Lone Nutters: Let's keep it real, why do you think there was no EOP wound?

[Micah Mileto]

The face sheet, the autopsy report, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, Francis X. O'Neill, Tom Robinson, George Burkley. All of these sources have indicated a small bullet hole resembling entrance right next to Kennedy's external occipital protuberance, not 4-5 inches above it.

The case that the x-rays show an entry 4-5 inches above the EOP is very shoddy and over-exaggerated. Half the people who saw the x-rays said they couldn't find any apparent entry on it. The photographs are ambiguous as to whether they show the EOP wound, but they can be compatible with it as the lower head area is in shadows and autopsy photographs have mysteriously gone missing, including apparently close-up shots of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull. The red spot higher in the scalp was said by Dr. Boswell to be an insignificant laceration related to the large defect. Everybody from the autopsy disagreed that it was the wound described in the autopsy report. The red spot is also about 12 mm, not 15x6mm.

[Gary Craig]

The autopsy doctors held JFK's skull in their hands and stood by their position of a EOP entrance wound until their deaths.

The Clark Panel decided:

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~


Two separate investigations, two separate wounds to JFK's skull.

[Tim Nickerson]

The face sheet, the autopsy report, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, Francis X. O'Neill, Tom Robinson, George Burkley. All of these sources have indicated a small bullet hole resembling entrance right next to Kennedy's external occipital protuberance, not 4-5 inches above it.

The case that the x-rays show an entry 4-5 inches above the EOP is very shoddy and over-exaggerated. Half the people who saw the x-rays said they couldn't find any apparent entry on it. The photographs are ambiguous as to whether they show the EOP wound, but they can be compatible with it as the lower head area is in shadows and autopsy photographs have mysteriously gone missing, including apparently close-up shots of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull. The red spot higher in the scalp was said by Dr. Boswell to be an insignificant laceration related to the large defect. Everybody from the autopsy disagreed that it was the wound described in the autopsy report. The red spot is also about 12 mm, not 15x6mm.

Micah, I accept what is in the autopsy report. The wound was slightly above the EOP.

[Micah Mileto]

Micah, I accept what is in the autopsy report. The wound was slightly above the EOP.

Okay, well usually normal human beings don't say "slightly above the EOP" when they mean "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". So do you think the hole was right next to the EOP?

It could not have been very high above the EOP. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy late, after the top of the skull had been separated in order to remove the brain, and yet he always said that he could still examine the EOP wound as a perforation in the occipital bone, undisturbed by large skull cavity above it. How then could there be an entry wound on the top of the head while keeping with Finck's statements? I believe that it would be considered improper in any brain removal procedure such as this is not remove occipital bone, if it would even by physically possible to fit a whole brain through such a small skull cavity. That's not even mentioning that the skull bone was severely fractured around the large defect.

Neurologist Joe Riley pointed this out years ago, to demonstrate why the HSCA's interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are anatomically impossible.

[Tim Nickerson]

Okay, well usually normal human beings don't say "slightly above the EOP" when they mean "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". So do you think the hole was right next to the EOP?

It could not have been very high above the EOP. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy late, after the top of the skull had been separated in order to remove the brain, and yet he always said that he could still examine the EOP wound as a perforation in the occipital bone, undisturbed by large skull cavity above it. How then could there be an entry wound on the top of the head while keeping with Finck's statements? I believe that it would be considered improper in any brain removal procedure such as this is not remove occipital bone, if it would even by physically possible to fit a whole brain through such a small skull cavity. That's not even mentioning that the skull bone was severely fractured around the large defect.

Neurologist Joe Riley pointed this out years ago, to demonstrate why the HSCA's interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are anatomically impossible.

Micah,

The wound was not 4 to 5 inches above the EOP. It was less than an inch above the EOP.

[Micah Mileto]

Micah,

The wound was not 4 to 5 inches above the EOP. It was less than an inch above the EOP.

And yet you are a single-assassin theorist?

[Gary Craig]

[Gary Craig]

WC

HSCA