex building with the PEQ. The early unit was extremely heavy, and it had to be held by Sonny. Nixon and Rebozo worked the hand-crank for power and the unit was aimed and fired by Johnson. (Confirmed by Sonny Liston in his autobiography, I ain't got no dog-proof ass.)

When JFK felt the first burn of the highpowered laser he thought his tie was too tight and went to loosen it, but at that moment Sonny got a good look at Jackie and got distracted and moved a bit, causing Johnson to lose his sight picture and the laser hit JFK square in the head. It only took a fraction of a second for his head to pop like a ripe melon. The explosion was so vicious that one of the filings in his tooth popped out and went right through Connally. (Confirmed by autopsy expert, Dr. Bombay)

When poor Lee saw that, he thought he might be in trouble, so he hid his rifle and decided to go home. (Confirmed by lunchroom lady)

Meanwhile, for the four men on the Dal-Tex roof, it was mission accomplished. Nixon ended that JFK Punk, Rebozo had blackmail material on Nixon and Johnson. Johnson was going to be the President, and now that Jackie was single...Sonny asked Johnson if he could take a few years off from paying his federal taxes. Johnson called him the N word and told him to carry the PEQ. Sonny kicked Rebozo in the nuts. (Liston, I ain't got no dog proof ass)

Lee was confused. All he ever wanted was to make happy noise in honor of his President, but all these people were screaming, crying, sirens. He thought there must really be something wrong, and he decided to go back to his place and get his Smith & Wesson revolver...just in case. (Lunchroom lady, psychic communication 1)

After he retrieved his handgun, he was walking down the street when somebody who was probably pretending to be a cop tried to stop him. Lee was an American who knew his rights, so when the maybe fake cop told him to stop, he kept going. Then when the cop yelled at him he stopped, but he could tell the maybe fake cop was nervous, and real cops shouldn't be nervous, so he shot him. (Lunchroom lady, psychic communication 2)

Lee thought it might be a good time to take in a movie. Being a big Audie Murphy fan, he noticed that War is Hell was playing and slipped in to watch. (Lunchroom lady, psychic communication 3)

The next thing he knew, and he was only watching a movie, what could be wrong with watching a movie? a bunch of cops showed up and came after him! He tried to show them that he was carrying a gun like one of the good guys, but they didn't seem to like that. (Lunchroom lady, psychic communication 4)

After that he got roughed up, locked up, nobody seemed to like him, and just like that a little fat guy shot him for no reason! How's that fair?

XXXXXXXXXXXX

OK, that's it. Forget all the other speculation. That's the true tale and since none of you can prove me wrong that's what really happened.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Back to reality.

The only folks that took a worse beating than MJ has in this thread this week is the Warriors in the first half tonight.

The Warriors have a better chance for making a comeback.
 
MicahJava said:
The large head wound could be tangential.
Click to expand...

Is that so, doctor? Then please explain how this supposition of yours overcomes Dr. Finck's observation that the outer table of the blasted fragments showed beveling, leading him to conclude that the large wound was an exit wound resulting from a perforating (not a tangential) missile.
 
BStrong said:
I simply can't believe that I've missed this all these years!

After examining the various photos and drawings and a review of my own extensive archives, I've come to the conclusion ...
Click to expand...

What if JFK actually HAD NO BRAIN?

Has anybody accounted for the brains of Oswald or Tippet?

What if the real cover-up is that JFK was a Cylon, and Tippet was killed so they could substitute his brain at the President's autopsy. Think about it, Finck is late because the guard delayed him at the gate, what if it was just to buy time to get the fake brain into the O.R.? Then they just fly it back to Dallas where it is buried with Tippet and the world is none the wiser?

That laser would be silent, but we know Oswald fired three shots...what if he was shooting at those guys on the roof of the Dal-Tex building? That would account for not finding two of the bullets, and all they had to do was plant the magic bullet at Parkland later.

You are a genius, write a book and retire.
 
Last edited:
In case you were wondering, yes "Tracking Oswald" was pulled from the History Channel line-up until further notice.

Must not be enough ancient aliens or knife making.:D
 
BStrong said:
I simply can't believe that I've missed this all these years!

After examining the various photos and drawings and a review of my own extensive archives, I've come to the conclusion that not only is The Great American Lee Harvey Oswald innocent, The "red spot" on JFK's head wasn't a impact wound and JFK was not killed by gunfire.

It is the burn mark left by an early, highly classified laser aiming device later adopted as the PEQ15A, based on technology adapted from UFO's stored at Area 51. (confirmed by John Lear)...[remainder of post deleted]
Click to expand...

Truth is stranger than fiction. Your parody of real-life conspiracy postings aren't much different than some from the CT people I've come across over the years.

:thumbsup:

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I'm pretty sure your idea violates basic laws of volume and space
Click to expand...

Not my idea. I quoted two of the autopsy doctors. Show me why they are untrustworthy now, after you've been quoting them for a month or more.



MicahJava said:
and is generally an unprofessional way to go about things.
Click to expand...

Sorry, unlike some people here apparently, I'm not getting paid to post. So if my posting was amateurish, please cut me some slack.



MicahJava said:
The human scalp doesn't stretch like that.
Click to expand...

Straw man. I mentioned stretching the scalp not at all. You're either misunderstanding my point or pretending to misunderstand my point merely to delay the inevitable.



MicahJava said:
But if you don't believe me, go to the longer testimonies by Humes, Boswell, and Finck through the years. Search for words like "scalp", "reflect", "skull", "brain".
Click to expand...

Shifting the burden of proof once more. You're supposed to be supporting your claims with this supposed evidence. I'm not here to support your theories. And I don't take homework assignments from conspiracy theorists.



MicahJava said:
They describe in plain English how they reflected the scalp to get to the skull to get to the brain. It was simply a modified version of a normal brain removal procedure like this:

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

Give Kennedy's brain some room to breath, man.

#LetTheBrainBreath
Click to expand...

The photos of the head on the autopsy table show exactly why that normal procedure wasn't necessary. It's not often that a deceased person is missing the upper half of their head along with extensive fragmenting of the remainder of the skull. Slicing the scalp was sufficient, according to Finck, to allow the brain to be removed.

You provided the words of Finck that explained what was done at the autopsy. Did you forget already?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876344&postcount=357



MicahJava said:
What kind of switcheroo is this?
Click to expand...

You quoted Finck when you thought his words supported your theory. Now he's suddenly unreliable when you understand his words don't support you?



MicahJava said:
Finck always denied the cowlick entry theory, in both it's interpretations of the X-rays and the photographs.
Click to expand...

Not always. There's that early statement of Finck's from January of 1965 you quoted. Did you forget it already?
MicahJava said:
... "The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."
...
I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."
Click to expand...

Not only does he explain how the brain was removed without the normal procedure being necessary, he locates the bullet entry wound precisely underneath the laceration you have been calling 'the red spot' (like it was on Jupiter or something).

Tell us why Finck's recollections from 15 or 33 years after the event take precedence over the words above, which, as you noted, took place only 14 months after the autopsy. Do you think his recollection improved in the intervening decades?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I've presented my arguments, and a lot if not most people would consider them proof.
Click to expand...

Do tell us how you determined that. Did you take a poll of most people, or merely a representative sample?

Or did you just make it up in your own head?

Your assertions and opinions are not evidence of anything, and never will be you. You are once again confusing your own opinion with evidence.

Your opinion of other people's opinion of your assertions doesn't rise to the level of proof. And yet, that's all you offer here.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Truth is stranger than fiction. Your parody of real-life conspiracy postings aren't much different than some from the CT people I've come across over the years.

:thumbsup:

Hank
Click to expand...

I must admit that one phrase I used came from James Ellroy.

In The Cold Six Thousand, Sonny Liston is asked by a reporter why he doesn't march to support Civil Rights.

Liston:

"Because I ain't got no dog proof ass."
 
HSienzant said:
Do tell us how you determined that. Did you take a poll of most people, or merely a representative sample?

Or did you just make it up in your own head?

Your assertions and opinions are not evidence of anything, and never will be you. You are once again confusing your own opinion with evidence.

Your opinion of other people's opinion of your assertions doesn't rise to the level of proof. And yet, that's all you offer here.

Hank
Click to expand...

He's the CTist version of Nixon. In his mind he has the support of the Silent Majority.

The issue he's pimping is a perfect example of CTist tactics. Ignore the context and totality of the physical evidence, forensic evidence, to focus on what amounts to a difference of opinion, some clearly coming from second hand sources.

The only thing that one-note Johnny has proved recently is that delusions of grandeur are in play (Miles? seriously?) and there is a difference of opinion about the location of the headwound, some of it from sources not involved at the actual autopsy.
 
Axxman300 said:
What if JFK actually HAD NO BRAIN?

Has anybody accounted for the brains of Oswald or Tippet?

What if the real cover-up is that JFK was a Cylon, and Tippet was killed so they could substitute his brain at the President's autopsy. Think about it, Finck is late because the guard delayed him at the gate, what if it was just to buy time to get the fake brain into the O.R.? Then they just fly it back to Dallas where it is buried with Tippet and the world is none the wiser?

That laser would be silent, but we know Oswald fired three shots...what if he was shooting at those guys on the roof of the Dal-Tex building? That would account for not finding two of the bullets, and all they had to do was plant the magic bullet at Parkland later.

You are a genius, write a book and retire.
Click to expand...

I've got to re-work my theory to take that into account! I didn't think of that!

(A phrase you will never hear or read from a CTist.)
 
Hank, the doctors did not just widen the scalp opening and stick their hands in, with pieces of skull stuck to the scalp, and somehow pull the entire brain out like that. Now you're like taking little out-of-context bits to try and say something that probably isn't even physically possible.

You have to reflect (peel back) the scalp before you start working on the skull, and that's exactly what the doctors did. With the nature of the gunshot wound, and the incentive to preserve Kennedy's face, they may have peeled it back a little differently, maybe in a different direction like in the occipital interpretation of the skull photographs, but the basic idea behind the procedure was still in place. The autopsy doctors and participants made that clear. I don't feel like quoting every single recorded oral history that makes that obvious. The skull photographs show the scalp reflected back to expose the skull cavity (this photo was taken after the brain had already been removed), whether it be over his eyes like the official HSCA interpretation, or reflected to the left to expose the occiput like in other interpretations.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, the doctors did not just widen the scalp opening and stick their hands in, with pieces of skull stuck to the scalp, and somehow pull the entire brain out like that. Now you're like taking little out-of-context bits to try and say something that probably isn't even physically possible.

You have to reflect (peel back) the scalp before you start working on the skull, and that's exactly what the doctors did. With the nature of the gunshot wound, and the incentive to preserve Kennedy's face, they may have peeled it back a little differently, maybe in a different direction like in the occipital interpretation of the skull photographs, but the basic idea behind the procedure was still in place. The autopsy doctors and participants made that clear. I don't feel like quoting every single recorded oral history that makes that obvious. The skull photographs show the scalp reflected back to expose the skull cavity (this photo was taken after the brain had already been removed), whether it be over his eyes like the official HSCA interpretation, or reflected to the left to expose the occiput like in other interpretations.
Click to expand...

What did Finck say Humes told him when he arrived at the autopsy? Tell us.

Hank
 
Another note on the official skull photographs: According to two experts, they may show a portion of the torso skin, probably already separated from the autopsy's Y-incision, and even a nipple.

This would be the upper left corner of this view:

BE7_HI.JPG


From radiologist David Mantik:

"It is strange that Thomas should be so certain that this is not a posterior view, despite never viewing this photo at NARA. I have not only done so, but have viewed it repeatedly in stereo. The upper left hand corner cannot be appreciated in reproductions, but it is highly relevant. In that corner, part of the abdomen is visible: the subcutaneous fat is seen folded out (as it was during the autopsy) and even a nipple is visible. Until the recent review by the ARRB, I was the only observer to note these features. Now, however, I am not alone: one of the ARRB experts, Robert Kirschner (a forensic pathologist, no less), saw the same anatomy in this corner of the photo. (See my Dallas lecture, slide 58.) Those specific anatomic landmarks in that corner can mean only one thing: this is a posterior view of the skull."

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-2-part-1

David Mantik's 11/21/2009 presentation slides: http://assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm

From ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner:

"(7) Photographsof ARRB "View 7," (#s 17, 18, 44, and 45) could not be oriented or identified with any precision. Dr. Kirschner did say that he could not visualize this photograph as being the rear of the head, and that the curvature of the exterior surface of the skull in the photo could represent frontal bone, but that he could not be sure. The "ripples" inside the cranial cavity were interpreted as probably being the base of the skull. The notch in the photograph was opined to be too large to be an entrance wound; it was further observed to exhibit external beveling. However, because of the lack of clearly identifiable anatomic landmarks, this photograph ultimately could not be definitely oriented. The "yellow spot" in the color photos near the skull was thought to be muscle and fat which had possibly been exposed by the reflection of skin pulled back as a result of the Y-incision during the autopsy. The artifact in the photograph which appears to be made of glass was tentatively identified by Dr. Kirschner as a formaldehyde bottle."

Obviously we don't have access to the high-quality color prints of the skull photographs with a stereoscopic viewer, but you can see what may be the "nipple" on the upper left corner, with what may be hair faintly visible.

(Lower left corner in this rotation):

lg54d81a9d.png
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Another note on the official skull photographs: According to two experts, they may show a portion of the torso skin, probably already separated from the autopsy's Y-incision, and even a nipple.

Yada Yada
Click to expand...

CT 101: When all else fails, change the subject.

What did Finck say Humes told him about the autopsy to the point where Finck joined the autopsy team?
 
HSienzant said:
CT 101: When all else fails, change the subject.

What did Finck say Humes told him about the autopsy to the point where Finck joined the autopsy team?
Click to expand...

"That doesn't mean what you think it means"

-Finck

Seriously, my journey arguing in this thread has been a homework assignment. My easy assignment is to search the keywords in the statements from Humes et. al through the years. You do know that to "reflect" the scalp means to peel it all the way back, right? The skull photographs show the scalp reflected.
 
MicahJava said:
"That doesn't mean what you think it means"

-Finck
Click to expand...
Think about that.

MicahJava said:
Seriously, my journey arguing in this thread has been a homework assignment.
Click to expand...
So you have been taking the mick up to now?

MicahJava said:
My easy assignment is to search the keywords in the statements from Humes et. al through the years. You do know that to "reflect" the scalp means to peel it all the way back, right? The skull photographs show the scalp reflected.
Click to expand...
I am now wondering whose homework. I have not had obligatory homework since I was a child. Adults do not get homework. Work from home? sure. But that is a different thing. That you even talk about "homework" is revealing. As a big bad "grown up" nobody gives me or anyone else "homework".
 
My question is pending, MJ: Please explain how your speculation regarding a tangential bullet wound to the right temporal-parietal portion of JFK's skull overcomes Dr. Finck's observation that the outer table of the blasted fragments of that wound showed beveling, leading him to conclude that the large wound was an exit wound resulting from a perforating (not a tangential) missile.
 
MicahJava said:
"That doesn't mean what you think it means"

-Finck
Click to expand...

You once quoted what Finck said. You appear to be hesitant to repeat that quote, now that you understand what it means.

I didn't ask what Finck said, I said what Finck said Humes said, when Finck joined the autopsy in Bethesda.

Finck said Humes said:
MicahJava said:
"The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."
Click to expand...

That means the normal procedure of removing the top half of an intact skull to examine the brain didn't have to be performed, because the top right half of the skull was already missing from the bullet injury suffered in Dealey Plaza and the skull had lost its normal integrity because of the damage caused by the passage of the bullet through the head.



Humes testified to this:
To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skull by this injury.
We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

That concurs with what Finck said Humes said, and explains that two cuts, one down each side of the head, was all that was necessary to excise the brain since the skull itself had lost all integrity due to the damage from the bullet passage.

That's also why we see the hand holding the back half of the head (what you call 'stretching the scalp') in place for the photographs. There's a complete loss of integrity of the underlying skull bone.



And Finck also said:
MicahJava said:
I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE.
Click to expand...

That localizes the entry wound to what you consistently call "the red spot". And puts the entry wound in the skull right underneath that red spot.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, the doctors did not just widen the scalp opening and stick their hands in, with pieces of skull stuck to the scalp, and somehow pull the entire brain out like that.
Click to expand...

Straw man argument. I didn't say they pulled the brain out. I quoted the doctors saying they made cuts down both sides and excised the brain from the body that way... they said no cuts to the skull were necessary as the skull was damaged extensively and lost all integrity.


MicahJava said:
Now you're like taking little out-of-context bits to try and say something that probably isn't even physically possible.
Click to expand...

These statements that for the most part YOU PROVIDED are the earliest statements of Finck and Humes, are they not? What is out of context? Show where, in those earliest statements, they said something that changes the context (note that recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact are specifically excluded from my request. Do you understand why I excluded those yet?)


MicahJava said:
You have to reflect (peel back) the scalp before you start working on the skull
Click to expand...

And that's what the doctors said they did. Two cuts - one down each side - was sufficient to reflect the scalp and most of the skull, because the damage was so extensive. Normally in an autopsy, you are dealing with an intact skull. Not so in this case. The normal rules of removing the top half of the skull by sawing it off wasn't necessary, because of the extensive damage suffered by JFK due to the bullet that entered the back of his head.


MicahJava said:
and that's exactly what the doctors did.
Click to expand...

They told you exactly what was necessary, and that was what they did.


MicahJava said:
With the nature of the gunshot wound, and the incentive to preserve Kennedy's face, they may have peeled it back a little differently, maybe in a different direction like in the occipital interpretation of the skull photographs, but the basic idea behind the procedure was still in place. The autopsy doctors and participants made that clear.
Click to expand...

They didn't have to saw off the top of the skull, so they didn't. They didn't have to do more than extend the lacerations down to the ears, so they didn't. That's why Finck saw the bullet entry wound in the skull. And why he said it corresponded to the wound on the outer portion of the scalp (that you call 'the red spot').


MicahJava said:
I don't feel like quoting every single recorded oral history that makes that obvious.
Click to expand...

The earliest statements of the doctors are clear in what they did. No need to search their recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact to find contradictions in their statements. Faulty recollection is a known factor in human memory.


MicahJava said:
The skull photographs show the scalp reflected back to expose the skull cavity (this photo was taken after the brain had already been removed), whether it be over his eyes like the official HSCA interpretation, or reflected to the left to expose the occiput like in other interpretations.
Click to expand...

No disagreement there. But the two cuts in the scalp above the ears are likewise sufficient to reflect the scalp back and expose the massive wound in the right top portion of the skull, aren't they?

Your argument for the past month (that Humes had to do sawing and thereby remove the entry wound from the skull that Finck said he saw on the skull) is exposed as nonsense. You simply failed to understand the plain language the doctors used to explain what they did until it was explained to you.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Another note on the official skull photographs: According to two experts, they may show a portion of the torso skin, probably already separated from the autopsy's Y-incision, and even a nipple.

This would be the upper left corner of this view:

[qimg]http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE7_HI.JPG[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Has there been any description, not by a CT's of what the black area that resembles a "T" or "Y" in this image?
MJ I noticed you quoted almost verbatim from your CT web site the description of the image.
...
(Lower left corner in this rotation):

[qimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg54d81a9d.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This image doesn't show on my lap.
 
Hank, this is just another roundabout red herring thing with whether or not there was sawing of the skull. It doesn't matter whether or not there was sawing. The doctors made their incisions in the scalp and reflected it. Then, the damaged cranium was exposed and the area around the large defect could be separated with ease. The doctors are basically saying that, after the scalp was incised, the rest of the job practically did itself. The end result of this is what the skull photographs show. You acknowledge that the skull photographs show the scalp reflected. That is how a brain removal procedure is done. It's done in layers.

Dr. Finck did not say that he could see the entry wound as a part of a fragment of skull bone, he said he could still see it in the intact, empty cranium. The area of the alleged cowlick entry would've been among the pieces of break off.

And if we go by some of those famous 15-year-old recollections, Boswell and Humes mentioned something that implies that they had to do a special scalp incision, besides the main one, to expose the entry wound low in the head.

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite- oh, it must be, I can't read it- but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire- I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md20.pdf

The posterior interpretation of the skull photographs, with the scalp reflected to the left, definitely cannot be ruled out.
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
Has there been any description, not by a CT's of what the black area that resembles a "T" or "Y" in this image?
MJ I noticed you quoted almost verbatim from your CT web site the description of the image.
...
Click to expand...

What "T"/"Y"? What about that obvious number "3" clearly indicating a movie studio prop :D

The description from the CT site is written by David Mantik, who had access to the full collection of official autopsy photographs at the National Archives. The skull photographs there are in color and of higher quality. Mantik also used a stereoscopic viewer.


This image doesn't show on my lap.
Click to expand...

Try this: https://i1.wp.com/mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.jpg
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
My question is pending, MJ: Please explain how your speculation regarding a tangential bullet wound to the right temporal-parietal portion of JFK's skull overcomes Dr. Finck's observation that the outer table of the blasted fragments of that wound showed beveling, leading him to conclude that the large wound was an exit wound resulting from a perforating (not a tangential) missile.
Click to expand...

The funny part is, the official interpretation of the skull photographs are supposed to override Dr. Finck's observations. Dr. Finck never said there was a small beveled exit in the frontal area, and he said he didn't recognize it when showed those pictures. In any interpretation I can remember, that beveled half-hole in the skull photographs can not fit anything Finck ever testified to.

Autopsy witness Richard Lipsey recalled the doctors discussing the large head wound as a tangential wound, and the small head wound as being an entrance which exited the throat.

Any way you look at it, you must be skeptical that Finck said everything he knew. But I trust him on the location of the small head wound because there's just so much corroborating evidence.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
What "T"/"Y"? What about that obvious number "3" clearly indicating a movie studio prop :D
Click to expand...

Well I don't see a 3, but if what your describing is a very black area, in the center/upper right center of the image, that I described as a "T" or "Y". The quotation marks because the area only resembles the letters, but could resemble many normal aspects of life.
The description from the CT site is written by David Mantik, who had access to the full collection of official autopsy photographs at the National Archives. The skull photographs there are in color and of higher quality. Mantik also used a stereoscopic viewer.




Try this: https://i1.wp.com/mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.jpg
Click to expand...

OK, then it is the same image viewed from a different line of site. You forgot to mention, but I will, Mantik is a full blown CT concerning the assassination event. I believe he even purports that the X-ray images are all fakes, correct?
 
bknight said:
Well I don't see a 3, but if what your describing is a very black area, in the center/upper right center of the image, that I described as a "T" or "Y". The quotation marks because the area only resembles the letters, but could resemble many normal aspects of life.
Click to expand...

The "Y" is a small mark or defect on the inner surface of the reflected scalp.

OK, then it is the same image viewed from a different line of site. You forgot to mention, but I will, Mantik is a full blown CT concerning the assassination event. I believe he even purports that the X-ray images are all fakes, correct?
Click to expand...

Dr. Kirschner also said that area could be torso skin reflected from the autopsy's chest incision. Only Mantik specifically said he could see a nipple. I do not think Mantik ever said that the skull photographs have been manipulated.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Can you give some more examples of you using your opinion as evidence?
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
It doesn't matter whether or not there was sawing.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's an obvious one.

The doctors are basically saying that, after the scalp was incised, the rest of the job practically did itself. The end result of this is what the skull photographs show. You acknowledge that the skull photographs show the scalp reflected. That is how a brain removal procedure is done. It's done in layers.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's another one, unless you can post your credentials showing your expertise in performing autopsies.

Dr. Finck did not say that he could see the entry wound as a part of a fragment of skull bone, he said he could still see it in the intact, empty cranium. The area of the alleged cowlick entry would've been among the pieces of break off.
Click to expand...
Says who, other than the one CT website you get your opinions from. Thank you for that example of your interpretations.

And if we go by some of those famous 15-year-old recollections, Boswell and Humes mentioned something that implies that they had to do a special scalp incision, besides the main one, to expose the entry wound low in the head.
Click to expand...
Why not go by the contemporaneous autopsy results which you've already said you agree with? But thanks for another example as you were told to give.

The posterior interpretation of the skull photographs, with the scalp reflected to the left, definitely cannot be ruled out.
Click to expand...
You're doing well providing so many examples of you giving your uninformed opinion. How many was that in just this one post?
 
MicahJava said:
The funny part is, the official interpretation of the skull photographs are supposed to override Dr. Finck's observations. Dr. Finck never said there was a small beveled exit in the frontal area, and he said he didn't recognize it when showed those pictures. In any interpretation I can remember, that beveled half-hole in the skull photographs can not fit anything Finck ever testified to.

Autopsy witness Richard Lipsey recalled the doctors discussing the large head wound as a tangential wound, and the small head wound as being an entrance which exited the throat.

Any way you look at it, you must be skeptical that Finck said everything he knew. But I trust him on the location of the small head wound because there's just so much corroborating evidence.
Click to expand...

How do you interpret this then? Who made the impossible shot that we see in the Z film? From where? With what rifle?
 
MicahJava said:
The "Y" is a small mark or defect on the inner surface of the reflected scalp.
Click to expand...
I was asking a non-CT's interpretation, however, I don't think small would be a correct adjective as by eye-balling the image it is about 1/3 the height and 1/4 the width, although some of this may be shadows caused by the flash.
Dr. Kirschner also said that area could be torso skin reflected from the autopsy's chest incision. Only Mantik specifically said he could see a nipple. I do not think Mantik ever said that the skull photographs have been manipulated.
Click to expand...

No I remembered correctly

http://assassinationofjfk.net/tag/david-mantik/

He indicates the images are fakes. I wonder why few if any doctors that have studied the case have agreed with him?
 
beachnut said:
How do conspiracy theorists and liars about JFK find the best evidence? Hearsay and speculation, only the best for wild claims.

9/11, JFK, Bigfoot CTs share the same evidence : the empty set
Click to expand...

Last I checked, Dr. Kirschner was a totally random forensic pathologist hired by the ARRB to examine the existent autopsy films.
 
MicahJava said:
Last I checked, Dr. Kirschner was a totally random forensic pathologist hired by the ARRB to examine the existent autopsy films.
Click to expand...
:: random hearsay?, or random speculation?

I find your CT (a CT you can't detail) on JFK is based on hearsay, opinion and speculation. Only the best for CT belief. Like 9/11 BS posted by you, now using BS to support a JFK CT you can't explain in detail. Don't worry, you can find more BS to support the faith based belief, the Internet is a great source for BS on JFK, you can gish gallop this for hundreds of years.
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck never said there was a small beveled exit in the frontal area, and he said he didn't recognize it when showed those pictures. In any interpretation I can remember, that beveled half-hole in the skull photographs can not fit anything Finck ever testified to.
Click to expand...

How can we discuss these matters with you if we can't rely on you to represent the record accurately? You claim that Dr. Finck "never" testified to outer-table beveling on the recovered fragments? Are you joking? To wit:

Dr. Finck's testimony before the WC: "We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit."

His testimony at the Shaw trial: "During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling [on the outer table, as he indicates] I described to you."

From his HSCA testimony: "From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you [look] at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question."

Is this just a game for you, MJ? Or are you really having trouble understanding the clear testimony?
 
MicahJava said:
Autopsy witness Richard Lipsey recalled the doctors discussing the large head wound as a tangential wound, and the small head wound as being an entrance which exited the throat.
Click to expand...

Do you mean Lipsey who also stated this in his HSCA testimony?: "Medical definitions of what type of wounds they were, and whatever, I tuned all that out probably. I didn't know what they were talking about and I just didn't care."

Lipsey's testimony is all over the place. He's very confused, and he admits it. CTs typically have very loose standards about what constitutes credible testimony, but your citing of Lipsey takes the cake.
 
I've been watching various videos of coverage of great historical events. I figured there would be videos of the coverage of the Kennedy assassination. Here's five hours of CBS news coverage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaUo9KNQw3c

It's fascinating stuff. There was so much misinformation broadcast.

They reported a couple had been arrested at the top of the grassy knoll. They reported the discovery of the "Mauser". They reported the arrest of a man at the Texas Schoolbook Repository. I've listened to about two hours. So far no mention of Lee Oswald or J. D. Tippit, or any mention of the murder of a police officer. The report of the arrest might have been Oswald at the theater, but they haven't mentioned it yet.

I've read an awful lot about the assassination, but there are new details, although in many cases, they're just wrong.

They reported a Secret Service agent killed.

They got an awful lot wrong as fragmentary and inaccurate reports came in.

Or.....maybe they just weren't prepped very well, and they went off script? Hmmm?
 
OKBob said:
How can we discuss these matters with you if we can't rely on you to represent the record accurately? You claim that Dr. Finck "never" testified to outer-table beveling on the recovered fragments? Are you joking? To wit:

Dr. Finck's testimony before the WC: "We will see portions of bone in this general area, the large wound in the bone on the right side of the skull of President Kennedy. I had enough curvature to identify outside of the skull, and inside of the skull, as the first step to orient the specimen, and then I could determine the location of the beveling, and I could therefore say that B, Commission Exhibit 388, is a wound of exit."

His testimony at the Shaw trial: "During the course of the autopsy we received from Dallas portions of bone which have the same appearance as the general appearance of the remaining skull of President Kennedy, and on one of the fragments which we could match inside this wound, approximately five inches in diameter, occupying the right side and the top of the head of the President, I saw the beveling [on the outer table, as he indicates] I described to you."

From his HSCA testimony: "From what I remember in the fragments of bone I established first what is the outer surface of the skull and what is the inner surface of the skull in those fragments and after doing that you [look] at both surfaces and you determine where is the beveling. The beveling was in the outer surface, thus identifying a portion of a wound of exit if that is your question."

Is this just a game for you, MJ? Or are you really having trouble understanding the clear testimony?
Click to expand...

I was referring to the specific area on the skull photographs identified as a beveled exit. Notice how Finck refers to a beveled exit on skull fragments that were initially separated but were later brought to the attention of the autopsy doctors. The beveled spot on the skull photographs is within the intact skull, albeit half of the circular spot is missing as part of the large skull cavity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom