JFK Assassination Forum

You don't present facts. You present opinions. Very amateurish opinions based on a minimal amount of evidence and FUBAR figuring.

So I ask you again: Were all the members of the HSCA FPP wrong when they said the brain photos categorically, irrefutably prove that no bullet could have entered at the EOP site? Were all the members of the FPP, the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel wrong for saying the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail?

Just once, quit your juvenile ducking and dodging and try to answer these questions.

You cite cherry picked quotes taken out of context.

Well, then surely you can provide at least one example of where I have taken a quote out of context.

Did I quote Dr. Loquvam "out of context" when I quoted his entire exchange with Finck on the fact that any bullet entering the EOP site would have had to cause subarachnoid hemorrhaging in the cerebellum but that no such hemorrhaging is seen in the cerebellum on the brain photos? How could I have quoted him "out of context" when I quoted the entire exchange?

Did I quote Dr. Hodges "out of context" when I quoted his entire statement that the skull x-rays show a goodly portion of the right side of the brain to be missing? How could I have quoted him "out of context" when I quoted his entire statement?

Did I quote Dr. Humes "out of context" when I quoted his matter-of-fact statement that 2/3 of the cerebrum was blown away? Go check his statement in the JAMA article. How did I quote him "out of context"?

Do tell me where I have quoted someone out of context. I'm assuming you understand what it means to quote someone "out of context."

Nowhere can you cite an expert in the field of forensic evidence who has had access to the evidence you shares your FUBAR conclusion that the autopsy photos are fraudulent. That one is all on you.

Ah, so peer-reviewed published experts in radiation oncology, neurology, radiology, physics, ballistics, and neuroscience don't count, huh, including a neuroscientist who was the director of two NIH institutes and who pioneered mapping and imaging the human brain? And how about Dr. Cyril Wecht? He was a famous forensic pathologist, and in his later years he was convinced by Dr. Mantik's research that the skull x-rays have been altered.

FYI, forensic pathologists are usually not experts in reading x-rays, which is why they frequently ask a radiologist to read x-rays for them. That's why the FPP asked several radiologists to review the skull x-rays (and then they ignored all the radiologists' findings that contradicted the FPP's version of the wounds). That's why the Rockefeller Commission included Dr. Hodges on the medical panel (he was one of the foremost radiologists in the world at the time). That's why the autopsy doctors asked Dr. Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, to help with reading the x-rays.

BTW, nowhere "can you cite an expert in the field of forensic science who has had access to the evidence" and who has explained the impossible contradictions between the brain photos and the skull x-rays, who has explained the hard scientific evidence of the multiple optical-density measurements that prove the skull x-rays have been altered. Two can play your silly game of using arguments from silence.

Your line of thinking demonstrates what I have said for decades. CTs don't try to explain the evidence.

LOL! Says the guy who is still ducking and dodging all over the place and refusing to explain the evidence from the FPP, the Clark Panel, Dr. Hodges, Dr. Baden, Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Haus, Dr. Humes, etc., etc., on the drastic contradictions between the brain photos and the EOP site, between the brain photos and the skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the skull x-rays, between the autopsy report and the brain photos.

They invent excuses to explain away the evidence. They try to substitute their analysis of the evidence for that of recognized experts in the various technical fields.

Yeah, uh-huh. Anyone who reads this thread can see that I have repeatedly cited the analysis of "recognized experts in the various technical fields," and you are still ducking and dodging and refusing to explain their analyses.

I ask you yet again: Were the FPP members wrong when they insisted that the brain photos absolutely prove that no bullet could have entered the EOP site? Were all the members of the FPP, the Clark Panel, and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel wrong for saying the only fragment trail on the skull x-rays is the high fragment trail? What happened to the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report? How could the brain photos show JFK's brain when the skull x-rays show  2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and when this amount of missing brain in the x-rays has been confirmed by multiple OD measurements of the x-rays done by a board-certified radiation oncologist and a board-certified neurologist?

Then they get terribly frustrated when others don't accept their conclusions. There is a third option. Your opinions are silly.

So your third option to the two other options--(1) the brain photos are fraudulent or (2) the EOP site did not exist--is that "your opinions are silly"? Really, that's your answer? Are you trying to make yourself look like a teenager who knows he's losing the argument and doesn't want to explain contrary facts?

Let me repeat the obvious: We're not just talking about my opinions. We are talking about the unanimous conclusion of the FPP members that the brain photos prove the EOP site is impossible. Yet, neuroscientist Dr. Joseph Riley and forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker argued that the EOP site is visible in the autopsy photos, a conclusion that both Dr. Larry Sturdivan and Pat Speer accept, and six people at the autopsy (Humes, Finck, Boswell, Stringer, Kellerman, and O'Neil) insisted the entry wound was near the EOP.

So is the EOP site correct or are the brain photos correct? One of them has to be wrong, but you can't bring yourself to face this issue credibly and objectively.

Similarly, we are not just talking about my opinions on the brain photos vs. the skull rays. Experts from both sides of the debate have acknowledged that the skull x-rays show about 2/3 of the right brain to be missing, and multiple sets of OD measurements have confirmed this fact. Who has said the skull x-rays show this much missing brain? Just to refresh your memory: Dr. Hodges, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Humes, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, medical scientist Russell Kent, Dr. Livingston, and Dr. Henkelmann (I'm assuming you are aware that Dr. Hodges, Dr. Lattimer, and Dr. Humes were lone-gunman theorists). But the brain photos show "less than 1-2 ounces" of missing tissue. How can you believe the brain photos are authentic unless you reject the skull x-rays, and vice versa?

I should add that Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the ARRB's forensic radiologist, who was decidedly pro-WC and anti-conspiracy, clearly seemed to indicate that the x-rays show more than just 1-2 ounces of missing brain. He did not quantify how much brain he saw missing in the x-rays, but his description sounds like it was more than just 1-2 ounces:

. . . right frontal brain is missing. . . . The extremely dark region on the A-P X-Ray depicting the upper right side of the cranium indicates both some absence of brain and the presence of air inside an open wound. (Meeting Report, ARRB, 2/9/96, p. 1)

For one thing, 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue would be very hard to spot on a skull x-ray. Ask any radiologist. And, most people would describe 1-2 ounces of missing brain tissue as "a slight amount," "a little," "a very small amount," etc., not as "some absence of brain."

Huh?

PS: Cole's suggestion, that JBC was shot in the back while lying in Nellie's lap, is possibly the most preposterous thing ever posted on this forum...and that really is saying something.

I never suggested this.

Huuuh??

From REPLY#4 posted by yourself

"So, if the Connallys are correct, when was JBC struck?

My best guess is sometime after Z-295, but before Z-313."


Sometime after z295?
JBC is lying back in Nellie's lap between z295 and z313
What do you mean you've never suggested he was shot in the back while he was lying in Nellie's lap?
That's exactly what you're suggesting.

JC--

You are entirely mistaken in your contention that Dr. Shaw was unaware of the WC's purported positions of JFK and JBC at the time they were purportedly struck.

Read Shaw's testimony. Shaw explains Specter the difficulties of the purported SBT trajectory, but himself assuming JBC purpotted position. And Shaw states that even if the SBT trajectory is accurate, the missile could not have entered the dorsal side of JBC's wrist.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Shaw.pdf

The undisputed medical evidence that the slug that penetrated JBC's wrist entered from the dorsal side...a near anatomical impossibility if the slug first passed though JBC's chest.

Moreover...every hospital must report all bullet wounds and save all evidence---and in this, the most important homicide and attempted homicide cases in Texas history...CE-399 gets lost? Walks outside Trauma Room 2 and is found in the hallway?

I have reasonable doubts about the LNT, SBT and WC narratives, in these matters.

Such explanations do not hold water.

Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

Warren Commission Testimony:

Mr. SPECTER. What experience, Doctor, have you had, if any, in evaluating
gunshot wounds?

Dr. (Robert) SHAW. I have had considerable experience with gunshot wounds and wounds due to missiles because of my war experience. This experience was not only during the almost 2 years in England. but during the time that I was head of the Thoracic Center in Paris, France, for a period of approximately a year.

Mr. SPECTER. Would you be able to give an approximation of the total number of bullet wounds you have had occasion to observe and treat?

Dr. SHAW. Considering the war experience and the addition of wounds seen in civilian practice, it probably would number well over a thousand, since we had over 900 admissions to the hospital in Paris.

---30---

OK, so Shaw was not only educated in medicine, he was a (very) practicing doctor in the exact field of thoracic bullet wounds.

(I consider myself a layman in these matters, so I defer to Shaw. I understand many JFKA buffs have knowledge and experience that exceed that of Dr. Shaw.)

----

Here Shaw ponders the very low probability that a missile first traveling through Gov. JBC's chest could then penetrate the dorsal (wristwatch) wide of JBC's wrist, and then exit the volar (palm) side:

Mr. SPECTER. He (Dr. Gregory) has described that he concluded that the wound of entry was on the dorsal aspect of the (Connally's) right wrist, but your thought was that perhaps that was the wound of exit?

Dr. SHAW. Yes; in trying to reconstruct the position of Governor Connally’s body, sitting in the jump seat of the limousine, and the attitude that he would assume in turning to the right---this motion would naturally bring the volar surface of the right wrist in contact with the anterior portion of the right chest.

SPECTER. Well, is your principal reason for thinking that the wound on the dorsal aspect is a wound of exit rather than a wound of entry because of what you consider to be the awkward position in having the dorsal aspect of the wrist either pointing upward or toward the chest?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, I think I am influenced a great deal by the fact that in trying to assume this position. I can’t comfortably turn my arm into a position that would explain the wound of the dorsal surface of the wrist as a wound of entrance, knowing that the missile came out of the chest and assuming that one missile caused both the chest wound and the arm wound.

Mr. SPECTER. Might not then that conclusion be affected if you discard the assumption that one missile caused all the wounds?

Dr. SHAW. Yes, if two missiles struck the Governor, then it would not be necessary to assume that the larger wound (on the volar side) is the wound of entrance.

---30---

OK, so Shaw says if a second missile struck Gov. JBC, then the wound to the dorsal side of his wrist is explicable. OK, that is informative.

Add on:

Dr. SHAW. Yes; I feel that the line of trajectory as marked on this diagram (Specter's SBT diagram) is accurate as it could be placed from my memory of this wound.

Mr. SPECTER. And, on that trajectory; how do you postulate the bullet then passed through the wrist from dorsal to volar or from volar to dorsal?

Dr. SHAW. My postulation would be from volar to dorsal.

---30---

So Shaw again posits a slug exiting JBC's chest likely could have only entered the volar (opposite of wristwatch) side of JBC's wrist. Yet Dr. Gregory, the wrist surgeon, concluded the slug had entered JBC's wrist on the dorsal side, then exited through the volar. Dr. Shaw, upon conversing with Dr. Gregory, accepted Gregory's analysis of the wrist wound.

So how did Gov. JBC receive his wrist wound?

I don't know. The reasonable explanation is the JBC's wrist wound was not inflicted by the slug that passed through JBC's chest first.

Interesting side note:

Evidently, the slug that entered JBC's thigh actually left metallic fragments on his femur (the major leg bone in the thigh), according to the WC testimony of Dr. Shaw.

So...how did this missile, embedded in JBC's leg all the way to the bone...exit his body? If it was removed in surgery, then it would have been placed in an envelope and given to police, as every hospital everywhere did then and now.

Yet we are told CE-399 caused this injury to JBC, thus was embedded near his thigh-bone, but was later found in a hallway outside Trauma Room 2, underneath a gurney.

The Parkland hospital employee Tomlimson found a pointy-head slug in the hallway, by the report of O.P. Wright, former police chief and then hospital administrator. Does this CE-399 story hold water?

In one of the most important homicide and attempted murder cases of all time, Parkland Hospital Trauma Room 2 doctors, attendants and nurses...just let a slug, removed from JBC's thigh...get lost?

You ignore the fact that Shaw was trained to patch up gunshot wounds, not figure out how they were wounded. I'm sure he picked up some knowledge in that area, but that is not his primary area of expertise.

Furthermore, Shaw never examined JFK so how could he pass judgement on the SBT. When he testified before the WC, he would not have known the relative positions of JFK and JBC. How could he possibly have known whether the bullet that passed through JBC had first struck JFK?

Here is an article from CBS8 in Dallas re the LHO-Hidell wallet:

Wallet mystery from Officer Tippit's murder settled after 50 years

Evidence from a variety of sources including vintage WFAA news film may provide the proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit after President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963.

Author: WFAA Staff and WFAA.com (WFAA)
Published: 8:09 PM PST November 20, 2013

DALLAS No other crimes have been more analyzed or scrutinized than what happened in Dallas a half-century ago.

'It's been picked apart for decades,' said Farris Rookstool III, JFK historian and former FBI analyst, 'but the tragedy of this is no one has ever taken the due diligence of time to really put these pieces together until now.'

After five decades, Rookstool is sharing the strongest evidence yet that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Dallas police Officer J.D. Tippit.

'The wallet puts him definitively at the scene of the crime,' Rookstool said.

Oswald's wallet has been a persistent mystery in recent years one Rookstool started studying. The mysterious billfold first appeared on WFAA in the afternoon of November 22, 1963.

WFAA program director Jay Watson, anchoring live coverage of the assassination, asked Channel 8 photographer Ron Reiland to join him on set and discuss film that Reiland just shot on the Oak Cliff street where Tippit was slain.

'Let's roll the film and we'll narrate it as we go,' Watson said on air.

Reiland, describing each scene to Watson, presumed the wallet seen on the film belonged to Officer Tippit.

'There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that this is Oswald's wallet,' Rookstool said.

So, Rookstool set out to prove it.

He compared the Channel 8 black-and-white film to Oswald's actual wallet in the National Archives. On each of them, circular snaps are visible, along with metal strips and perhaps the biggest similarity a zipper over the cash compartment.

Oswald's wallet is a different color and has different characteristics than Tippit's.

This month, for the first time, Marie Tippit shared her late husband's wallet with WFAA. Tippit's is black, has a different style snap no metal bar like Oswald's and does not have a zipper over the cash compartment.

A half hour east of Birmingham, Alabama is the only man alive today who saw Oswald's wallet at Tippit's murder scene.

'As I walked up, I happened to not knowingly step in a puddle of blood, which was Tippit's blood,' retired FBI Special Agent Bob Barrett recalled. 'I thought, 'Oh God, what have I done?''

He spent 27 years in the FBI and was asked to go to the Tippit murder scene that day by his friend, Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker.

After arriving at 10th and Patton in North Oak Cliff, Barrett said, he recognized a Dallas police captain thumbing through a billfold.

'He said, 'Bob, you know all the crooks in town, all the hoodlums, etc. You ever heard of a Lee Harvey Oswald?' I said, 'No, I never have.' He said 'How about an Alec Hiddell?' I said, 'No. I never have heard of him either,'' Barrett explained. 'Why would they be asking me questions about Oswald and Hiddell if it wasn't in that wallet?'

In addition, the first Dallas cop on the Tippit crime scene said he actually recovered the wallet.

Sgt. Kenneth Croy, a reserve officer at the time, put it in writing on an 8' x 10' picture for Rookstool.

'First on the scene, recovered Oswald's wallet there, too,' Croy wrote on an image of Tippit's patrol car.

But officially, Dallas police told a different story. The department said it got Oswald's wallet from Oswald himself after his arrest a short time later at the Texas Theatre.

Barrett and Rookstool believe police made that up for the official report because too many officers handled the crucial piece of evidence at the shooting scene.

'They said they took the wallet out of his pocket in the car? That's so much hogwash,' Barrett said. 'That wallet was in [Captain] Westbrook's hand.'

'Bob's in Alabama. Kenneth Croy is in Hamilton, Texas,' Rookstool said. 'They had no relationship with each other than the fate of history put them at the scene of a crime.'

Rookstool says the testimony of Barrett and Croy, Tippit's billfold, and the WFAA film prove that Oswald's wallet was at the scene of the policeman's murder.

More than shell casings and eyewitness recollections, it is the first hard evidence placing Oswald there on that day.

It's significant in tying off a historical loose end and perfecting the record fifty years later.

---30---

Well, like everything in the JFKA, clear as mud.