Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Forget Oswald and Who....The Number of Bullets & Shooters Proves Conspiracy  (Read 75929 times)

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Advertisement
Finck thought (wasn't sure) that they had photographed the inside and outside of the skull showing the hole of entry from both sides. He seemed to think that the two blank 4 x 5 color sheets would have been those photos.

"My conclusion is that the photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify our conclusions stated in the autopsy report."

 ::)

No

That's your interpretation of what Finck wrote.

Surprise, Surprise your interpretation keeps your LNer fantasy intact.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
::)

No

That's your interpretation of what Finck wrote.

Surprise, Surprise your interpretation keeps your LNer fantasy intact.

Finck did not say that there were photos missing. That's not just my interpretation of what he wrote. It's a fact. You are stuck with the autopsy photos. No amount of whining or knashing of teeth will make them go away. Nor will it make non-existing photos appear out of nowhere. Autopsy photos show that the entry wound at the base of the neck in the back was higher that the exit wound in the throat.

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
::)

No

That's your interpretation of what Finck wrote.

Surprise, Surprise your interpretation keeps your LNer fantasy intact.

How would the existence of photos showing the inside and outside of the entry wound in the skull have any impact at all on my "LN fantasy"?

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
How would the existence of photos showing the inside and outside of the entry wound in the skull have any impact at all on my "LN fantasy"?

Well it's your "LN Fantasy", but let me see if I can help you out.

The WC conclusion is based on the original autopsy opinions. - The entry wound in JFK's shull was

slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP.

Critics said a wound that low on JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD,

doesn't jibe with the official explanation of JFK's wounds.

The Clark Panel was formed to re-examine the autopsy materials in response.

The panel said there is a entry wound in the cowlick of JFK's skull - 4 inches above the EOP wound.

All subsequent official investigations including the HSCA agree with the Clark Panel.

The photos of the gunshot inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull is a second wound.

If I have to explain what that means, you are lost.




Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
Well it's your "LN Fantasy", but let me see if I can help you out.

The WC conclusion is based on the original autopsy opinions. - The entry wound in JFK's shull was

slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP.

Critics said a wound that low on JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD,

doesn't jibe with the official explanation of JFK's wounds.

The Clark Panel was formed to re-examine the autopsy materials in response.

The panel said there is a entry wound in the cowlick of JFK's skull - 4 inches above the EOP wound.

All subsequent official investigations including the HSCA agree with the Clark Panel.

The photos of the gunshot inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull is a second wound.

If I have to explain what that means, you are lost.

Photos of the inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull would not be a second wound. It would be the wound. The photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify the conclusions stated in the autopsy report.  Critics who said a wound that low on JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD , doesn't jibe with the official explanation of JFK's wounds were wrong.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2018, 03:19:22 AM by Tim Nickerson »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Photos of the inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull would not be a second wound. It would be the wound. The photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify the conclusions stated in the autopsy report.  Critics who said a wound that low on JFK's skull, from a bullet fired from the 6th floor SE corner TSBD , doesn't jibe with the official explanation of JFK's wounds were wrong.

"Photos of the inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull would not be a second wound."

 :o

The Clark Panel and HSCA both said there is a wound in JFK's skull 4 inches above the EOP.

A wound at the EOP and one 4 inches above.

That 2 wounds here on Earth.

In LNer fantasyland it might be something else.



Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
"Photos of the inshoot and outshoot wound at the EOP on JFK's skull would not be a second wound."

 :o

The Clark Panel and HSCA both said there is a wound in JFK's skull 4 inches above the EOP.

A wound at the EOP and one 4 inches above.

That 2 wounds here on Earth.

In LNer fantasyland it might be something else.

A wound slightly above the EOP would mean that the Clark Panel and the HSCA were wrong. Which they probably were. They primarily used the defect in the scalp seen in the photo to make their placement of the wound in the skull. The x-rays themselves were not of good enough quality to make such a determination. There was only one entry wound in the back of the skull. The photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify the conclusions stated in the autopsy report. Finck said so himself.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
A wound slightly above the EOP would mean that the Clark Panel and the HSCA were wrong. Which they probably were. They primarily used the defect in the scalp seen in the photo to make their placement of the wound in the skull. The x-rays themselves were not of good enough quality to make such a determination. There was only one entry wound in the back of the skull. The photos and x-rays of the autopsy of President Kennedy do not modify the conclusions stated in the autopsy report. Finck said so himself.

"A wound slightly above the EOP would mean that the Clark Panel and the HSCA were wrong. Which they probably were. They primarily used the defect in the scalp seen in the photo to make their placement of the wound in the skull. The x-rays themselves were not of good enough quality to make such a determination."

You = FOS.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_2.htm

HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK?S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham

~snip~

"....Based on evaluations of presumably the same pictures and X-rays, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA later concluded that ?the wound? ? the entrance site of the fatal bullet in JFK?s head ? was not just  ?slightly higher? in the images, but 4 inches higher. This is scarcely a negligible discrepancy, given that the area of the back of the head in which it was concluded there had been a 4 inch error only measures, top-to-bottom about 5 &1/2 inches. Nowhere in either of the 1966 or 1967 reviews did JFK?s pathologists acknowledge there was a huge disparity between the wounds in their autopsy report and those in ?their? pictures and X-rays. Moreover, on the question of the fragments in the X-ray, the pathologists failed to mention that the antero-posterior trail of fragments in the lateral X-ray are in an entirely different location than specified in their autopsy report....."

~snip~


"Lateral X-Ray taken during the autopsy of President Kennedy, showing a trail of apparent metal fragments high in the skull. The Clark Panel's declaration that the line described by these fragments "passes through the above-mentioned hole" [i.e, the bullet entrance] is not accurate. The "above-mentioned hole" can be seen as a step-off, or a crack, in the skull at the left side of the skull. Anyone can see that, as the House Select Committee was later to report, the "trail" of fragments is considerably higher than the step-off, ion fact, 4-cm higher, according to the Select Committee."

~snip~

"Worse yet, the Panel incorrectly described the trail?s true position as, ?on lateral film #2 this (fragment) formation(?s) long axis, if extended posteriorly, passes through the above-mentioned (new entrance) hole.?[184] That fragment trail does not line up with the presumed higher entrance hole. As one of the authors (Aguilar) determined by looking at the original X-rays, the trail lies noticeably higher than that level. This is not a new discovery. In 1978, HSCA expert radiologist David O. Davis, MD reported that the trail extended, ?anteriorly from the inner table of the skull at a point approximately 6-cm. antero-superiorly from the previously described embedded metallic fragment.?

~snip~