Hmmm, in the red corner we have 1 man who isn't a forensic scientist and in the blue corner we have an accomplished medical panel with many decades of combined experience in Forensic Pathology. And the winner is Griffith's vivid imagination!!! Hahahaha!
Another factoid I find particularly amusing is that the results you so vigorously endorse from Riley, who clarified that he was working with the assumption that the autopsy photos, x-rays etc were authentic! Do you, Mr. Griffith truly believe that the medical evidence is authentic?? Or will your position forever remain flexible enough to support whatever conclusion that reinforces your latest lamebrain theory? JohnM
LOL! WC apologists have flexed and morphed and twisted all over the place over the years to reinforce the farcical lone-gunman theory--a theory that about 2/3 of the Western world rejects, I might reiterate.
Do I need to remind you that for years your side insisted that a bullet--from the sixth-floor window--struck slightly above the EOP? Do I need to remind you that for years your side said that the alleged magic bullet struck
above the throat wound and traveled
downward through the neck? Do I need to remind you that the same HSCA medical panel that you just finished praising determined that the alleged magic bullet struck
below the throat wound and that the back wound shows that the bullet entered at a slightly
upward angle? Do I need to remind you that your side's leading wound ballistics expert repudiated the cowlick entry site in 2005, and that many WC apologists have followed his lead? Do I need to remind you that the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel acknowledged that the Zapruder film shows that JFK was hit before Z190, but that most WC apologists reject this observable fact because it destroys the current version of the single-bullet theory, even though the Zapruder film clearly shows JFK reacting to a wound before he disappears behind the freeway sign?
Let's consider some of the experts who have said the HSCA medical panel was wrong about the rear head entry wound's location and wrong about the wound's alleged presence on the autopsy skull x-rays:
-- Dr. Doug Ubelaker (ARRB forensic anthropologist)
-- Dr. John Fitzpatrick (ARRB forensic radiologist)
-- Dr. Pierre Finck (forensic pathologist, chief of wound ballistics at the AFIP, and one of the three JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Larry Sturdivan (HSCA wound ballistics expert)
-- Dr. James Humes (chief of anatomic pathology at Bethesda Naval Hospital and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell (chief of pathology at the National Naval Medical School and one of the JFK autopsy doctors)
-- Dr. Doug DeSalles (MD, a medical doctor who has conducted assassination-related wound ballistics tests)
-- Dr. David Mantik (PhD in physics and MD in radiation oncology with a post-doctoral fellowship in biophysics at Stanford University)
-- Dr. Cyril Wecht (forensic pathologist, former president of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a former member of the HSCA medical panel--
Wecht has repudiated the cowlick entry site)
-- Dr. Robert Livingston (MD in neuroscience, a former professor at the Yale School of Medicine, a former director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases, and the founder of the Department of Neuroscience at the University of California-San Diego)
-- Dr. Fred Hodges (a neurologic radiologist, chief of neuroradiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, a former president of the American Society of Neuroradiology, and a former member of the Rockefeller Commission's medical panel)
This is a partial list.
Yes, as I've noted, Dr. Riley assumed the autopsy photos and x-rays were authentic, which makes his research even more devastating against your theory of the shooting. He proved that the autopsy photos destroy the cowlick entry site, that the cowlick entry site cannot explain the subcortical damage, and that the clearly separate and unconnected wound paths seen in the autopsy materials absolutely prove that two bullets hit JFK in the head.
I have already explained my view of the autopsy photos and skull x-rays. Let me do so again. Pay attention this time: The skull x-rays are indeed x-rays of JFK's skull, but we know from hard scientific evidence that they have been altered--and, as we have seen, you guys have no answer for this evidence.
The autopsy photos now in evidence are only part of the autopsy photos that were taken. We have known for years now that there was a second set of autopsy photos. The ARRB interviewed the Navy photo technician who processed the second set of autopsy photos, and several people who saw those photos said they showed a large wound in the back of the head.
The top-of-head autopsy photos destroy the cowlick site, since they show intact cerebral cortex at the site' location, proving that no bullet entered at the site. I am unsure whether the top-of-head photos have been doctored, as some photographic experts have argued, or whether they were taken after the illicit pre-autopsy surgery to the head and thus represent the altered condition of the top of the head and not the head's condition as it existed in Dallas (which would explain why the Parkland nurses who cleaned JFK's head wound and packed it with gauze saw no large wound above the right ear).
But, hey, if you insist that the top-of-head photos are authentic and accurate, then you must face the fact that those photos destroy the cowlick entry site. So far, your and your fellow WC apologists' only answer has been the demonstrably false claim that Riley put the cowlick site twice as far above from the lambda as the HSCA FPP did. HSCA exhibit F-32 alone destroys this bogus, dishonest claim.
Finally, I would again note (1) that you people have proved you have no explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments, and (2) that you cannot cite a single example in the history of forensic science where an FMJ bullet has deposited a fragment, much less two fragments, and much less from the cross section, at or near the entry site after striking a skull.
Those two fragments and the unsolvable problem they pose for the lone-gunman theory, after all, are the subject of this thread. Yet, you guys walked away from the thread after you took your first beating in it, and you only returned after I bumped it with a reminder that you guys had failed to explain how the lone-gunman theory can accommodate the two fragments. Until I resurrected this thread, you guys were content to simply ignore this crucial issue; you were quite happy to pretend it doesn't exist.
