Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
This is the HSCA medical panel's prevailing interpretation of the open-cranium photographs, right?

{photos deleted}

What's wrong with this picture? The hole is too small to fit a brain through.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, who says that and where? Did Humes claim that? Finck? Boswell? Riley? Cummings? Any member of the Clark or HSCA panel have a problem with this photo? Or is this entirely your lay-person's interpretation of the photo, with no medical training whatsoever behind it? Who claimed the brain was too small to fit through the hole?


MicahJava said:
There's no way that could work unlesss you want to say they somehow put skull fragments back together before taking the picture.
Click to expand...

Or a flap of scalp with multiple skull fragments stuck to it was pulled back to excise the brain, then flipped back over to take the photos. Or the brain was removed from the head through the hole you insist, but never attempt to prove, was too small.

MicahJava said:
The open-cranium photographs must show something else.
Click to expand...

What are you insisting they must show, and what experts agree with your assessment? Quote them and provide links to their full testimony.



MicahJava said:
Can I get a straight answer from everybody acknowledging this?
Click to expand...

We've all acknowledged you see a problem that no medical professional who studied the extant autopsy materials has ever talked about. There are two solutions to this:

(a) You are brilliant and all the medical professionals with all their medical training really can't hold a candle to your brilliance, or
(b) You don't know what you're talking about.

I know you badly want the solution to be (a), but the evidence is on the side of (b).

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Where does he say that? Quote him saying that.... in context.
Provide a link to his full statement.

He says that? Or that's YOU creatively re-interpreting his statement? If he said it, quote him saying it.

Who says that? Riley? Quote him. In context.

You don't get to just summarize his claims. We've seen how you've summarized claims in the past - they are all your inventive re-interpretation of the testimony.

Hank
Click to expand...

"They" is referring to the HSCA, not Joe Riley.
 
Dr. Finck specifically denied more than once that the entry crater he saw was separated from the intact, empty skull in any way. The entry hole was not on a piece of separated skull stuck to the scalp or pieced back in some other way. He made that clear in his report to General Bloomberg but made it even more clear in subsequent statements.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
What evidence?

You mean that contradictory (sometimes SELF-contradictory, as you yourself pointed out) array of faulty recollections that you cited, most of them from 15 or 33 years after the fact?

We already noted what you established there. It isn't what you think.

Hank
Click to expand...

What is your explanation for the 11/29/1963 Barnum diary? Because I think that may be a contender for the best evidence for the autopsy doctors not being ignorant of the throat wound on the night of the autopsy ("night" including some hours after midnight 11/23).
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck specifically denied more than once that the entry crater he saw was separated from the intact, empty skull in any way. The entry hole was not on a piece of separated skull stuck to the scalp or pieced back in some other way. He made that clear in his report to General Bloomberg but made it even more clear in subsequent statements.
Click to expand...

Embellishment is a common human behavior.

The old line "The older I get, the better I was" comes to mind.
 
BStrong said:
Embellishment is a common human behavior.

The old line "The older I get, the better I was" comes to mind.
Click to expand...

That's where you're wrong. Some here have disingenuously quoted Finck when he said "I don't remember" on some detail or "I would rather refer to some earlier materials on that". That's a sign of a good witness. This guy had a job to do and one of his jobs that night was to pay attention and memorize. But in later years he knew to play it safe when it came to human memory. And I can't recall any time Dr. Finck contradicted himself, even on some small detail.

And like I said, he made it clear exactly what he was talking about in his report to General Bloomberg written 13 months after JFK's death/autopsy. He said basically the same thing in his earlier Warren Commission testimony, but there a Lone Nutter could maybe try getting away with arguing that when he says "I saw the entry on the inside of the skull" he means the inner surface of a previously-removed portion of skull bone. But he subsequently made himself even clearer.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
"They" is referring to the HSCA, not Joe Riley.
Click to expand...

Not a response. You said Riley called the HSCA conclusions a joke. I asked you to cite for that response, and several others. You cite for nothing, just clarify one part of your claim that was unclear.

Quote these claims, in context. Provide links to verifiable source documents.

MicahJava said:
As neuropathologist Joseph N. Riley points out, the HSCA-endorsed interpretations of the open-cranium photographs are a joke. They literally have the brain being removed through a five-inch skull cavity, small enough to see the alleged parietal entry and the alleged frontal exit visible in the same photograph.
Click to expand...

I'm betting you can't.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck specifically denied more than once that the entry crater he saw was separated from the intact, empty skull in any way. The entry hole was not on a piece of separated skull stuck to the scalp or pieced back in some other way.
Click to expand...

He was quite clear that the external scalp showed a entry wound that corresponded to the interior portion of the skull that showed the same entry wound, and this interior skull entry wound showed beveling that allowed him to determine it was an entry wound, as opposed to an exit.

He was also quite clear that once the scalp was separated from the skull bone, he could also see the external portion of that entry wound on the skull.

He was also quite clear that the skull contained a series of massive fracture radiating outward from both the entry wound in the rear of the skull and the exit wound on the top right side of the skull. Under no conditions can you call that an "intact" skull. It was only "intact" in the sense that a majority of the pieces were still there, adhering to the scalp.

But the skull had lost all rigidity, as it was a mass of large and small pieces adhering to the scalp. That's why it was possible to excise the brain by just cutting the scalp down to the ears on both sides of the head. There was no integrity to the skull, and those cuts were sufficient to expose the brain sufficiently to remove it.


MicahJava said:
He made that clear in his report to General Bloomberg but made it even more clear in subsequent statements.
Click to expand...

His statements make it absolutely clear you're barking up the wrong tree.


Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
What's wrong with this picture? The hole is too small to fit a brain through. There's no way that could work unlesss you want to say they somehow put skull fragments back together before taking the picture.
Click to expand...

Since we've already posted the the brain was removed by traditional cutting on the left side of the skull, and carefully working around the shattered right side about a dozen times, including links to testimony by Humes and Fink it is clear you're desperate or just dense.

What do the rest of the photographs show? Oh, that's right, you don't have a clue because you haven't seen them. The photo you keep posting is from an in-process autopsy meant to be used in conjunction with the total of the photographic, x-ray, and forensic evidence. Only a moron would try to draw conclusions from a single picture.

The open-cranium photographs must show something else. Can I get a straight answer from everybody acknowledging this?
Click to expand...

Hard to say, some idiot circled a pair of shadows made by the camera's flash. (You forget, I used to hunt ghosts, I can spot a guy matrixing a mile away).:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
What is your explanation for the 11/29/1963 Barnum diary? Because I think that may be a contender for the best evidence for the autopsy doctors not being ignorant of the throat wound on the night of the autopsy ("night" including some hours after midnight 11/23).
Click to expand...

Why? Where does Barnum relate that the autopsy doctors were told anything about the throat wound?

You cite a Lifton report of the notation from Barnum's personal report of 11/29/63. It reads, in part: "We then proceeded to take the casket into the hospital in an orderly fashion. [Dr. Burkley, said, regarding the shots that hit JFK that] "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat".

There's more than a few problems with this.

(a) It's unclear who Burkley related this to, but it was apparently to Barnum, as he reports it. It's not clear Burkley ever reported this to the autopsy doctors.

(b) It's hearsay. There are reasons most hearsay (with certain clearly defined exceptions) is not allowed to be referenced in court.

(c) You yourself have noted problems with what Barnum supposedly heard from Burkley of JFK's wounds. You concentrated on the head wound, ignoring the problems with the throat wound, finding fault with Barnum's description of the head wound, and noting how 'garbled' and 'incoherent' his description of that wound was: "But then Barnum had to throw in "The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out". "This shot not coming out"? That sounds like a garbled reference to the original theory on the back wound, a short shot with the bullet squeezing out of it's own entry wound. Could this be a garbled reference to the mythical EOP-throat connection as attested by Lipsey? Nobody can know. Despite the incoherence, this is some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound earlier than claimed."

(d) More importantly, it's also not clear how Burkley knew BEFORE THE AUTOPSY the throat wound was an exit wound. You are reminded that the doctors at Parkland Hospital never turned JFK over, never observed either small entry wound in the upper back* or in the head, and during and after their treatment they were aware of only two wounds, one in the throat which they perceived as an entry and the large exit wound in the head. Burkley himself didn't treat the President and didn't know any more about the wounds at that time than the Parkland doctors. At Parkland, JFK was wrapped in sheets and put into a casket from Lawlor Funeral Home, transported to Air Force One and flown to Washington, where the casket was taken to Bethesda for the autopsy. There's no evidence the casket was ever opened between Parkland and Bethesda, or that JFK was examined by Burkley (or anyone else) between Parkland and Bethesda.

So how did Burkley know anything about the back (upper neck) wound and claim it exited the throat to tell anyone about that BEFORE THE AUTOPSY?

He could not have. This sounds like something Barnum learned after the autopsy was completed (perhaps from the newspapers in the days following the assassination) and put into his report. Or perhaps Burkley mentioned the throat wound and the large head wound, and Barnum misheard and/or misunderstood (this is hearsay Barnum is reporting, after all).

Can you explain how Burkley knew what he supposedly told Barnum before the autopsy?

While you're all gungho over this mention on 11/29/63 from a personal report of Barnum, the story as related makes no sense and could not have happened as Barnum tells it. Burkley simply didn't have the knowledge at that time that Barnum imputes to him.

Do you understand the problem here? Do you have an explanation for the problem?

Or do you intend to just ignore the problem and pretend Barnum's reference is "some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound", despite you yourself acknowledging how 'garbled' and 'incoherent' Barnum's report was?

Hank


____________
* One of JFK's treating physicians, Dr. Carrico of Parkland Hospital testified:
Mr. SPECTER - You said you felt the President's back?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe in more detail just what the feeling of the back involved at that time?
Dr. CARRICO - Without taking the time to roll him over and look or to wash off the blood and debris, and while his coat and shirt were still on his arms I just placed my hands at about his beltline or a little above and by slowly moving my hands upward detected that there was no large violation of the pleural cavity.
Mr. SPECTER - Why did you not take the time to turn him over?
Dr. CARRICO - This man was in obvious extreme distress and any more thorough inspection would have involved several minutes-well, several--considerable time which at this Juncture was not available. A thorough inspection would have involved washing and cleansing the back, and this is not practical in treating an acutely injured patient. You have to determine which things, which are immediately life threatening and cope with them, before attempting to evaluate the full extent of the injuries.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever have occasion to look at the President's back?
Dr. CARRICO - No, sir. Before well, in trying to treat an acutely injured patient, you have to establish an airway, adequate ventilation and, you have to establish adequate circulation. Before this was accomplished the President's cardiac activity had ceased and closed cardiac massage was instituted, which made it impossible to inspect his back.
Mr. SPECTER - Was any effort made to inspect the President's back after he had expired?
Dr. CARRICO - No, sir.
...
Mr. SPECTER - On the examination of the President's back which you described that you performed, did you note any bleeding from the back?
Dr. CARRICO - There was considerable blood on the cart and on his back. could not tell if this came from his back or had fallen down from the head injury There was also some cerebral tissue there.
Mr. SPECTER - What did your examination by feeling disclose with respect whether he had any back wound?
Dr. CARRICO - I did not feel any. Now, this certainly wouldn't detect a small bullet entrance. All this examination is designed to do is to establish the fact that there is no gross injury to the chest posteriorly.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that a routine type of examination, to ascertain whether there is a gross injury to the chest posteriorly?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
He was quite clear that the external scalp showed a entry wound that corresponded to the interior portion of the skull that showed the same entry wound, and this interior skull entry wound showed beveling that allowed him to determine it was an entry wound, as opposed to an exit.

He was also quite clear that once the scalp was separated from the skull bone, he could also see the external portion of that entry wound on the skull.
Click to expand...

Yes? The hole was both devoid of scalp and skull. Obviously. And, as I've pointed out, some statements indicate that they made a special incision in the scalp low in the head to expose the entry in the skull, besides the earlier larger incision to reflect the scalp.

He was also quite clear that the skull contained a series of massive fracture radiating outward from both the entry wound in the rear of the skull and the exit wound on the top right side of the skull.
Click to expand...

Where does Finck say there were complete fractures radiating from the entry wound? I can't find that.

Under no conditions can you call that an "intact" skull. It was only "intact" in the sense that a majority of the pieces were still there, adhering to the scalp.
Click to expand...

Oh look, you're confused about what plain English means. Or trying to confuse others.

But the skull had lost all rigidity, as it was a mass of large and small pieces adhering to the scalp. That's why it was possible to excise the brain by just cutting the scalp down to the ears on both sides of the head. There was no integrity to the skull, and those cuts were sufficient to expose the brain sufficiently to remove it.
Click to expand...

You are saying the entry (hypothetically in the cowlick) was part of a previously-separated piece of skull when Finck examined it. Finck said the exact opposite. He ALWAYS said it was a perforation in the occipital bone, which was not disturbed when the skull cavity was enlarged.

And you do realize that the doctors also specifically said that they removed loose pieces of skull that separated in their hands, or stuck to the scalp, or to the dura matter or fell into the head cavity, right? Because that's the professional thing to do in that situation. You take off the loose pieces of the President's skull and place them in a tray for safe keeping.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Why? Where does Barnum relate that the autopsy doctors were told anything about the throat wound?

You cite a Lifton report of the notation from Barnum's personal report of 11/29/63. It reads, in part: "We then proceeded to take the casket into the hospital in an orderly fashion. [Dr. Burkley, said, regarding the shots that hit JFK that] "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat".

There's more than a few problems with this.

(a) It's unclear who Burkley related this to, but it was apparently to Barnum, as he reports it. It's not clear Burkley ever reported this to the autopsy doctors.

(b) It's hearsay. There are reasons most hearsay (with certain clearly defined exceptions) is not allowed to be referenced in court.

(c) You yourself have noted problems with what Barnum supposedly heard from Burkley of JFK's wounds. You concentrated on the head wound, ignoring the problems with the throat wound, finding fault with Barnum's description of the head wound, and noting how 'garbled' and 'incoherent' his description of that wound was: "But then Barnum had to throw in "The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out". "This shot not coming out"? That sounds like a garbled reference to the original theory on the back wound, a short shot with the bullet squeezing out of it's own entry wound. Could this be a garbled reference to the mythical EOP-throat connection as attested by Lipsey? Nobody can know. Despite the incoherence, this is some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound earlier than claimed."

(d) More importantly, it's also not clear how Burkley knew BEFORE THE AUTOPSY the throat wound was an exit wound. You are reminded that the doctors at Parkland Hospital never turned JFK over, never observed either small entry wound in the upper back* or in the head, and during and after their treatment they were aware of only two wounds, one in the throat which they perceived as an entry and the large exit wound in the head. Burkley himself didn't treat the President and didn't know any more about the wounds at that time than the Parkland doctors. At Parkland, JFK was wrapped in sheets and put into a casket from Lawlor Funeral Home, transported to Air Force One and flown to Washington, where the casket was taken to Bethesda for the autopsy. There's no evidence the casket was ever opened between Parkland and Bethesda, or that JFK was examined by Burkley (or anyone else) between Parkland and Bethesda.

So how did Burkley know anything about the back (upper neck) wound and claim it exited the throat to tell anyone about that BEFORE THE AUTOPSY?

He could not have. This sounds like something Barnum learned after the autopsy was completed (perhaps from the newspapers in the days following the assassination) and put into his report. Or perhaps Burkley mentioned the throat wound and the large head wound, and Barnum misheard and/or misunderstood (this is hearsay Barnum is reporting, after all).

Can you explain how Burkley knew what he supposedly told Barnum before the autopsy?

While you're all gungho over this mention on 11/29/63 from a personal report of Barnum, the story as related makes no sense and could not have happened as Barnum tells it. Burkley simply didn't have the knowledge at that time that Barnum imputes to him.

Do you understand the problem here? Do you have an explanation for the problem?

Or do you intend to just ignore the problem and pretend Barnum's reference is "some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound", despite you yourself acknowledging how 'garbled' and 'incoherent' Barnum's report was?

Hank


____________
* One of JFK's treating physicians, Dr. Carrico of Parkland Hospital testified:
Mr. SPECTER - You said you felt the President's back?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe in more detail just what the feeling of the back involved at that time?
Dr. CARRICO - Without taking the time to roll him over and look or to wash off the blood and debris, and while his coat and shirt were still on his arms I just placed my hands at about his beltline or a little above and by slowly moving my hands upward detected that there was no large violation of the pleural cavity.
Mr. SPECTER - Why did you not take the time to turn him over?
Dr. CARRICO - This man was in obvious extreme distress and any more thorough inspection would have involved several minutes-well, several--considerable time which at this Juncture was not available. A thorough inspection would have involved washing and cleansing the back, and this is not practical in treating an acutely injured patient. You have to determine which things, which are immediately life threatening and cope with them, before attempting to evaluate the full extent of the injuries.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you ever have occasion to look at the President's back?
Dr. CARRICO - No, sir. Before well, in trying to treat an acutely injured patient, you have to establish an airway, adequate ventilation and, you have to establish adequate circulation. Before this was accomplished the President's cardiac activity had ceased and closed cardiac massage was instituted, which made it impossible to inspect his back.
Mr. SPECTER - Was any effort made to inspect the President's back after he had expired?
Dr. CARRICO - No, sir.
...
Mr. SPECTER - On the examination of the President's back which you described that you performed, did you note any bleeding from the back?
Dr. CARRICO - There was considerable blood on the cart and on his back. could not tell if this came from his back or had fallen down from the head injury There was also some cerebral tissue there.
Mr. SPECTER - What did your examination by feeling disclose with respect whether he had any back wound?
Dr. CARRICO - I did not feel any. Now, this certainly wouldn't detect a small bullet entrance. All this examination is designed to do is to establish the fact that there is no gross injury to the chest posteriorly.
Mr. SPECTER - Is that a routine type of examination, to ascertain whether there is a gross injury to the chest posteriorly?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir.
Click to expand...

Barnum's report does not specifically say that Burkley told him that before the autopsy. The "garbled language" is only when Barnum describes the concluded shooting scenario, but it does say that the throat wound was concluded to be an exit.
 
Axxman300 said:
Since we've already posted the the brain was removed by traditional cutting on the left side of the skull, and carefully working around the shattered right side about a dozen times, including links to testimony by Humes and Fink it is clear you're desperate or just dense.
Click to expand...

In order to properly remove a brain, you must:

1. Have a skull cavity large enough to fit the entire brain through.

2. To get your fingers under the temporal lobe(s).

3. To sever the spinal cord.

4. To incise the Cerebellar tentorium (the dura mater covering the cerebellum).

What do the rest of the photographs show? Oh, that's right, you don't have a clue because you haven't seen them. The photo you keep posting is from an in-process autopsy meant to be used in conjunction with the total of the photographic, x-ray, and forensic evidence. Only a moron would try to draw conclusions from a single picture.
Click to expand...

The autopsy photographs leaked to the public are all of the "views" in the full collection of autopsy photographs. The full collection contains the same views, but taken at slightly different positions or in black&white/color.

See here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=594#relPageId=6&tab=page

Hard to say, some idiot circled a pair of shadows made by the camera's flash. (You forget, I used to hunt ghosts, I can spot a guy matrixing a mile away).:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Those circles indicate what the HSCA thought the open-cranium photographs show. That cannot be the correct interpretation unless they somehow put previously-removed skull fragments back together (which nobody said they did).
 
MicahJava said:
In order to properly remove a brain, you must:

1. Have a skull cavity large enough to fit the entire brain through.

2. To get your fingers under the temporal lobe(s).

3. To sever the spinal cord.

4. To incise the Cerebellar tentorium (the dura mater covering the cerebellum).
Click to expand...

And that's what Humes did. He is on the record using the bone saw to open the intact portion of the skull cap.

So it's a non-issue if you learn to read.

The autopsy photographs leaked to the public are all of the "views" in the full collection of autopsy photographs. The full collection contains the same views, but taken at slightly different positions or in black&white/color.
Click to expand...

The link lists 49 photos. The public has only seen eight or nine. There is only one of the empty skull cavity.


Those circles indicate what the HSCA thought the open-cranium photographs show. That cannot be the correct interpretation unless they somehow put previously-removed skull fragments back together (which nobody said they did).
Click to expand...

Nobody has claimed they didn't...oh wait, that's right, they put the skull back together and patched it up for the funeral. Darn Catholics ruin another conspiracy theory. So take a wild guess as to at what point the photo was taken.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
And that's what Humes did. He is on the record using the bone saw to open the intact portion of the skull cap.

So it's a non-issue if you learn to read.
Click to expand...

He has said that they had to do barely any sawing to enlarge the skull cavity, because the area around the large defect was so damaged that pieces of the skull would naturally come off. The "cowlick" area of the skull would have to be amoung the areas separated during this. The hypothetical cowlick entry wound would be right beside the large defect, as shown in the HSCA drawings.

The link lists 49 photos. The public has only seen eight or nine. There is only one of the empty skull cavity.
Click to expand...

I don't consider x-rays to be "autopsy photographs". All of the "views" from the full autopsy photograph collection have been leaked to the public, the full collection only has some of the same views but with the camera moved slightly.

And we actually have two photographs of the same "view" of the open cranium. You can see both images as a stereoscopic animated GIF on Pat Speer's website at the bottom of this page:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto

The other version just has a streak of light obscuring some of the image.

Nobody has claimed they didn't...oh wait, that's right, they put the skull back together and patched it up for the funeral. Darn Catholics ruin another conspiracy theory. So take a wild guess as to at what point the photo was taken.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

That goes against every autopsy formality, every witness, I can't believe what I'm reading. The open-cranium photographs do not show the skull being reconstructed for the funeral. And after reconstruction, the body ended up having a hole in the occipital area about the size of a small orange. Such a failure of an idea you tried there.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
And that's what Humes did. He is on the record using the bone saw to open the intact portion of the skull cap.

So it's a non-issue if you learn to read.
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
He has said that they had to do barely any sawing to enlarge the skull cavity, because the area around the large defect was so damaged that pieces of the skull would naturally come off. The "cowlick" area of the skull would have to be amoung the areas separated during this. The hypothetical cowlick entry wound would be right beside the large defect, as shown in the HSCA drawings.



....
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to nit-pick statements. Both of you have indicated a bone saw was used. Axxman300's comment "a non-issue" is appropriate. Quit beating a dead horse.
 
MicahJava said:
He has said that they had to do barely any sawing to enlarge the skull cavity...
Click to expand...

Sawing is sawing the last time I looked.


I don't consider x-rays to be "autopsy photographs".
Click to expand...

Good, because the X-rays are separate, and there are between 9 and 14 of them. We've seen 3.


All of the "views" from the full autopsy photograph collection have been leaked to the public, the full collection only has some of the same views but with the camera moved slightly.
Click to expand...

This a lie.

First, the pictures that have leaked are not the full-color 35mm pictures, but a lower resolution B&W B-roll of film taken along side the official photographs. Same is true with the few graphic color shots.

You have not seen the official photos. For that matter neither I nor any other layman has seen them.

You do not have enough visual information to draw any logical conclusions other than there was extensive damage to JFK's head from a powerful missile.



That goes against every autopsy formality, every witness, I can't believe what I'm reading. The open-cranium photographs do not show the skull being reconstructed for the funeral.
Click to expand...

Really? Because you can see the scalp had already incised, and you don't do that UNLESS YOU'VE SAWED OPEN THE SKULL, and since the brain has been removed in the picture you can assume this is toward the end of the autopsy...well normal people can assume, I can't speak for you... And Humes discussed patching the head back together as best as he could before turning the body over the the family.

So we have visual evidence - that you keep posting - showing that the skull was at least partially sawed open, and we have the statement of Dr. Humes.

What we don't have is evidence of a second GSW to the head.
 
For the grownups in the room, an announcement from the National Archives:

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2017/nr17-68

Media Alert ·
Monday, July 24, 2017

Washington, DC

Today at 8 a.m., the National Archives released a group of documents (the first of several expected releases), along with 17 audio files, previously withheld in accordance with the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

They're starting to pump them out...

Highlights of this release include 17 audio files of interviews of Yuri Nosenko, a KGB officer who defected to the United States in January 1964. Nosenko claimed to have been the officer in charge of the KGB file on Lee Harvey Oswald during Oswald’s time in the Soviet Union. The interviews were conducted in January, February, and July of 1964.

So, if you're tired of the kiddie pool, there is some interesting history seeing the light of day.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
For the grownups in the room, an announcement from the National Archives:

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2017/nr17-68

Media Alert ·
Monday, July 24, 2017

Washington, DC

Today at 8 a.m., the National Archives released a group of documents (the first of several expected releases), along with 17 audio files, previously withheld in accordance with the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

They're starting to pump them out...

Highlights of this release include 17 audio files of interviews of Yuri Nosenko, a KGB officer who defected to the United States in January 1964. Nosenko claimed to have been the officer in charge of the KGB file on Lee Harvey Oswald during Oswald’s time in the Soviet Union. The interviews were conducted in January, February, and July of 1964.

So, if you're tired of the kiddie pool, there is some interesting history seeing the light of day.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

For those who don't know, some in the CIA thought Nosenko was a plant, sent by Russian to mislead us. Others felt he was a lower-level officer than he claimed, and he inflated his status to make himself more likely to be accepted by the US. Still others felt he was just what he said he was. He eventually was given a new identity and relocated in the US.

Hank
 
Axxman300 said:
For the grownups in the room, an announcement from the National Archives:

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2017/nr17-68

Media Alert ·
Monday, July 24, 2017

Washington, DC

Today at 8 a.m., the National Archives released a group of documents (the first of several expected releases), along with 17 audio files, previously withheld in accordance with the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

They're starting to pump them out...

Highlights of this release include 17 audio files of interviews of Yuri Nosenko, a KGB officer who defected to the United States in January 1964. Nosenko claimed to have been the officer in charge of the KGB file on Lee Harvey Oswald during Oswald’s time in the Soviet Union. The interviews were conducted in January, February, and July of 1964.

So, if you're tired of the kiddie pool, there is some interesting history seeing the light of day.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Interesting. It's likely to shoot more holes in a lot of conspiracy theories, but I'm sure the conspiracy crowd will also find lots of ways to cherry-pick the information to support new conspiracy theories, and the contradictions between those and the old conspiracy theories will be ignored.
 
CORed said:
Interesting. It's likely to shoot more holes in a lot of conspiracy theories, but I'm sure the conspiracy crowd will also find lots of ways to cherry-pick the information to support new conspiracy theories, and the contradictions between those and the old conspiracy theories will be ignored.
Click to expand...

It's going to be a treasure trove of out-of-context claims which will reveal all (except who did it and how), coming to a self-publisher near you soon!

Hank
 
CORed said:
Interesting. It's likely to shoot more holes in a lot of conspiracy theories, but I'm sure the conspiracy crowd will also find lots of ways to cherry-pick the information to support new conspiracy theories, and the contradictions between those and the old conspiracy theories will be ignored.
Click to expand...

A "conspiracy of the gaps". :D
 
bknight said:
Why do you continue to nit-pick statements. Both of you have indicated a bone saw was used. Axxman300's comment "a non-issue" is appropriate. Quit beating a dead horse.
Click to expand...

If you want to posit an entry wound in the cowlick, 4+ inches above the external occipital protuberance, then these details are very important. Everything can be easily explained by a lower wound, only slightly above the external occipital protuberance.
 
Axxman300 said:
Good, because the X-rays are separate, and there are between 9 and 14 of them. We've seen 3.




This a lie.

First, the pictures that have leaked are not the full-color 35mm pictures, but a lower resolution B&W B-roll of film taken along side the official photographs. Same is true with the few graphic color shots.

You have not seen the official photos. For that matter neither I nor any other layman has seen them.


You do not have enough visual information to draw any logical conclusions other than there was extensive damage to JFK's head from a powerful missile.
Click to expand...

What do the rest of the pictures show? Enough people have seen them, catalogued them, and discussed them for you to give a straight answer.

Really? Because you can see the scalp had already incised, and you don't do that UNLESS YOU'VE SAWED OPEN THE SKULL, and since the brain has been removed in the picture you can assume this is toward the end of the autopsy...well normal people can assume, I can't speak for you...
Click to expand...

Um, can you rephrase that? You're supposed to incise the scalp first, then peel it back, then separate enough of the skull to reach the brain, then you work on the brain. Dr. Finck has described ordering photographs of the empty cranium to be taken a little after he arrived. So not "during the end of the autopsy".

And Humes discussed patching the head back together as best as he could before turning the body over the the family.

So we have visual evidence - that you keep posting - showing that the skull was at least partially sawed open, and we have the statement of Dr. Humes.

What we don't have is evidence of a second GSW to the head.
Click to expand...

Turning the body over to... the family? No, Kennedy's rotting corpse was not given to the family in a meat bag, it was given to Gawler's funeral home immediately after the autopsy. They were responsible for the cosmetic procedures, although Humes stuck around Bethesda hospital more or less supervising everything.
 
MicahJava said:
If you want to posit an entry wound in the cowlick, 4+ inches above the external occipital protuberance, then these details are very important. Everything can be easily explained by a lower wound, only slightly above the external occipital protuberance.
Click to expand...

Where did the lower shot come from?
 
MicahJava said:
What do the rest of the pictures show? ....
Click to expand...

A bunch of irrelevant **** done ad nauseam. No resets! NOT TODAY!

Kennedy is dead. The shots have been fired. The motorcade is speeding away. The shooter(s) suddenly realize that they need to get the **** out of there.


Where's Oswald at this point in time?
 
I understand that Harold Rydberg, forensic artist of the Warren Commission drawings directed by Dr. Humes, has recently passed away.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24104-harold-skip-rydberg/

These are his 1964 drawings, showing the low location for the small head wound, slightly above the external occipital protuberance:

ch1YkZ1.png
 
MicahJava said:
What do the rest of the pictures show? Enough people have seen them, catalogued them, and discussed them for you to give a straight answer.
Click to expand...

And the answer is the President was struck by two 6.5x52mm bullets fired from a Carcano rifle from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

Um, can you rephrase that? You're supposed to incise the scalp first, then peel it back, then separate enough of the skull to reach the brain, then you work on the brain.
Click to expand...

Which is what happened. They had to work around the massive hole from the GSW, which made the process tricky as Humes stated.


Dr. Finck has described ordering photographs of the empty cranium to be taken a little after he arrived. So not "during the end of the autopsy".
Click to expand...

Except that Humes was the one directing photography, not Finck. Since the brain has been removed the photo was taken at the end of that part of the autopsy.


Turning the body over to... the family? No, Kennedy's rotting corpse was not given to the family in a meat bag, it was given to Gawler's funeral home immediately after the autopsy.
Click to expand...

Who worked for...? Oh, that's right, the Kennedy family. And family members were present in the hospital waiting for the body. Again, it's both a Catholic thing and a Kennedy thing.


They were responsible for the cosmetic procedures, although Humes stuck around Bethesda hospital more or less supervising everything.
Click to expand...

Which explains why he discussed how the head was put back together and patched up in case there was to be an open casket.
 
The autopsy doctors described when the photographs of the empty cranium were taken plenty of times. None of them say it was when the skull was reconstructed for the funeral. None of them say that -removed skull fragments were pieced back together in any way for the taking of the open-cranium photographs.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy doctors described when the photographs of the empty cranium were taken plenty of times. None of them say it was when the skull was reconstructed for the funeral. None of them say that -removed skull fragments were pieced back together in any way for the taking of the open-cranium photographs.
Click to expand...

It's an irrelevant point. Now drop it.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy doctors described when the photographs of the empty cranium were taken plenty of times. None of them say it was when the skull was reconstructed for the funeral. None of them say that -removed skull fragments were pieced back together in any way for the taking of the open-cranium photographs.
Click to expand...

So where did the two shots that hit JFK come from?
 
MicahJava said:
If you want to posit an entry wound in the cowlick, 4+ inches above the external occipital protuberance, then these details are very important. Everything can be easily explained by a lower wound, only slightly above the external occipital protuberance.
Click to expand...

Only in your mind not the rest of us. I have asked you once before, how many shots did the autopsy find hit JFK? How many shots did the HSCA find hit JFK?
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy doctors described when the photographs of the empty cranium were taken plenty of times. None of them say it was when the skull was reconstructed for the funeral. None of them say that -removed skull fragments were pieced back together in any way for the taking of the open-cranium photographs.
Click to expand...

What makes you think all of the skull fragments are in the picture? Some of the shattered bone was attached to the flesh of the scalp, and pliable. The x-rays you keep posting show this, yet you can't figure it out.
 
Axxman300 said:
What makes you think all of the skull fragments are in the picture? Some of the shattered bone was attached to the flesh of the scalp, and pliable. The x-rays you keep posting show this, yet you can't figure it out.
Click to expand...

The open-cranium photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed.
 
MicahJava said:
Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy, has recently passed away.
Click to expand...

Yes, his books were simply fiction, so it is obvious he wasn't very high on the list of those who the conspirators had to eliminate because they knew too much. They could take their time getting around to him. Marrs knew next to nothing about the assassination and was more than content to spread rumors and innuendo than do any serious investigation.

Here's an example:
The Dallas police homicide report on J. D. Tippit of that day stated, “Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 W. Jefferson.” A separate arrest report also stated Oswald’s arrest took place in the balcony.
Was someone else arrested in the Texas Theater? Not according to the official record. However, there is now evidence that perhaps another man was taken from the rear of the theater.

Bernard J. Haire owned Bernie’s Hobby House, located two doors east of the Texas Theater on West Jefferson.

On November 22, 1963, Haire, who was unaware of the assassination, saw the street in front of his business fill up with police cars. He went outside and saw a crowd gathered at the Texas Theater but could not see what was happening. Haire was captured at the rear of the crowd in at least one photograph taken when Oswald was brought from the theater by police.

Haire walked through his store and went into the alley, which he said was also filled with police cars. Walking toward the theater, Haire was opposite the rear door when police brought a young white man out. He said the man was dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks and appeared to be flushed as if having been in a struggle. Although Haire was unable to see whether the man was handcuffed, he was certainly under the impression that the man was under arrest. Haire watched police put the man in a patrol car and drive off.

For nearly twenty-five years Haire believed he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He was shocked to discover that Oswald had been handcuffed and brought out the front door of the theater. He commented, “I don’t know who I saw arrested.”

Neither does anyone else, but it is eloquent testimony that apparently someone other than Oswald led police to the Texas Theater and someone other than Oswald shot Tippit.


So, just from what Marrs posted, we know the above conclusion of Marrs is nonsense.

Why?

Because Bernard Haire was photographed in front of the Texas Theatre at the time Oswald was brought out: "Haire was captured at the rear of the crowd in at least one photograph taken when Oswald was brought from the theater by police".

And Haire spoke of witnessing only one arrest, not two: "For nearly twenty-five years Haire believed he had witnessed the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald".

So we have photographic evidence of Haire witnessing the arrest of the real Lee Harvey Oswald being removed via the front doors of the Texas Theatre, and therefore, his *recollection* of witnessing the arrest in the back of the theatre is simply a false recollection.

Otherwise, Haire should have recalled two arrests.

Marrs deals with the facts of the case throughout his books on the JFK assassination in much this manner, ignoring reasonable conclusions and jumping to conspiracy explanations. And many of his conspiracy arguments comes from ignoring reasonable conclusions and accepting at face value recollections from twenty-five years after the fact as wholly accurate.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Yes, his books were simply fiction, so it is obvious he wasn't very high on the list of those who the conspirators had to eliminate because they knew too much. They could take their time getting around to him. Marrs knew next to nothing about the assassination and was more than content to spread rumors and innuendo than do any serious investigation.

Hank
Click to expand...

I think I only saw a program in which his "trajectory" pointed to the Dal-Tex building and therefore LHO was a "patsy". I wasn't impressed by his math, nor conclusions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom