Do you think people can't see that you are ducking and dodging? Do you think they can't see that you keep falsely pretending that I am merely giving my own opinions when I am citing and documenting the serious contradictions in the medical evidence that were even noted by experts whose findings you claim to accept?
No. Unlike you i recognize that:
A) I have never seen the photos in question and
B) Even if I had seen them, I am totally unqualified to render a judgement on them.
I leave the analysis of the medical evidence to those that are qualified and have seen the all the original materials. They all seem to agree that the evidence shows the head shot came from above and behind JFK. Like from the sniper's nest. That's good enough for me.
You know this is false. I have quoted DiMaio and given the source and page numbers several times in this thread alone.
I'm guessing you don't know enough about the medical evidence to realize that nothing that Cummings says explains any of the contradictions between the brain photos and the skull x-rays and between the brain photos and the autopsy report, not to mention the vanishing low fragment trail.
So tell us what these contradictions prove. I know what they don't prove. They don't prove there was a second gunman.
As for the NOVA JFKA documentary, I recommend you read "NOVA’s Cold Case: JFK -- the Junk Science Behind PBS’s Recent Foray into the Crime of the Century Cold Case JFK vs. Cold Hard JFK Facts" at https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/nova-s-cold-case-jfk-junk-science-pbs. The article presents two detailed rebuttals to PBS’s NOVA Cold Case JFK documentary.
CTs are good and making excuses to dismiss the opinions of people who are actually qualified to offer expert opinions. What they aren't good at is explaining how their perceived anomalies prove somebody other than Oswald was involved in the JFKA.
It wasn't just the FPP--it was also the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel. The FPP reviewed the autopsy materials after the Clark Panel (1968) and the RC medical panel (1975) had done so. All three panels said the wound was in the cowlick.
Again. Tell us what you think this proves.
Anyway, I applaud your new position that the autopsy doctors were correct about the rear head entry wound.
Both the autopsy doctors and the FPP were far more qualified than I to render judgement on the medical evidence. Dr. Cummings seems to side with the autopsy team. It's not for me to say who got it right and who got it wrong. What matters is that either way, the shots came from Oswald's rifle. [/quote]
Dr. Wecht and the FPP majority made this statement in reference to the back wound, and they were correct. When it came to the back wound, the autopsy doctors failed to use standard reference points.
This is erroneous. You clearly have not read the HSCA materials on the acoustical evidence and have not read any of the scholarly defenses of the acoustical evidence. A few points in reply:
* The HSCA did have the BBN findings on the acoustical evidence vetted by peer review. They hired two of the finest acoustical scientists in the country, Dr. Mark Weiss and Professor Earnest Aschkenasy of Queens College, to review the BBN findings. The HSCA selected Weiss and Aschkenasy to review the BBN findings because they were recommended by the Acoustical Society of America.
* The "study" done by the FBI Technical Services Division was a total joke, a slipshod and amateurish attempt to discredit the acoustical evidence. The study was quickly debunked.
* As for the analysis done by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), I'm certain that you, like nearly all other lone-gunman theorists, have not actually read it. Four observations about the NAS panel's claims
One, not one of the NAS scientists was an acoustical scientist.
Two, the NAS panel (aka the NRC panel and the Ramsey Panel) said that the probability that chance caused the timing-movement correlations noted by the BBN acoustical scientists was 7 percent instead of less than 1 percent. In saying this, of course, the panel was admitting that their own calculations showed that the probability that chance did not cause the correlations was 93 percent.
The panel made no effort to explain the significance of the fact that their own calculations found a 93-percent probability that the timing-movement correlations occurred because the impulse patterns on the police tape were recorded by a motorcycle in Dealey Plaza during the assassination. In fact, the panel did not even specifically mention this. They simply noted that they determined the probability of chance was 7 percent and acted as though they had refuted the BBN finding.
Three, the NAS panel made another revealing oblique admission, this time regarding the impulse pattern that the Queens College acoustical experts identified as the grassy knoll shot. Weiss and Aschkenasy calculated that there was no more than a 5.3 percent probability (P=0.053) that the impulse pattern identified as the grassy knoll shot was not caused by gunfire, and they argued that the probability was likely lower than that. This is why they reported there was a 95 percent probability or higher that a shot came from the grassy knoll.
The NAS panel said their analysis found that the probability that the impulse pattern was not gunfire was actually 22.3 percent (P=0.223) (Report of the Committee on Ballistic Acoustics, p. 40). In other words, the panel was admitting that their own calculations showed that the probability that the impulse pattern was caused by gunfire from the grassy knoll was 77.7%.
Dr. Donald Thomas has proved that the NAS panel committed crucial errors in reaching their P=0.223 calculation, and that the probability that the impulse pattern was caused by grassy knoll gunfire is virtually 100 percent.
Four, the NAS panel said nothing--not one word--about the windshield distortion correlations documented by the BBN acoustical scientists, about the presence of N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes on the dictabelt, and about the fact that those phenomena occur in the correct order and interval.
I suggest you read the article below and then read Dr. Josiah Thompson's report on the follow-up research done by BBN scientists from 2019-2020 that confirms the HSCA's acoustical evidence in his 2021 book
Last Second in Dallas.
The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing[/quote]
I don't need to get into the weeds with all your objections to the NAS review of the accoustics evidence. The HSCA conclusions refute themselves because their placement of when the shots were fired doesn't even come close to syncing up with the Z-film.
Recent Posts