I keep telling you this but it's like talking to a wall. I don't need to explain the medical evidence. I leave that to people who are qualified to do that.
No you don't. You cherry-pick your experts. You pretend to be qualified to decide who is a medical expert and who is not. For days on end you kept citing the HSCA FPP as an unquestionable final authority on the medical evidence--until I proved to you that several of the FPP's findings refute your version of the shooting.
Yes, you do keep making the pitiful, embarrassing argument that you don't need to explain the medical evidence, and I keep pointing out why that argument is ludicrous and why it constitutes nothing but a bunch of ducking and dodging, but you just keep repeating it without refuting my counterarguments.
You love to cite people who offer opinions outside their area of expertise. None of the people you cite are forensic medical examiners which is a specific branch of medicine which requires skill sets outside of the area of radiation oncology or neuroanatomy. Neither of these fields involve the examination of gunshot wounds or more specifically, gunshot wounds to the head.
You're still peddling this silly, inane dodge? You assume that forensic pathologists--well, those who agree with you--are the source of all knowledge when it comes to gunshot wounds, ignoring the fact that they are usually not experts in radiology, in physics, in neurology, in neuroanatomy, and in ballistics, much less in the recent science of optical-density measurement, which field did not begin to be pioneered until the 1950s and was still in its infancy in the 1960s.
Forensic pathologists are regular doctors (M.D.s) who have completed a fellowship in forensic pathology after they've been certified in anatomical or clinical pathology.
Deep down you must know that it is untenable and evasive to pretend that the findings of wound ballistics experts, radiologists, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, and neuroscientists in the JFK case can be ignored just because they're not forensic pathologists. Your side still cites the research and experiments of Dr. John Lattimer, Dr. Robert Artwohl, Dr. Piziali, even though they were not forensic pathologists.
But, if you want to talk about forensic experts, let's do that.
Have you ever heard Dr. Milton Helpern, regarded as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century? He flatly rejected the SBT.
How about Dr. F. W. Enos? Heard of him? He was the forensic pathologist who served as the consultant to the CBS SBT wound-ballistics test. After setting up and conducting the test, he concluded that the test "disproved" the SBT and said the SBT was "highly improbable."
How about Dr. Robert Kirschner? Heard of him?
The Lancet, a leading medical journal, described him as "a pioneering forensic pathologist." He was one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants. He said the SBT was "very dubious."
How about Dr. Halbert Fillinger? Heard of him? He was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. Well, guess what? He scoffed at the idea that an FMJ bullet would have deposited a single fragment on the rear outer table of JFK's skull. He added that FMJ bullets will barely even leave any residue at their entry sites, much less a fragment.
How about Dr. Doug Ubelaker? Heard of him? He was a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and was another one of the ARRB's three forensic experts. He said the head damage in the autopsy photos indicated the bullet hit in the front and traveled from front to back.
How about Dr. Joseph Dolce? Heard of him? He was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics in 1964. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the WC asked the Army to provide a wound ballistics expert to be the Commission's chief expert on the subject, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. Dr. Dolce said the SBT was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this.
When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not.
I know you know something about Dr. Robert Shaw, who was Connally's chest surgeon. Do you know that before he operated on Connally, he had operated on more than 1,000 gunshot wounds of the chest? He, too, flatly rejected the SBT.
Have you heard of Dr. John Nichols? As a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas, he trained forensic pathologists. He, too, flatly rejected the SBT and argued that the head-shot bullet could not have been an FMJ missile.
How many medico-legal autopsies has Dr. Mantik performed. How many has Dr. Riley performed. Without even looking it up I'm going to take a flyer and say combined, the total number is less than one. Why would my "side" need or want such a person?
This is more insincere evasion. A radiation oncologist who is an expert in optical-density (OD) measurement and who is also trained in radiology and holds a doctorate in physics does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to use OD measurements to determine if objects in a skull x-ray are metallic or to determine the thickness of bone in a skull x-ray. You must be kidding.
Similarly, a recognized expert in neuroanatomy does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to determine the location and relationship of wound paths in autopsy photos of a brain. If anything, a forensic pathologist will consult with a neuroscientist when it comes to such matters.
Lattimer, Piziali, and Artwohl never performed an autopsy, but you guys still cite them as authorities on JFK's wounds and wound reactions. Lattimer was a urologist. Artwohl was a general surgeon. Piziali was a ballistics expert.
Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. That is quite different from a radiologist who is an expert in reading x-rays. In fact, a radiation oncologist will often consult with a radiologist in determining the best treatment for a cancer patient under their care. Cancer care is Mantik's area of expertise. The field of medicine has many different specialties and being an expert in one does not make one an expert ina another. You are always citing people offering opinions outside their area of expertise. When your toilet gets clogged, do you call in an electrician?
How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dr. Mantik is also certified in radiology? How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists use OD measurements as part of their job? How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists are trained in reading x-rays? That's part of the reason they receive their certification from
the American Board of Radiology. BTW, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, has concluded that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays indicate that two bullets hit JFK's head. And, several of the HSCA's radiology/forensic consultants said the x-rays show missing frontal bone, but Baden and the FPP majority ignored this fact and claimed the frontal bone was intact.
It never surprises me when a CT clings to the discredited acoustical analysis since they have no real evidence on their side.
You have no business even talking about the acoustical evidence. You haven't read one page of the HSCA's extensive materials on the acoustical evidence. You haven't read even one scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence. You haven't even read the NRC/NAS panel's report, which you cited as evidence against the acoustical evidence.
You did not realize that the NAS panel admitted that there was a 93% probability that the timing-moving correlations identified by the BBN acoustical scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was gunfire from the grassy knoll.
Barger's team only concluded there was a 50% probability that the recording showed a shot from the GK and that the impulses on the tape could not be proven to be gunshots. That's based solely on the acoustics and doesn't take into account the cross talk from channel 2 which indicated the shots were not made during the recording or the photo evidence that there was no motorcycle at the spot on Houston St. that Weiss and Aschkenasy presumed the motorcycle had to be.
You have no clue what you are talking about, and you refuse to read anything that refutes what you want to believe on this issue. You just keep repeating these debunked talking points that you've read on some lone-gunman websites. I've read every critique of the acoustical evidence, but you haven't read any research that defends that evidence, and it shows.
The 50% probability finding was a preliminary finding that was made before they conducted the test firing in Dealey Plaza and before they had the BBN research reviewed by Queens College acoustical experts Weiss and Aschkenasy. You'd know this if you had bothered to read a single scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence.
The myth of "cross talk" from Channel 2 was answered by Dr. Barger many years ago, and new research done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 proves that the Decker transmission is not crosstalk from Channel 2 but is an overdub resulting from the copying process.
Of course, not knowing any better, you repeat the claim that there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza. If there was no motorcycle in position on Houston Street, how do you explain the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt impulses and the test-firing impulses occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting?
If there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza, how did N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, get recorded on the dictabelt? How is it that the N-waves occurred only in the gunshot impulse patterns? How did windshield distortions get recorded on the dictabelt only when the motorcycle was in position to record them and were not recorded when the motorcycle was not in position to record them? Figure the odds of just those distortions alone happening by coincidence.
I know you'll never read it, but for the sake of others, I again recommend my introduction to the acoustical evidence:
"The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing
