Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

(09-17-2016, 04:45 PM)Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:Patrick - TELL US WHERE THE LARGE WOUND ON JFK'S HEAD WAS...



Use medical terminology, and be as accurate as you can.



If you DARE to use the terms Parietal or Occipital - you'll have proven yourself a liar.

The answer is clearly stated in the autopsy report

Quote:There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right

involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the

temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual

absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures

approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

(09-17-2016, 04:45 PM)Patrick C Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:If you DARE to use the terms Parietal or Occipital - you'll have proven yourself a liar.

It is clear that I am dealing with a very strange and mixed up mind here. What kind of absolute tripe is that.



Those terms are in the medical report so it is impossible for me to be a liar on that matter - do you not understand that!



What a waste of time. That is about my hour up I think.

Ben Holmes Wrote:You're lying again, Patrick!



Dr. Baden stated that "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."



You asserted that Dr. Baden was "Baden is quite correct of course..."



Then you contradict what he said.



Who has problems with the English language?



I'll make it real easy for you... you stated that Dr. Baden was correct...



WAS DR. BADEN CORRECT WHEN HE STATED THAT: "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said."?

Quote:Mr. Goldsmith. To your knowledge, would any records at CIA Headquarters document that Oswald was a CIA agent?

Mr. Wilcott. I believe they would at one time. Whether they are there now or not is hard to say.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any personal knowledge that any records at CIA Headquarters were ever destroyed?

Mr. Wilcott. No.

Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any knowledge of any record of the CIA at the XXXXXXXX Station ever being destroyed out of the ordinary course of business, not as a matter of routine?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Mr. Goldsmith. To your personal knowledge, CIA records XXXXXXXXXX were destroyed?

Mr. Wilcott. Destroyed or changed.

Mr. Goldsmith. Could you give an example of that?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Let us say, for instance, that there was a certain project going on, and the project was one that became known that this project was being carried out -- and we call it "flaps," -- and the Case Officer in charge might get word that somebody from headquarters was coming to review the files to investigate the flap. Well, they would go through the files and take out anything that they thought was, say, indicative of how this flap occurred and change the files.

For instance, in accounting, when we had our audits, for instance, in most of the audits, he would call up some body -- let's say in China Branch -- and say "I know you were having problems with this, would you like to look it over before the auditors come?", and they might look it over and retype the accounting for funds for their project and, you know, make changes that they might think were in their interest to do.

Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever actually Xerox records being destroyed or changed?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did.

Mr. Goldsmith. And have you just described one of those instances to us?

Mr. Wilcott. Yes.

Quote:Much of the speculation that has persisted in one form or another since November 22-24 came from people who usually spoke in good faith. Some of the errors have resulted simply from a lack of complete knowledge at the time of the event. In this category are the statements attributed to doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital who attended the dying President and described his wounds to the press afterward. It remained for the autopsy in Washington, completed early the next morning, to ascertain the full facts concerning the wounds. The correction of earlier assertions of fact on the basis of later and fuller analysis or investigation is a normal part of the process of accumulation of evidence. But it is not often that the process is conducted in such an intense glare of worldwide publicity, and later corrections have difficulty overtaking the original sensational reports. - Warren Commission Report, pg 638.

Quote:1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.

Ben Holmes Wrote:

David Von Pein Wrote:Only a rabid conspiracy believer could possibly manage to transform this description of President Kennedy's head (exit) wound.... "...a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions..." [Warren Report, Page 540] ....into a wound that is ENTIRELY in the occipital region of JFK's head.

What part of "Occipital-Parietal" is ENTIRELY in the occipital?



These are simple questions David...



No wonder you keep blatantly lying about what I've stated... and refuse to answer them...



Now, does the Autopsy Report place the wound EVEN PARTIALLY in the back of the head?



(You can run, David - but you can't hide...)

Dale Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Dale Wrote:You and I and even Ben Holmes are COMPLETELY ignorant about what remains classified in this case.

Untrue...



Perhaps YOU are ignorant... that, I actually don't doubt.



I gave an example of something that was classified - the medical testimony given during the HSCA.



You can't offer ANY credible explanation for why it was classified at all.



NONE!



And the fact that the HSCA LIED about what they classified is something you can't refute.

Have no idea what National Security issues were encountered and investigated - neither do you and that's the point. You don't even allow for the possibility that this classified information was a National Security concern and will, by rule, remain classified. Turn off your conspiracy filter and you'll see what I am saying. It's not complicated. Not only National Security matters are classified - if other information was classified (HSCA medical testimony) then inquire as to why - did the Kennedy family request classified status for this information for privacy reasons? How involved was Bobby Kennedy in this process? Would you want your family member's X-Rays and photographs made available to any Joe Blow requesting them, especially if your family member was an extraordinarily prominent and powerful individual. You guys have no proportion or reason in your thinking. (Original post here.)

D. Axelson Wrote:&t&t&tAnd according to Jim Garrison, Oswald passing the paraffin test alone would have exonerated him.&t&t&t



Again, an opinion by a non-witness. And in 1964, Jim Garrison knew precisely nothing about the case, and could not have qualified as an expert in the significance of the presence or absence of GSR. As you may be aware, the paraffin test (also known as a "gunshot residue" or "dermal nitrate test") has been largely discredited, because it yields both false positives and false negatives. Some courts had begun to exclude such tests as early as 1959, five years before our hypothetical trial.

Quote:The assassination of President Kennedy remains a mystery partly because the nature of his wounds remains a mystery. This in turn is due largely to problems with the president’s autopsy, which took place at Bethesda Naval Hospital Center, a military teaching institution near Washington:

Henry Sienzant Wrote:And you didn't quote this, which explains why the frontal wound wasn't dissected:

Quote:Q: Now, Doctor, did you examine on the remains of the late President Kennedy a wound in the frontal neck region?

A: At the time of the autopsy I saw in the front of the neck of President Kennedy a transversal, which means going sideways, a transversal incision which was made for the purpose of keeping the breathing of the President, and this is called a tracheotomy, t-r-a-c-h-e-o-t-o-m-y. I examined this wound made by a surgeon, it is very commonly found in unconscious patients, the incision is made to allow them to breathe. I did not see a wound of exit at that time, but the following day Dr. Humes called the surgeons of Dallas and he was told that they --

MR. OSER:

I object to hearsay.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: You may not say what the surgeons in Dallas told Dr. Humes. That would be hearsay evidence.

A: I have to base my interpretation on all the facts available and not on one fact only. When you have a wound of entry in the back of the neck and no wound of exit at the time of autopsy, when the X-rays I requested showed no bullets in the cadaver of the President, you need some other information to know where the bullet went. At the time of the autopsy there was a wound of entry in the back of the neck, no exit, no X-rays showing a bullet, that bullet has to be somewhere, so that information to me is of great importance. I insist on that point, and that telephone call to Dallas from Dr. Humes --

THE COURT: You may insist on the point, Doctor, but we are going to do it according to law. If it is legally objectionable, even if you insist, I am going to have to sustain the objection. Do you understand me, Mr. Dymond?

MR. DYMOND: I do.

It's curious you don't quote that. (original found here.)

Quote:Mr Oser: Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you described it, after this bullet passed through the President’s throat in the manner in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?

Col. Finck: I don’t know.

Mr Oser: Do you have an opinion?

Col. Finck: There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after a shot.

Mr Oser: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

Col. Finck : I did not dissect the track in the neck.

Mr Oser: Why?

Col. Finck: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court so to direct.

Judge: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

Col. Finck: We didn’t remove the organs of the neck.

Mr Oser: Why not, Doctor?

Col. Finck: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the —

Mr Oser: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

Judge: Let him finish his answer.

Col. Finck: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and the chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

Mr Oser: You have said that they did not. I want to know why didn’t you as an autopsy pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

Col. Finck: I had the cause of death.

Mr Oser: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

Col. Finck: As I recall I didn’t remove these organs from the neck.

Mr Oser: I didn’t hear you.

Col. Finck: I examined the wounds but I didn’t remove the organs of the neck.

Mr Oser: You said you didn’t do this; I am asking you why didn’t [you] do this as a pathologist?

Col. Finck: From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound the best I can remember, but I didn’t dissect or remove these organs.

Mr Oser: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

Col. Finck: As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.

Mr Oser: You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?

Col. Finck: Right.

Mr Oser: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

Col. Finck: I don’t recall.

Mr Oser: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

Col. Finck: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.

Mr Oser: You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

Col. Finck: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

Mr Oser: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

Col. Finck: From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.