JFK Assassination Forum

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're still peddling this silly, inane dodge? [/quote}

So you think it is an inane dodge for me to acknowledge I have no expertise in the field of forensic pathology. The truth is that neither you nor I are any more qualified to analyze the medical evidence than the guy who mopped up the autopsy room floor. Your tortured analysis and reliance on people who have no expertise in the field of forensic pathology demonstrates that fact quite nicely.

Quote

You assume that forensic pathologists--well, those who agree with you--are the source of all knowledge when it comes to gunshot wounds,

They are just far more knowledgeable than a radiation oncologist.

Quote

ignoring the fact that they are usually not experts in radiology,

Neither is a radiation oncologist.

Quote

in physics, in neurology, in neuroanatomy, and in ballistics, much less in the recent science of optical-density measurement,

People in those fields are not experts in forensic medicine either unless they have been trained and experienced in that field as well. To the best of my knowledge, none of the people you cite meet that qualification, but you don't care. All you care is they offered a non-expert opinion that fits the narrative you are trying to peddle.

Quote

which field did not begin to be pioneered until the 1950s and was still in its infancy in the 1960s.

So tell us how an expert in that field is qualified to analyse the medical evidence.

You don't seem to understand that the field of medicine has a wide range of specialties, each requiring a unique skill set. When I go see my primary care physician, he has a general knowledge of medicine as a whole but when I have a specific condition, he sends me to a specialist. If I'm having an issue with my prostate (which I have in recent years) he doesn't send me to a gynecologist.

Quote

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.

Yes they have. Radiation oncologists and gynecologists have no specialized training in the field of forensic pathology. So why do you keep citing people outside that area of expertise?

Let's put it this way. If any of the people you've cited outside the field of forensic pathology were summoned to give testimony about a medico-legal autopsy, I doubt there is a judge in the land who would approve of that witness.

Quote

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.

It's quite easy to ignore people pontificating about fields for which they have no expertise. If I was having trouble with my care, I would ignore the advice of my plumber unless I knew he also had training in auto mechanics.

Quote

But, if you want to talk about forensic experts, let's do that.   

That would be nice for a change.

Quote

Have you ever heard Dr. Milton Helpern, regarded as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century? He flatly rejected the SBT.

The issues of the SBT have to do ballistics, not forensic pathology. Cyril Wecht's objections to the SBT aren't based on anything in the medical evidence. They are based on his viewing of the Z-film.

Quote

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."

Since you don't bother to tell us why any of these men disputed the SBT, there is really nothing for me to comment on.

Quote

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.

That is a question of ballistics, not forensic pathology. He is not commenting on the wounds but on the behavior of a FMJ bullet. Once again you cite opinions of people who haven't stayed in their lane.

Quote

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.

A forensic anthropologist is not the same as a forensic pathologist. How many medico-legal autopsies has he performed in his career?

Another swing and a miss by you.

Quote

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.

Again, you don't tell us why he said the SBT was impossible. Dr. Cyril Wecht also said it was impossible but when cross examined by Vincent Bugliosi, he couldn't give a medical reason for his opinion.

Quote

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 guess Dolce didn't give the WC a medical reason the SBT was impossible either.

Quote

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.

Again, you cite somebody outside his field of expertise. How the hell would Shaw know whether the bullet that had hit JBC had first struck JFK. Did he give an explanation for why the entrance wound on JBC's back was elongated.

Quote

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.

So now you cite a pathologist on a question of ballistics. Brilliant.

Quote

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.

You still don't seem to understand that a radiation oncologist is not an expert in radiology. I guess you think because the words are similar, they are one and the same.

Quote

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.

I'm afraid you are wrong again. I lost count but I think you are 0 for 47. So far.

Quote

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.

Funny you should mention Bob Artwohl. He came to our Prodigy forum as a CT but converted to the LN side. He credited some of the arguments I had made on the board for changing his mind.

I don't remember ever citing any of the men you mentioned for their opinions on the autopsy.

Quote

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dr. Mantik is also certified in radiology?

Is that a fact. No mention of that on his WebMD page. His specialties are family medicine and oncology. It says, "His dual expertise allows him to provide comprehensive primary care while also treating patients with cancer diagnoses." No mention of radiology.

You are not o for 48.

Quote

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists use OD measurements as part of their job?

Yes, they do that after consulting with radiologists.

Quote

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists are trained in reading x-rays?

No, that's what radiologists are trained to do. I'm sure he has experience looking at x-rays, but that's not his field of expertise.

0 for 49.

Quote

That's part of the reason they receive their certification from the American Board of Radiology. 

This from the ABR websited:
"Doctors practicing in the field of Radiology specialize in Diagnostic Radiology, Interventional Radiology, or Radiation Oncology."

Do you happen see the word "OR". It doesn't say "AND". Being trained in one of these disciplines doesn't make one an expert in one of the others. I suppose its possible for someone to be certified in more han one of these specialties, but Mantiks's WebMD page makes no mention of a certification as a radiologist. One family medicine and oncology.

Your streak has extended to half a hundred.

Quote

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.

Part of the frontal bone was missing. The POSTERIOR of the frontal bone. That means the rear of the frontal bone. That was near the temples to use a layman's term. It was not from the forehead.

0 for 51.

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.

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

You are (intentionally?) missing the point. No one has to place Oswald in the TSBD at all. No one has to know the motorcade route long in advance at all. They only have to know that JFK is coming to Dallas (or Miami, or Chicago) and that Oswald is someone amenable to an assassination plot, either as a participant or a perfect patsy if he can be convinced it's a pro-Castro plot. Orr has him as a reluctant but knowing participant because Marcello made him an offer he couldn't refuse. If the route had been different, Oswald presumably would have been shooting from a different location. There is indeed at least something resembling evidence that he scouted other possible locations in Dallas. As it turned out, the motorcade route was ideal for Oswald, especially if he was a patsy, and for a gunman in or on the Dal-Tex or County Records building. There simply is no compelling reason that conspirators had to have placed Oswald in the TSBD or known the motorcade route long in advance. I don't think Dan O'Meara's LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley theory has Oswald being placed in the TSBD or the route being known in advance either.

Knowing JFK was coming to Texas isn't specific enough knowledge to place Oswald in the TSBD. The only way that works using Oswald as either the shooter or the patsy is if you know he would have perch overlooking the motorcade route.

Three sites were under consideration for the luncheon. Had either of the other two been selected, the motorcade would have been routed down Main St. in a west-to-east direction, making a shot from the TSBD almost impossible. The decision to use the Trade Mart, which dictated an east-to-west route down Main St. was made by JBC. I've actually seen CTs over the years claim that JBC was complicit in the assassination, even though he would have known he would be placing both himself and his wife in harm's way. But nothing is too silly for some folks.

Now you're arguing something different from it being a definitive conspiracy-killer that the Mafia would've had to place Oswald in the TSBD and known the motorcade route in advance.

The bare fact of JFK's upcoming trip to Dallas was known before Oswald even went to Mexico City. His uncle's relationship with Marcello was longstanding. If he was part of a Mafia plot, either as a knowing participant (as John Orr believes) or the perfect patsy, it may have been pure happenstance that his perch in the TSBD turned out to be ideal a few days before the deed. Had it not been, perhaps he would have been placed elsewhere.

I don't have to articulate an entire Mafia scenario. I will await what John Orr and Larry Schnapf come up with, in terms of both evidence and theory. I did happen to watch a video interview today of John Orr by Matt Douthit, and Orr said it was an "entirely Mafia" JFKA but didn't expand on how he thought Oswald had been brought into the plot.

I can agree that the LN scenario is a more plausible explanation, at least unless Orr and Schnapf can convincingly show that the one-gunman scenario is ballistically impossible. You are the one who said the realization that the conspirators would have had to have placed Oswald in the TSBD and known the motorcade route long in advance was what ended your days as a CTer. I simply say that your realization is not correct. While being open to the Mafia theory, I don't think for a moment anyone placed Oswald in the TSBD or knew the route long in advance.

Yes.
He never told us. It's a little late to ask him now.
It doesn't need to make sense to you. It made sense to Oswald. He was calling the shots in this episode.

This is a logical fallacy CTs often fall into. They can't understand why Oswald made the decisions he did and did the things he did. They put themselves in Oswald's shoes and think they wouldn't have done that. That's nice but irrelevant. Oswald did the things he thought was best for him. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to anybody but him.