Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Forget Oswald and Who....The Number of Bullets & Shooters Proves Conspiracy  (Read 99512 times)

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Advertisement
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~

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK?S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham

~snip~

II. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATES JFK?s AUTOPSY
Introduction ? The Government?s Private Response to Public Doubts

~snip~

JFK?s Entire Autopsy Team Swears Autopsy Photographs Are Missing
"The upshot is that there is reason to doubt that the signers really believed no autopsy photographs were missing when they signed ?their? affidavit. Instead, as we will see, it appears that Justice arranged for the principals to falsely affirm the integrity of autopsy evidence they knew to be incomplete. From both public and once-secret files, we have learned that each of JFK?s threepathologists and both autopsy photographers later repeatedly testified under oath that photographs they took on the night of the autopsy were missing from the official inventory they had signed off as complete in 1966.[149]
For example, in a once-secret memo, HSCA counsel, D. Andy Purdy, JD, reported that during an interview, chief autopsy photographer, "(John) STRINGER (sic) said it was his recollection that all the photographs he had taken were not present in 1966 (when Stringer saw the photographs for the first time.) [150] Among the missing pictures are those taken of the interior of JFK?s chest. None survive in the current inventory. Yet every autopsy participant who was asked recalled that photographs were taken of the interior of JFK?s body, as indeed they should have been to document the passage of the non-fatal bullet through JFK?s chest:"


?         John Stringer told the HSCA he recalled taking ?at least two exposures of the body cavity.? A. Purdy.[151]
?         James Humes, MD was reported in an HSCA memo to have, "... specifically recall(ed photographs) ... were taken of the President's chest ... (these photographs ) do not exist."[152] As already discussed, Humes had told the Warren Commission in 1964 that he had taken pictures of the interior of Kennedy?s chest.[153]
?         J. Thornton Boswell, MD, the second in command, backed up Stringer and Humes. The HSCA recorded that, "... he (Boswell) thought they photographed '... the exposed thoracic cavity and lung ...' but (he) doesn't remember ever seeing those photographs."[154]
?         Robert Karnei, MD, a Navy pathologist who assisted but was not a member of the official autopsy team, told the HSCA, "He (Karnei) recalls them putting the probe in and taking pictures (the body was on the side at the time) (sic)."[155]


"Finally, regarding JFK?s still-controversial skull wound, In formerly secret testimony taken 24 years ago, Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone to prove that the low wound in occipital bone was an entrance wound. In the following exchange, Dr. Finck was being asked  by the Select Committee?s forensic consultants whether the official images were those Dr. Finck had claimed were missing."
 
Charles Petty, MD: "If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull." 
Finck: "Absolutely."
Petty: "Did you ever see such a photograph?"
Finck: "I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967... and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs."
Petty: ?All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this??
Finck: ?Yes.?
Petty: ?Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia (sic - meant ?fossa?)??
Finck: ?I don?t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside ? the skull had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.?[156]

~snip~

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
"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.


Bite me, you .......

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK?S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham

~snip~

II. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATES JFK?s AUTOPSY
Introduction ? The Government?s Private Response to Public Doubts

~snip~

JFK?s Entire Autopsy Team Swears Autopsy Photographs Are Missing
"The upshot is that there is reason to doubt that the signers really believed no autopsy photographs were missing when they signed ?their? affidavit. Instead, as we will see, it appears that Justice arranged for the principals to falsely affirm the integrity of autopsy evidence they knew to be incomplete. From both public and once-secret files, we have learned that each of JFK?s threepathologists and both autopsy photographers later repeatedly testified under oath that photographs they took on the night of the autopsy were missing from the official inventory they had signed off as complete in 1966.[149]
For example, in a once-secret memo, HSCA counsel, D. Andy Purdy, JD, reported that during an interview, chief autopsy photographer, "(John) STRINGER (sic) said it was his recollection that all the photographs he had taken were not present in 1966 (when Stringer saw the photographs for the first time.) [150] Among the missing pictures are those taken of the interior of JFK?s chest. None survive in the current inventory. Yet every autopsy participant who was asked recalled that photographs were taken of the interior of JFK?s body, as indeed they should have been to document the passage of the non-fatal bullet through JFK?s chest:"


?         John Stringer told the HSCA he recalled taking ?at least two exposures of the body cavity.? A. Purdy.[151]
?         James Humes, MD was reported in an HSCA memo to have, "... specifically recall(ed photographs) ... were taken of the President's chest ... (these photographs ) do not exist."[152] As already discussed, Humes had told the Warren Commission in 1964 that he had taken pictures of the interior of Kennedy?s chest.[153]
?         J. Thornton Boswell, MD, the second in command, backed up Stringer and Humes. The HSCA recorded that, "... he (Boswell) thought they photographed '... the exposed thoracic cavity and lung ...' but (he) doesn't remember ever seeing those photographs."[154]
?         Robert Karnei, MD, a Navy pathologist who assisted but was not a member of the official autopsy team, told the HSCA, "He (Karnei) recalls them putting the probe in and taking pictures (the body was on the side at the time) (sic)."[155]


"Finally, regarding JFK?s still-controversial skull wound, In formerly secret testimony taken 24 years ago, Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone to prove that the low wound in occipital bone was an entrance wound. In the following exchange, Dr. Finck was being asked  by the Select Committee?s forensic consultants whether the official images were those Dr. Finck had claimed were missing."
 
Charles Petty, MD: "If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull." 
Finck: "Absolutely."
Petty: "Did you ever see such a photograph?"
Finck: "I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967... and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs."
Petty: ?All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the scalp off of the bone in order to show this??
Finck: ?Yes.?
Petty: ?Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia (sic - meant ?fossa?)??
Finck: ?I don?t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside ? the skull had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.?[156]

~snip~



Aguilar is a prevaricator. Finck never took a single photograph of JFK's body.

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907

~snip~

Aguilar is a prevaricator. Finck never took a single photograph of JFK's body.

"Aguilar is a prevaricator."

No, Tim Nickerson is a prevaricator.

"Finck never took a single photograph of JFK's body."

Of course he didn't.

He was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

He was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds, not to take photographs.

He did however requests photos to be taken during JFK's autopsy, including ones of the inside and outside

of JFK's skull at the EOP wound.

You know, the photos that weren't among the autopsy materials he examined in January 1967.


JFK Assassination Forum


Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
"Aguilar is a prevaricator."

No, Tim Nickerson is a prevaricator.

"Finck never took a single photograph of JFK's body."

Of course he didn't.

He was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

He was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds, not to take photographs.

He did however requests photos to be taken during JFK's autopsy, including ones of the inside and outside

of JFK's skull at the EOP wound.

You know, the photos that weren't among the autopsy materials he examined in January 1967.



Finck wanted photos to be taken to show the beveling in JFK's skull bone and asked for them to be taken but he never said that he actually saw them being taken, let alone that he took them himself. When Aguilar said that "Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone" he was not telling the truth.

The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image00.htm

Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Finck wanted photos to be taken to show the beveling in JFK's skull bone and asked for them to be taken but he never said that he actually saw them being taken, let alone that he took them himself. When Aguilar said that "Dr. Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone" he was not telling the truth.

The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken.

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md30/html/Image00.htm

"The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken."

 ::)

They can't exist in the mind of any hardcore LNer.

They would destroy the fantasy.


The top government missile wound expert is called in to help examine the wounds of the assassinated

POTUS.

And according to you he doesn't ask for photos, or if he did they weren't taken, of the fatal wound.

Photos that indicate the direction the bullet came from.

Sorry, that's nothing more than your biased opinion.

Humes and Boswell weren't the best choices.

They were mainly administrators, and had little actual hands

on experience in autopsies.

Finck on the other hand was eminently qualified.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 03:23:12 PM by Gary Craig »

Offline Tim Nickerson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1824
"The two photos were not among the autopsy materials that Finck examined in January 1967 because they never existed in the first place. They were never taken."

 ::)

They can't exist in the mind of any hardcore LNer.

They would destroy the fantasy.


The top government missile wound expert is called in to help examine the wounds of the assassinated

POTUS.

And according to you he doesn't ask for photos, or if he did they weren't taken, of the fatal wound.

Photos that indicate the direction the bullet came from.

Sorry, that's nothing more than your biased opinion.

Humes and Boswell weren't the best choices.

They were mainly administrators, and had little actual hands

on experience in autopsies.

Can't you read? I said that he asked for photos to be taken.

The photos were not taken. If they had been, Stringer would have noticed that they were missing in 1966. After all, he took the autopsy photos, not Finck as Aguilar claimed. Aguilar falsely claimed that Finck described to the Select Committee how he had photographed the beveling in JFK?s skull bone.

Quote
Finck on the other hand was eminently qualified.

Indeed he was.

"I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry."
----------
"there was only one wound'of entry in the back of the head."
----------
"It was above the external occipital protuberance....2.5 centimeters to the right of the midline."
-- The eminently qualified Pierre Finck

« Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 10:20:11 PM by Tim Nickerson »

JFK Assassination Forum