CTer vs Logic

[Michael T. Griffith]

Gerry, this is unlike you.

But, if we must talk about which side relies on horrible logic. . . .

-- Shall we talk about your side's egregiously illogical attempt to explain the location of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat with the demonstrably false bunched-clothing theory, which requires the assumption that the shirt and coat bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with each other, never mind that the photo taken closest to the time of the shot shows that JFK's coat was lying nearly flat, and never mind that the one motorcade photo that you guys cite (Croft 3) does not show a bunch that was large enough and in the right location to cause a bullet that hit at C3/C4 (per the WC) or T1 (per the HSCA FPP) to create two holes that were over 5 inches below the collar?

-- Shall we talk about your theory that, yes, all the motorcade photos in evidence show JFK's tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band, but that just before the bullet hit, the tie knot shifted just enough to allow the bullet to nick the tie knot's left edge, not to mention the fact that both evidence photos of the knot show the nick was not on the left edge but was inward from it?

-- Shall we talk about your theory that JFK's throat wound was small (5-7 mm), neat, and punched inward because the collar band created a "shoring" effect, tightening the skin to enable the wound to have an entry-like appearance, even though, according to your side, the wound was below the collar band, and even though forensic science tells us that shored wounds will not look like that?

-- Shall we talk about your theory that numerous medical professionals and federal agents mistook a wound above JFK's right ear for a wound that was several inches farther back and lower and that included about half of the right side of the occipital bone, from which cerebellar tissue could be seen oozing? Mind you, these witnesses include the two nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze and the three morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, in addition to a federal agent who described the wound as "right-rear" after seeing it up close for several minutes and then seeing it again when he was taken to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing JFK's wounds.

We're supposed to believe that not one of those people could tell the difference between a gaping wound above the right ear and a wound in the right occipital-parietal area. This is an especially vacuous theory if the autopsy photos of the back of the head are accurate, since they show the rear of the head to be entirely intact.

-- Shall we talk about your side's embarrassing response to the historic optical-density measurements done by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chessar, Dr. DeSalles, and Dr. Aguilar, which prove, among other things, that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain (2/3 of the right cerebrum) than the autopsy brain photos show (per Baden, "less than 1-2 ounces")?

Allow me to add that years earlier, Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the leading radiologists in his day, found that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing, and that Dr. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, and that their disclosures are supported by the accounts of a number of witnesses, including the one mortician who commented on the amount of missing brain, who reported that a large part of JFK's brain was missing.

Really, you guys are in no position to be accusing others of faulty logic.

[John Corbett]

Gerry, this is unlike you.

But, if we must talk about which side relies on horrible logic. . . .

-- Shall we talk about your side's egregiously illogical attempt to explain the location of the holes in the back of JFK's shirt and coat with the demonstrably false bunched-clothing theory, which requires the assumption that the shirt and coat bunched in nearly perfect correspondence with each other, never mind that the photo taken closest to the time of the shot shows that JFK's coat was lying nearly flat, and never mind that the one motorcade photo that you guys cite (Croft 3) does not show a bunch that was large enough and in the right location to cause a bullet that hit at C3/C4 (per the WC) or T1 (per the HSCA FPP) to create two holes that were over 5 inches below the collar?

The body shows us where the bullet struck, not JFK's clothing. It would be silly to argue the holes in his coat and shirt were not caused by the same bullet that struck his back.

-- Shall we talk about your theory that, yes, all the motorcade photos in evidence show JFK's tie knot centered in the middle of the collar band, but that just before the bullet hit, the tie knot shifted just enough to allow the bullet to nick the tie knot's left edge, not to mention the fact that both evidence photos of the knot show the nick was not on the left edge but was inward from it?

The tracheostomy prevents us from knowing precisely where the bullet exited JFK's throat but the fact it nicked the left side of the know of his tie tells us the exit wound would have been very close to center.

-- Shall we talk about your theory that JFK's throat wound was small (5-7 mm), neat, and punched inward because the collar band created a "shoring" effect, tightening the skin to enable the wound to have an entry-like appearance, even though, according to your side, the wound was below the collar band, and even though forensic science tells us that shored wounds will not look like that?

I'll leave it to others to argue the collar shored the neck wound. The simple fact is that FMJ bullets are designed not to deform when striking soft tissue so it is not at all surprised CE399 made a neat exit wound just as it had made a neat entrance wound.

-- Shall we talk about your theory that numerous medical professionals and federal agents mistook a wound above JFK's right ear for a wound that was several inches farther back and lower and that included about half of the right side of the occipital bone, from which cerebellar tissue could be seen oozing? Mind you, these witnesses include the two nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze and the three morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, in addition to a federal agent who described the wound as "right-rear" after seeing it up close for several minutes and then seeing it again when he was taken to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing JFK's wounds.

MTG is back to playing doctor, ignoring the fact that every qualified forensic medical examiner who has seen the medical evidence has agreed the headshot struck JFK from behind.

We're supposed to believe that not one of those people could tell the difference between a gaping wound above the right ear and a wound in the right occipital-parietal area. This is an especially vacuous theory if the autopsy photos of the back of the head are accurate, since they show the rear of the head to be entirely intact.

The Z-film showed us the gaping wound above the right ear the instant the bullet caused the upper right side of JFK's head to explode.

-- Shall we talk about your side's embarrassing response to the historic optical-density measurements done by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chessar, Dr. DeSalles, and Dr. Aguilar, which prove, among other things, that the skull x-rays show far, far more missing brain (2/3 of the right cerebrum) than the autopsy brain photos show (per Baden, "less than 1-2 ounces")? 

Why should any of us care what doctors who work in fields unrelated to forensic medicine have to say about what the medical evidence indicates?

Allow me to add that years earlier, Dr. Fred Hodges, one of the leading radiologists in his day, found that the x-rays show a large part of the right brain to be missing, and that Dr. Humes himself told JAMA that 2/3 of the right cerebrum was blasted away, and that their disclosures are supported by the accounts of a number of witnesses, including the one mortician who commented on the amount of missing brain, who reported that a large part of JFK's brain was missing.

It's not exactly a newsflash that a good portion of the right hemisphere of JFK's brain was blown away.

Really, you guys are in no position to be accusing others of faulty logic.

This from one of the most illogical people I have ever come across in 35 years of arguing about this case in various online forums.

[Gerry Down]

-- Shall we talk about your theory that numerous medical professionals and federal agents mistook a wound above JFK's right ear for a wound that was several inches farther back and lower and that included about half of the right side of the occipital bone, from which cerebellar tissue could be seen oozing? Mind you, these witnesses include the two nurses who cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze and the three morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy, in addition to a federal agent who described the wound as "right-rear" after seeing it up close for several minutes and then seeing it again when he was taken to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing JFK's wounds.

We're supposed to believe that not one of those people could tell the difference between a gaping wound above the right ear and a wound in the right occipital-parietal area. This is an especially vacuous theory if the autopsy photos of the back of the head are accurate, since they show the rear of the head to be entirely intact.


I never said this Michael. Clint Hill said there was a big wound back there so I guess there must have been.