Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book  (Read 10109 times)

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2022, 01:07:47 AM »
Advertisement
No, an autopsy tells you nothing about who the killer was.

Especially when it was one of the worst autopsy performances in recorded history.

A large part of the reason why the medical evidence remains inconclusive on the question of “conspiracy” is due to the poorly handled autopsy that raised more questions than answers about what happened.

That anyone still defends the JFK autopsy is really amazing…

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #56 on: November 29, 2022, 01:07:47 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #57 on: November 29, 2022, 01:13:50 AM »
You are really doubling down on this?  HA HA HA.  Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.  Quincy M.D. you aren't.  Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation.    Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect. 

You’re the one doubling down on an idiotic claim. Given that you cannot demonstrate where Oswald was at the time of the shots or even precisely where the head shot came from, the direction of the head shot (even if it had been reliably determined) does not rule in or out Oswald or anybody else.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2022, 01:41:22 AM »
You are really doubling down on this?  HA HA HA.  Just when I thought it couldn't get any better.  Quincy M.D. you aren't.  Obviously, the autopsy is a critical component of any murder investigation.    Each crime is different, but the results of the autopsy can be taken in conjunction with other crime scene evidence to help identify or eliminate a suspect.  Just repeating idiotic general comments like "it can shed no light on who the assassin was" as though there is no further context because your moronic sidekick said it and you embarrassed yourself by repeating it is amusing.   The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.  Whether you agree with its conclusion is the not point.  The autopsy result can lend support to that conclusion or eliminate that possibility.   And that has direct implications for the conclusion that LHO was the assassin.

The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.

Could you be anymore evasive and vague? I doubt it! What "crime scene evidence" used by the WC are you talking about?

I haven't seen any supporting evidence for the conclusion that Oswald was on the 6th floor in the WC report, so what am I missing?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #58 on: November 29, 2022, 01:41:22 AM »


Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 927
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #59 on: November 29, 2022, 01:53:53 PM »
Anyone who rejects Dr. Mantik's OD measurements on the JFK autopsy skull x-rays needs to explain how and why the measurements are wrong. OD measurement is an established science. Dr. Mantik made multiple sets of OD measurements on the skull x-rays in his several trips to the National Archives. He has published those measurements. Dr. Michael Chessar made his own OD measurements on the skull x-rays at the National Archives, and his findings confirm Dr. Mantik's.

When Dr. Fitzpatrick dismissed Dr. Mantik's OD research, he offered no explanation for the OD measurements, nor did he bother to do his own OD measurements. Fitzpatrick may not have known how to do OD measurements, but he is a forensic radiologist, so one would presume he knew how. Radiation oncologists use OD measurements frequently. Of course, Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist, and also a physicist.

Why is it that not a single WC apologist has arranged for an independent radiation oncologist or neuroscientist to do OD measurements on the skull x-rays? Why didn't Dr. Fitzpatrick do so when he had full access to the autopsy materials for the ARRB? Why haven't any WC apologists ventured to explain Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chessar's OD measurements? I think we all know the answers to these questions, even if some of us won't say so publicly.

Dr. Fitzpatrick was obviously reluctant to conclude that the skull x-rays have been altered, and so he naturally could not accept Dr. Mantik's OD measurements and still believe the x-rays are unaltered.

Keep in mind that Pat Speer mistakenly based his whacky theory that the white patch was caused by the overlapping bone above the right ear on Dr. Fitzpatrick's analysis of the skull x-rays. Dr. Fitzpatrick noted the area of overlapping bone seen over the right ear in the lateral x-ray and in the autopsy photos, but he did not claim that this area was the white patch.

Speer's theory is ridiculous. Not only is the overlapping bone area not thick enough to be the white patch, but it is clearly above and forward of the area covered by the white patch. Anyone can look at the autopsy photos and see that the flap of overlapping bone is above the right ear, but the white patch on the skull x-rays is undeniably behind the right ear and below the flap. Indeed, part of the white patch extends into the parietal region. This isn't even a close call.

Here is Dr. Mantik's reply to Speer's criticisms:

http://www.themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf

The Sibert and O'Neill report was not among the ARRB-released materials. However, the information that Sibert and O'Neill revealed in their ARRB depositions was new, and it agreed with what several of the ARRB-released HSCA medical interviews revealed, especially O'Neill's disclosure that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound. In fact, let's quote part of what O'Neill said about this:

Quote
There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out."

There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever that this is what occurred. In fact, during the latter part of it and when the examination was completed, the doctor says, "Well, that explains it.” Because Jim [Sibert] had gone out, called the laboratory, learned about the bullet, came back in.

Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. And that’s why Jim went out and called. . . .

Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound?

A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further.

Sibert told the ARRB the same thing. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point:

Quote
Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?

A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe.

Sibert confirmed that Dr. Finck also probed the back wound:

Quote
Q: Okay. Do you recall whether Dr. Finck took any notes?

A: I don’t recall. I do recall he helped probe the back wound.

Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound:

Quote
But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and and also with the chrome probe.

And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet.

And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound.

John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, told the ARRB that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck:

Quote
Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck?

A: It was put into the back part.

Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck?

A: No.

When the ARRB released the HSCA medical interviews and the transcripts of the ARRB's own medical interviews, WC apologists seemed to show little or no interest in them, whereas WC skeptics studied them carefully and found numerous crucial disclosures. WC apologists have lamely dismissed these accounts as "mistaken," "faulty memories," etc., even though the witnesses gave their accounts independently and with no knowledge of what other witnesses had said, and even though those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their HSCA accounts.

You can bet that if numerous autopsy witnesses had independently given mutually corroborating accounts that said the probing of the back wound determined that the exit point was the throat, and if all of those witnesses who were also interviewed by the ARRB confirmed their earlier accounts, WC apologists would--justifiably--view those accounts as powerful evidence. But, since the HSCA and ARRB interviews reveal the opposite--that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point--WC apologists must, at least publicly, lamely dismiss them as "mistaken." 






« Last Edit: November 29, 2022, 06:16:51 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2022, 02:21:20 PM »
The WC used crime scene evidence to place a shooter (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) at a specific location.

Could you be anymore evasive and vague? I doubt it! What "crime scene evidence" used by the WC are you talking about?

I haven't seen any supporting evidence for the conclusion that Oswald was on the 6th floor in the WC report, so what am I missing?

You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?  Good grief.  I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.  That isn't the point here.   You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were."  A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards.  The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body.  Therefore, lending important confirmation as to whether Oswald as the assassin or eliminating him in the context of the WCs conclusion that he fired the shots from a specific location.  The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.  They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual. 

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #60 on: November 29, 2022, 02:21:20 PM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10810
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #61 on: November 29, 2022, 04:35:12 PM »
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?  Good grief.

Wow, you really have no reading comprehension, do you? We all know what the WC concluded. Conclusions aren’t evidence.

Quote
I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.

No, you agree with their conclusion because you’re a kooky authoritarian devotee.

Quote
That isn't the point here.   You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were."

Even with a properly done autopsy, it can at best tell you where a shot came from, not the identity of the shooter.

Quote
The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.  They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.

For the zillionth time, what “other evidence”? And if you’re using “other evidence “ to determine the shooter, then the autopsy is not telling you who did the shooting. Get it now?

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7395
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2022, 05:14:37 PM »
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?  Good grief.  I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.  That isn't the point here.   You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were."  A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards.  The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body.  Therefore, lending important confirmation as to whether Oswald as the assassin or eliminating him in the context of the WCs conclusion that he fired the shots from a specific location.  The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.  They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.

You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?  Good grief.

Why would I dispute that when we all know that came to that conclusion, correct or incorrectly. I'm disputing that they had any conclusive evidence to justify that conclusion and the mere fact that you, for several months now, have been unable to produce evidence that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor confirms that no such evidence to justify the WC conclusion exists.

I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.

A typical comment of somebody who makes claims that he can't back up with evidence. Blame the lack of evidence on the other guy's disbelief. It's pathetic.

You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were."  A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards.

By itself, an autopsy can tell you nothing about who the assassin(s) was/were.

The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body. 

Ah, so now it's in conjunction with other evidence! So, you agree that the autopsy by itself can not tell you who the the assassin(s) was/were?

Also, the autopsy can tell you at which angle a bullet entered the body. It can not confirm conclusively that the shots were fired from the TSBD. They could just as easily have come from the Dal-Tex building. And, of course, none of this tells you anything about the identity of the shooter(s).

The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.

I did not imply anything of the kind. It was you who made the stupid claim;

And, of course, the autopsy results are crucial evidence in confirming who the assassin was

They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.

Even in conjunction with "other evidence" (whatever that is) the autopsy plays no part in determining the identity of the shooter(s).

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #62 on: November 29, 2022, 05:14:37 PM »


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4994
Re: Debunking the JFK Conspiracists: New Book
« Reply #63 on: November 29, 2022, 06:39:29 PM »
You are disputing that the WC concluded that LHO fired the shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD?  Good grief.

Why would I dispute that when we all know that came to that conclusion, correct or incorrectly. I'm disputing that they had any conclusive evidence to justify that conclusion and the mere fact that you, for several months now, have been unable to produce evidence that Oswald was in fact on the 6th floor confirms that no such evidence to justify the WC conclusion exists.

I know you disagree with their conclusion because you are a kooky contrarian.

A typical comment of somebody who makes claims that he can't back up with evidence. Blame the lack of evidence on the other guy's disbelief. It's pathetic.

You stupidly indicated that an autopsy "can shed no light whatsoever on who the assassin(s) was/were."  A false and even idiotic statement even by your low standards.

By itself, an autopsy can tell you nothing about who the assassin(s) was/were.

The autopsy can be used in conjunction with the crime scene evidence to confirm whether the shot was fired from the TSBD or some other location via the location of the wounds on the body. 

Ah, so now it's in conjunction with other evidence! So, you agree that the autopsy by itself can not tell you who the the assassin(s) was/were?

Also, the autopsy can tell you at which angle a bullet entered the body. It can not confirm conclusively that the shots were fired from the TSBD. They could just as easily have come from the Dal-Tex building. And, of course, none of this tells you anything about the identity of the shooter(s).

The autopsy results are not viewed in a vacuum as you stupidly imply.

I did not imply anything of the kind. It was you who made the stupid claim;

They are used in conjunction with other evidence to confirm or deny the involvement of an individual.

Even in conjunction with "other evidence" (whatever that is) the autopsy plays no part in determining the identity of the shooter(s).

You have contradicted yourself so many times it is impossible to decipher.   An autopsy is ALWAYS taken in conjunction with totality of evidence to reach a conclusion about what happened and who was responsible for the crime.  ALL evidence is taken in conjunction with other evidence in a case to determine to reach these conclusions.  Good grief.  It is only in the contrarian fantasy world that each individual piece of evidence is examined as though it fell from the heavens.  The classic contrarian example being to mock the fact that Oswald left his wedding ring at home on the morning on the assassination.  And analyze that as though it is being suggested that Oswald was a suspect solely for that reason alone with the logic that people do sometimes forget to wear their wedding ring without intending to assassinate the president.  Laughable.  That is why your contrarian mantra is ludicrous.   Making idiotic statements that an autopsy can't be useful in identifying the assassin is just false.  The autopsy is a critical piece of evidence in conjunction with the other evidence in the case.  There is no reason to exclude the existence of other evidence when analyzing the autopsy results in making a determination about who the assassin was in this case.  That is completely nuts.