Autopsy proves SBT impossible

[Tim Nickerson]

 Well its been pretty polite up to this point , but I am going to object to this There is the logical fallacy of begging the question, and in my opinion it is particularly prevalent among those who official stories of some sort behind them Apparently this perspective allows them a free pass form this otherwise prohibitive fundament of logic based solely on the conclusion of organization Conclusion's, regardless of who came up with them, are not not allowed to explain debates at premises according to the rules of logic

Matt, I think that you may be speaking at a level that is above my pay grade because I'm having difficulty understanding what you just said there.

[Tim Nickerson]

Mr. SPECTER - What specific experience have you had, if any, with respect to gunshot wounds?
Commander HUMES - My type of practice, which fortunately has been in peacetime endeavor to a great extent, has been more extensive in the field of natural disease than violence. However, on several occasions in various places where I have been employed, I have had to deal with violent death, accidents, suicides, and so forth. Also I have had training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, I have completed a course in forensic pathology there as part of my training in the overall field of pathology.

No experience in forensic pathology and you've asked for it.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you had any additional, special training or experience in missile wounds?
Colonel FINCK - For the past 3 years I was Chief of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and in that capacity I reviewed personally all the cases forwarded to us by the Armed Forces, and some civilian cases from the United States and our forces overseas. The number of these cases amounts to approximately 400 cases. I was called as a consultant in the field of missile wounds for this particular case, and also last year in February 1963, the Surgeon General of the Army sent me to Vietnam for a wound ballistics mission, I had to testify in a murder trial involving a 30/30 rifle in the first week of March this year, and I came back yesterday after one week in Panama where I had to testify. I was sent to Panama by the Secretary of the Army regarding the fatalities of the events of 9-10 in January of 1964.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you been certified by the American Board of Pathology, Doctor Finck?
Colonel FINCK - I was certified in pathology anatomy by the American Board of Pathology in 1956, and by the same American Board of Pathology in the field of forensic pathology in 1961.
...............................
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have occasion to participate in the autopsy of the late President Kennedy?
Colonel FINCK - Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER - And are you one of the three coauthors of the autopsy report which has been previously marked and introduced into evidence here?
Colonel FINCK - Yes, I am.

[Matt Grantham]

Matt, I think that you may be speaking at a level that is above my pay grade because I'm having difficulty understanding what you just said there.

 Not everyone has the same definition of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Not a fan of Wikipedia in general but here is there first sentence

To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 So if you are saying the conclusion of the autopsy is a reason to not discuss the details or premises ,I would suggest that is to beg the question If you personally have faith in their conclusion you have every reason to be confident in it, on a personal level that is great But if you are suggesting the rest of us need to consider the conclusion of the autopsy as prerequisite for debating the details, I would tend to argue that is begging the question

[Jim Brunsman]

Base of the neck? Who are you, Gerald Ford?  It's not smart to regurgitate one of the most disparaged acts of the entire assassination cover-up. Mr. Ford didn't think the wound that is clearly in the back comported with an exit wound in the throat. So he moved it! He was correct since a shot originating from the 6th floor of the TSBD traveling at a downward trajectory would likely exit considerably lower than the throat. I can't believe we're still explaining this after all these years. How about a little intellectual honesty? For the record, my only interest is the truth and I resent individuals distorting history in order to assuage their own biases...

[Jim Brunsman]

Tim, saying that this was an official autopsy seems to suggest that you thought the autopsy was conducted with care and precision. The accounts of the eyewitnesses paint a very disturbing picture. Also, don't forget the FBI's autopsy report. Sibert and O'Neill reported:
  "During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.
Inasmuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area of the body as determined by total body X?Rays and inspection revealing there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets."
  Humes burned his autopsy notes. The conclusions of the final autopsy report are totally incongruent with the known facts in the case (entry wounds in throat and right temple with massive exit wound in the lower right rear of JFK's head). One day I hope we get a clearer picture of what went on at Bethesda that night, and I give great praise to David Lifton and Douglas Horne for their research on this subject.

[Tim Nickerson]

Not everyone has the same definition of the logical fallacy of begging the question. Not a fan of Wikipedia in general but here is there first sentence

To beg the question is to assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow. It is a type of circular reasoning and an informal fallacy, in which an arguer makes an argument that requires the desired conclusion to be true. This often occurs in an indirect way such that the fallacy's presence is hidden or at least not easily apparent.

 So if you are saying the conclusion of the autopsy is a reason to not discuss the details or premises ,I would suggest that is to beg the question If you personally have faith in their conclusion you have every reason to be confident in it, on a personal level that is great But if you are suggesting the rest of us need to consider the conclusion of the autopsy as prerequisite for debating the details, I would tend to argue that is begging the question

Matt, did you read the two posts that my posts were in response to? If so, what do you make of the content and tone of both?  I'm not saying that the conclusion of the autopsy is reason to cut off any discussion of the details. I am more than willing to discuss every aspect of the case. But surely you have to concede that the autopsy report does have standing and cannot be easily dismissed. For the record, I never rely on the autopsy report alone when discussing the medical aspects of the case. There are the autopsy photos and x-rays, the Zapruder film, the numerous testimonies of the Bethesda Pathologists, and other sources that are available for consideration.

[Tim Nickerson]

Base of the neck? Who are you, Gerald Ford?  It's not smart to regurgitate one of the most disparaged acts of the entire assassination cover-up. Mr. Ford didn't think the wound that is clearly in the back comported with an exit wound in the throat. So he moved it! He was correct since a shot originating from the 6th floor of the TSBD traveling at a downward trajectory would likely exit considerably lower than the throat. I can't believe we're still explaining this after all these years. How about a little intellectual honesty? For the record, my only interest is the truth and I resent individuals distorting history in order to assuage their own biases...

Gerald Ford never moved the the entry wound by even as much as a mm in any direction. All that he did was recommend that the wording in the draft report be changed in order that it would more accurately reflect the wording contained in the autopsy report. The autopsy report has the bullet traversing downward through the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.

[Ray Mitcham]

It was an official autopsy. That the findings of it don't match up with your conspiratorial beliefs is your problem, not mine.

It may well have been an official autopsy but even you can't deny that it was a"flawed" autopsy. for example.

Finck (If ever a guy was well named, he was

"Q: But you did take orders and did not dissect the throat area?
Finck: Well, these are not direct orders, these are suggestions and directions. I was not told, "I give you a direct order" or that sort of thing.
[/quote]

The bullet never hit the top of the right lung. It passed over the top of the right lung. It did so in a downward direction.

Explain how a bullet travelling in a downward direction, just above the top of the right lung, could exit the throat.