Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
turingtest said:
In my experience with CTists (some of it directly from having once been one), the only conclusion they would accept is no conclusion at all; as Jayutah says, to prolong the discussion, not resolve the question it's about, is the real aim. It's why they hang like grim death to the (discredited) audio evidence presented to the HSCA in 1978- even though the ultimate conclusion then was still that LHO fired all the shots that killed JFK and wounded Connally, the (unjustified) possibility of another shooter is the fog they're looking for, never mind that it doesn't go anywhere and that there is no other evidence to support that scenario. It's also why they shy away from the concept of consilience- they have no intention of trying to live up to a standard of reasonable expectations from available evidence they know they can't meet (all the while demanding the "official story" live up to a standard of impossible perfection).
Click to expand...

Yes, I was hoping that MicahJava would at least be able to admit it to himself. I already knew he couldn't answer the question about what result he would accept just as he can't answer the question about what his theory is. You've hit both nails squarely on the head. The point of CTists is to keep the conversation going to give themselves the semblance of relevance and never take a positive stand on anything that can be held to the same standard they want to hold the conventional narrative to.

The worst thing in the world for them would be closure. Look how MicahJava is clinging to his "cowlick red spot" but won't say how it impacts the consilience of evidence.

MicahJava, you've been asked several times but have consistently scurried away from answering: What would be the impact on the consilience of evidence if the entry wound was... wherever you think it was. How does that change the fact that Oswald's rifle fired the three shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?
 
HSienzant said:
Straw man. Nobody here (or at the autopsy, even) ever said it was removed through a five-inch hole.

Do you remember what WAS said? Can you summarize it, or better yet, quote it, and try to rebut the actual words of Finck and Humes? Or do those words not count because those words are now on a different page and we have to start all over?

Do CTs do a great imitation of Dustin Hoffman in that movie he made with Tom Cruise, or what?

Hank
Click to expand...

They said that the area around the large defect had commuted fractures that caused pieces of skull to separate just by moving the scalp around, and that those areas just crumbled in their hands very easily, such that virtually no cutting of the bone was necessary.

And do you think the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect was just impervious to this?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
They said that the area around the large defect had commuted [sic] fractures that caused pieces of skull to separate just by moving the scalp around, and that those areas just crumbled in their hands very easily, such that virtually no cutting of the bone was necessary.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they also said they did WHAT before removing the brain? Do you remember what I quoted?

You didn't forget already, did you?

Tell us what they said they did, and tell us why you are constantly referencing a straw man five-inch defect.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Yes, and they also said they did WHAT before removing the brain? Do you remember what I quoted?

You didn't forget already, did you?

Tell us what they said they did, and tell us why you are constantly referencing a straw man five-inch defect.

Hank
Click to expand...

They reflected the scalp, i.e. to peel it back.
 
MicahJava said:
They reflected the scalp, i.e. to peel it back.
Click to expand...

Now put those two pieces of info together, where's this five inch hole?

1. The skull has lost all integrity as it's in more than a dozen pieces of different shapes and sizes. The skull is literally held together by clinging to the remaining scalp.
2. Cuts are made down each side of the head and the scalp (and skull clinging to the scalp) peeled back.

This enlarges the opening, doesn't it?

Is the hole to remove the brain still only five inches?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Now put those two pieces of info together, where's this five inch hole?

1. The skull has lost all integrity as it's in more than a dozen pieces of different shapes and sizes. The skull is literally held together by clinging to the remaining scalp.
2. Cuts are made down each side of the head and the scalp (and skull clinging to the scalp) peeled back.

This enlarges the opening, doesn't it?

Is the hole to remove the brain still only five inches?

Hank
Click to expand...

Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

If you do any of the things described above, the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium. Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection, and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose, but it doesn't matter much either way.
 
MicahJava said:
Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

If you do any of the things described above, the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium. Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection, and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose, but it doesn't matter much either way.
Click to expand...

If on the other hand you reflected the scalp enlarging the exit wound, as described, would it still be five inches? Not the cowlick, but the exit wound they talk about enlarging....
 
MicahJava said:
I probably couldn't properly remove a brain, but this is a simpler issue that involves common sense.
Click to expand...

The old "common sense" fallacy, applied, as often in CT, to complex, technical issues that require years of specialized training.
 
MicahJava said:
Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.
Click to expand...

Not my question. Answer my question. If you start with a five inch hole and enlarge the hole, do you still have a five inch hole? Or is it larger?


MicahJava said:
If you do any of the things described above,
Click to expand...

The doctors at the autopsy said they did that, right? There is no 'if' necessary here, is there?


MicahJava said:
...the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium.
Click to expand...

Really? Says who? YOU?


MicahJava said:
Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection,
Click to expand...

You can see a piece of skull adhering to the scalp in the extant autopsy photos (above and in front of the right ear). This flap is visible even on the Zapruder film for goodness sakes. It remained adhering to the scalp for the next nine hours at least. Why would you think peeling back the scalp would cause all the skull bone fragments to drop to the autopsy table? Peeling back the flap near the right ear didn't cause that fragment to fall off.

And the autopsy report (which you claim to be familiar with and believe) says "Upon reflecting the scalp, multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput." -- clearly these are fractures in the skull bone that are still adhering to the overlying scalp. No other interpretation makes sense.


MicahJava said:
...and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose,
Click to expand...

In the context of the skull being extensively fragmented.


MicahJava said:
...but it doesn't matter much either way.
Click to expand...

HILARIOUS!

So your last one hundred pages of argument about the cowlick wound and the five-inch hole was just a meaningless exercise?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
And do you think the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect was just impervious to this?
Click to expand...

Without our assistance, you've put your finger, right here, on one of the chief weaknesses of your argument. You are assuming that the entrance wound was included within the friable pieces of skull that broke away. That is your unsupported inference. It is not an established fact or even, at this point, a credible inference. Are you claiming that it is?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
What more do I, as a concerned citizen, have to do to show that I have a legitamite point that goes beyond a pet theory? It's so easy a child could understand it. There's not very many ways you can remove a human brain from the cranium.
Click to expand...
To get back to this question- if I were actually "a concerned citizen," as opposed to just your garden-variety "CTist as a hobby," what I would do is to take my concerns to people who could give you a legitimate answer from expertise and experience. Surely you know a doctor or other relevant medical professional you could raise this question with? Or maybe a local university with a medical department? Instead of just spinning your CT wheels here, why not run it by someone who can actually answer the question and allay your concern with an informed conclusion? Isn't this worth the effort? Or is the spinning the whole point?
 
MicahJava said:
Five inches is a reference to the official HSCA interpretation of the skull photographs, showing both the cowlick entry and the frontal exit.

If you do any of the things described above, the cowlick area of the skull would not be a part of the intact, empty cranium. Besides the skull flap(s) part of the original defect, the doctors made no particular reference to skull fragments sticking to the scalp following reflection, and in fact I think one of them said that the scalp was unusually loose, but it doesn't matter much either way.
Click to expand...

Yes they did, in a least two of the interviews we've link to here.

For a guy searching for the truth you don't seem to be looking very hard.
 
turingtest said:
[Snip] if I were actually "a concerned citizen," as opposed to just your garden-variety "CTist as a hobby," [snip]
Click to expand...

This is an interesting question, as turingtest suggests, and it goes to the heart of CT hobbyism. They claim to want to do their duty as citizens, but they don't take any steps that would mainstream their concerns and make them viable. For example, MJ will almost certainly not submit his theories to a local cranial surgeon or a medical examiner, or to a local medical school faculty. When CTs disseminate their ideas, it's either on self-created websites or in online discussions, or at CT-dedicated conferences, or with small, outlier presses that will accept monographs lacking critical thinking and scholarly argumentation, because, where the presses are not simply vanity outfits, they know they can sell a profitable number of copies to woo readerships. I'd be very surprised if most CT publications went through a full peer review, or if the peer reviewers were credentialed historians or other scholars, as opposed to other CTs. The whole style and quality of CT argumentation ensures that the effort will remain a marginalized hobby.
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
Without our assistance, you've put your finger, right here, on one of the chief weaknesses of your argument. You are assuming that the entrance wound was included within the friable pieces of skull that broke away. That is your unsupported inference. It is not an established fact or even, at this point, a credible inference. Are you claiming that it is?
Click to expand...

See how the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large head defect?

Smgdf1I.jpg


a3eGjJ7.jpg


We know that the area around the large skull defect was so brittle it easily came apart. So please tell me how the cowlick mark even survived the reflection of the scalp, let alone the enlarging of the skull cavity to facilitate removal of the brain, LET ALONE the process of actually getting the brain through.
 
Tomtomkent said:
If on the other hand you reflected the scalp enlarging the exit wound, as described, would it still be five inches? Not the cowlick, but the exit wound they talk about enlarging....
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be bigger than five inches. Can't preserve the hypothetical cowlick entry hole in the intact skull, though.
 
turingtest said:
To get back to this question- if I were actually "a concerned citizen," as opposed to just your garden-variety "CTist as a hobby," what I would do is to take my concerns to people who could give you a legitimate answer from expertise and experience. Surely you know a doctor or other relevant medical professional you could raise this question with? Or maybe a local university with a medical department? Instead of just spinning your CT wheels here, why not run it by someone who can actually answer the question and allay your concern with an informed conclusion? Isn't this worth the effort? Or is the spinning the whole point?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't I have to pay for that? If not, that would be an interesting exercise. I'd want to talk one-on-one with somebody, because my point must be hard to explain, since a lot of people here seem to not get it.
 
On the "pieces of bone stuck to the scalp" thing:

It doesn't matter either way, this is a red herring and does not detract from the brain removal problem besides maybe proposing an explanation for a frontal view of the skull photographs. Dr. Finck always said he could view the entry hole in the intact, empty skull. Finck never indicated that he could only see it when other previously separated skull fragments were pieced together, nor did he say anything similar about pieces of fractured skull stuck to the scalp.

However, we do have witness evidence from Boswell to the ARRB in 1996 that he saw something like this, at least in the process of taking some of the photographs.

Q. With respect to the photographs, was anything done to the skull or to the hair to prepare it for the photographs? For example, was the hair cleaned at all? Was the hair parted in any way or any skull fragments put in before the photographs were taken?

A. Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp was pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain.

Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit?

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.

Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs?

A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs.

...

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Boswell_2-26-96.pdf
 
MicahJava said:
On the "pieces of bone stuck to the scalp" thing:

It doesn't matter either way, this is a red herring and does not detract from the brain removal problem besides maybe proposing an explanation for a frontal view of the skull photographs. ...
Click to expand...

You are the only one who keeps harping on the "brain removal problem" The rest of us get it fine, they made cuts down to the ears and opened up the remainder of the skull, then removed the brain.

Additionally you keep indicating the wound was in a different spot than the autopsy reports. What difference does a coupe of inches? There was one shot to the head, from behind and above. There was no "official" report of a second wound, and you have provided no citations that there ever was another wound.
 
MicahJava said:
See how the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large head defect?
Click to expand...

The drawing appears to show the cowlick damaged through cracking but otherwise intact. Neither you nor I can read and interpret that X-ray, and you know it. But there's nothing to my untrained eye that says the X-ray is inconsistent with the drawing.
 
MicahJava said:
[snip] my point must be hard to explain, since a lot of people here seem to not get it.
Click to expand...

We're getting your point just fine. We just don't credit it. This is another CT tactic: if people don't agree, just claim they don't comprehend. MJ, don't you want to distinguish yourself from the mill-run of CTs? If so, stop using all their tricks.
 
bknight said:
You are the only one who keeps harping on the "brain removal problem" The rest of us get it fine, they made cuts down to the ears and opened up the remainder of the skull, then removed the brain.

Additionally you keep indicating the wound was in a different spot than the autopsy reports. What difference does a coupe of inches? There was one shot to the head, from behind and above. There was no "official" report of a second wound, and you have provided no citations that there ever was another wound.
Click to expand...

The autopsy report says the entry wound in the back of the head was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP. The location endorsed by the HSCA is 4-5 inches above the EOP.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy report says the entry wound in the back of the head was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP. The location endorsed by the HSCA is 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Click to expand...

Again with Smoke on the Water?

It makes no difference outside of Conspiracylandia.
 
MicahJava said:
See how the cowlick fracture on the X-ray is right beside the large head defect?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Smgdf1I.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/a3eGjJ7.jpg[/qimg]

We know that the area around the large skull defect was so brittle it easily came apart. So please tell me how the cowlick mark even survived the reflection of the scalp, let alone the enlarging of the skull cavity to facilitate removal of the brain, LET ALONE the process of actually getting the brain through.
Click to expand...

Your circle is too low, does not match the sketch at all.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy report says the entry wound in the back of the head was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP. The location endorsed by the HSCA is 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Click to expand...

How does that affect your comprehensive theory concerning the assassination of JFK which accounts for all the evidence? Where did the shot come from?
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy report says the entry wound in the back of the head was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP. The location endorsed by the HSCA is 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question "what does a couple of inches difference of the location" in the two report matter, the first was accomplished by 3 doctors working through the night without sleep over a +/- 10 hour period, the second was accomplished by a panel over months of studying. I don't see the difference of the original report is misleading, or in error as you think.

Secondly did the HSCA report include any other information but a wound to the back and a wound in the head? Both shots coming from behind and above the President.

There were NOT two shots to the head by any official report.
 
MicahJava said:
Lynn Mangan, accomplished RFK Assassination researcher, has recently passed away. This was in February, but most who are interested in this stuff are just learning about it.
Click to expand...

Would she have been able to answer the questions you keep scurrying away from?
 
MicahJava said:
They said that the area around the large defect had commuted fractures that caused pieces of skull to separate just by moving the scalp around, and that those areas just crumbled in their hands very easily, such that virtually no cutting of the bone was necessary.

And do you think the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect was just impervious to this?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to establish the wound was in the cowlick instead of just assuming it.

I first pointed out the issue to you back in September of last year. You have yet to address the issue.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11488661&postcount=1383

Originally Posted by MicahJava
What are the odds that the bullet would just happen to pierce right where the scalp parts the hair?
Click to expand...
Originally posted by HSienzant
Hilarious. Seriously. This argument is HILARIOUS.

You think they should have done a comb-over to appeal to JFK's vanity?

You appear to think the autopsists wouldn't part the hair to make the wound more visible to the photographer for the historical record. Rather, you're making the assumption that the bullet hit exactly where JFK normally parted his hair. That's your assumption, so we'll await your evidence that establishes your assumption. Go ahead, we'll wait...

While you're at it, establish that's the normal cowlick area of JFK's head, and not the result of a pathologist combing the hair out of the way to make the wound more visible.

What's that? You're *assuming* that's the cowlick area?
Click to expand...

Hank
 
The HSCA coined the term "cowlick" in the context of referencing the red spot on the BOH photographs and the depressed fracture area on the X-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP. The hair is probably parted in those photographs. The hair is seen parted in a slightly different way in the back wound photographs.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The HSCA coined the term "cowlick" in the context of referencing the red spot on the BOH photographs and the depressed fracture area on the X-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP. The hair is probably parted in those photographs. The hair is seen parted in a slightly different way in the back wound photographs.
Click to expand...

What does that mean in the context of your comprehensive theory concerning where the bullet came from? Assuming you don't run away from answering, of course.
 
MicahJava said:
Yes, it would be bigger than five inches. Can't preserve the hypothetical cowlick entry hole in the intact skull, though.
Click to expand...

"Intact Skull" is nonsense.

There was no intact skull. We established that by quoting Humes and Finck's earliest statements.

Remember providing this quote:

MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck's 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"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.
...
The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

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...

So according to Finck, there was an observable bullet wound on the back of the scalp that corresponded to the bullet wound in the skull bone that was attached to it. He noted the cranial vault had a comminuted fracture, and that the scalp was lacerated. Look up any words you don't understand.

Humes said essentially the same thing:
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.

There was no intact skull. That's simply a strawman argument of yours. I'm not arguing for an intact skull, and Finck and Humes didn't mention one either.

We have a skull extensively fractured, being held together largely if not solely by still being attached to the scalp.

So the back of the head wound was seen, on both the outside of the scalp, and the inside of the skull. And those pieces must have been still connected, because Finck says the two wounds were "corresponding" to each other.

Learn to accept the things you cannot change.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The HSCA coined the term "cowlick" in the context of referencing the red spot on the BOH photographs and the depressed fracture area on the X-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Click to expand...

You mean the group you previously claimed were a bunch of shills in the preceding thread here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11499648#post11499648

Specifically, when you said this: "The people who handled the body are more important than panels of shills made to play cleanup."

Sorry, no, you don't get to pick and choose the conclusions you like after dismissing the panel as a group that was bought and paid for.

You need to establish that 'cowlick' claim independent of the panel whose judgment you already questioned and claimed was worthless.



MicahJava said:
The hair is probably parted in those photographs.
Click to expand...

It's undoubtedly parted. The question is, is it a natural part (i.e. JFK's cowlick) or a 'unnatural' part made deliberately by the pathologists to expose the wound? You've previously come down on the side of a natural part (you've called it a 'cowlick wound' or 'cowlick red spot' extensively, but you've never established that). I've asked you to establish it.

I did point out in the past the reasons to believe it was a deliberate part to expose the wound to the autopsy photographer:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11528666#post11528666

I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it

That one, the one that couldn't possibly be a wound entry location (according to you).



MicahJava said:
The hair is seen parted in a slightly different way in the back wound photographs.
Click to expand...

So AT BEST, only one of those can be the natural 'cowlick' part. At least one of those is an unnatural part either made incidentally during the handling of the body or where the hair is deliberately parted to better expose the area where the HSCA forensic panel put the wound, right?

Or, putting it another way, if the back wound photograph came first, that image is the natural part or the result of the handling of the body in Bethesda or Parkland, and the photos of the head made next show it after a deliberate change was made to expose that area? Or vice-versa -- the hair was deliberately exposed if the head image was made first, and then the hair got 'mussed up' in positioning the body for the photography of the back wound?

Which is it?

Either way, there's scant evidence - other than the part itself (which could be deliberate and not a natural part) - that this wound is in the cowlick proper.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Back in September of 2016, Micah Java claimed this to support his contentions about the supposed lower head wound near the EOP:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11497940#post11497940

(from post of MicahJava) "If there was no hole right by the EOP, then why was the cerebellum slightly damaged and the brain stem completely severed?"
Click to expand...



He subsequently admitted the cerebellum could be damaged by a bullet passing within four inches of it due to the extensive damage a bullet can cause to surrounding tissue, especially after I posted this:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11500293&postcount=1513
(from post of HSienzant) "Because a bullet doesn't have to strike the cerebellum to damage it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tex378zgV1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g

Note the track of the bullet, note the disruption throughout the gelatin.

Now imagine this is a brain."
Click to expand...



In response to that, he admitted this was a possible solution here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11500339&postcount=1515
(from post of MicahJava) "I don't know, that's one hypothetical."
Click to expand...



And he attempted to support his claim about the brain stem being severed by a bullet by quoting extensively from Dr. Humes testimony in this post:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11498450&postcount=1452

But he somehow failed to notice that Dr. Humes denied the brain stem was severed by a bullet and Humes admitted he had to cut it himself in the very testimony he provided:

(from post of MicahJava) Gunn: When you removed the brain, which part of the brain did you cut in order to remove it?
Humes: The brain stem.
...
Gunn: Was the brainstem already disconnected at the time that you--
Humes: No, it was not disconnected.
Click to expand...



And then, to top it all off, he also quoted in that same post from the HSCA Forensic Panel to the extent that the cerebellum did NOT show damage to be expected if a bullet had struck near the External Occipital Protuberance (EOP):
(from post of MicahJava) "The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report."
Click to expand...


It's almost like he's intent on destroying his own arguments from within, quoting Humes saying he cut the brainstem, and quoting the HSCA saying the damage to the cerebellum was not as expected if the bullet had struck where MicahJava places it.

Although both claims in the initial post by MicahJava quoted above were eventually proven to be false, and he originally offered both those claims to support his contention about the lower head wound, the fact that his contentions were established beyond a doubt to be wrong in this specific instance (and in many others as well, too numerous to mention now) apparently did not affect his conclusions whatsoever. He is still here, still arguing that everyone but him is wrong about the location of that wound.

Even when his arguments are shown to be wrong.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
On the "pieces of bone stuck to the scalp" thing:

It doesn't matter either way, this is a red herring and does not detract from the brain removal problem besides maybe proposing an explanation for a frontal view of the skull photographs.
Click to expand...

You want to dismiss the explanation from the autopsy doctors because it destroys your entire argument about the defect in the skull being too small to get the brain out. Please explain how this is a red herring (change of subject). It's directly pertinent to the arguments you're advancing that Finck could not have seen the entry wound on the skull once the brain was removed. On the contrary, it explains exactly how that happened.



MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck always said he could view the entry hole in the intact, empty skull.
Click to expand...

No, he said he could locate the entry wound in the rear of the head in the scalp, and the corresponding entry wound in the bone underneath the scalp. He didn't say the skull was intact. He said it was extensively fractured, describing it as a comminuted fracture of the cranial vault. Did you forget what you posted?

MicahJava said:
This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:
Dr. Finck's 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"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.
...
The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

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...



MicahJava said:
"Finck never indicated that he could only see it when other previously separated skull fragments were pieced together,
Click to expand...

You quote Boswell, another of the three autopsy doctors, saying that below.
Right here: "When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that."

Boswell noted "there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp" in "these parts back here" that were "detached from the remainder of the skull".

That's exactly where Finck would see the entry wound in the back of the head in the scalp, and were he would see the corresponding entry wound in the skull on the other side.


MicahJava said:
...nor did he [Finck] say anything similar about pieces of fractured skull stuck to the scalp.
Click to expand...

I don't need to quote Finck. You were kind enough to quote Boswell saying exactly that. Boswell noted "there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp" in "these parts back here" that were "detached from the remainder of the skull".

Thanks again.

But I have to ask, is it your intention to destroy your own points by quoting the autopsy doctors saying the precise opposite of your argument? You do this repeatedly.


MicahJava said:
However, we do have witness evidence from Boswell to the ARRB in 1996 that he saw something like this, at least in the process of taking some of the photographs.

Q. With respect to the photographs, was anything done to the skull or to the hair to prepare it for the photographs? For example, was the hair cleaned at all? Was the hair parted in any way or any skull fragments put in before the photographs were taken?

A. Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp was pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain.

Q. Just so I'm clear--and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better illustrate either wound of entry or exit?

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.

Q. Okay. Was the hair cleaned in any way for purposes of the photographs?

A. No, I don't think so. There was not a lot of blood, as I remember, and I think he had been pretty well cleaned up in the operating--in the emergency room. And I don't think we had to do much in the way of cleansing before we took photographs.

...

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated, but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here probably reflect that.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Boswell_2-26-96.pdf
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks again. Really, profuse thanks.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom