17-06-2013, 09:10 PM
David J.,
Firstly, let me just say thank you for remaining civil. All too often in these discussions, where two participants have polar opposite views, things can turn hostile very quickly. And that's something I'm keen to avoid. So again, thanks.
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what point it is you're trying to make with regard to the X-rays. You write:
"Where are these "torso" xrays that would have been shown to Finck? They must NOT have been shown since he requested BODY XRAYS as there were none available to him when he arrived..."
There were X-rays of the torso made before Finck arrived, he said so himself many times. In his report to General Blumberg, Finck stated: "The brain, the heart and the lungs had been removed before my arrival. X ray films of the head and chest had been taken." After he discovered the back wound, and they couldn't locate the bullet, "I SUGGEST X RAY FILMS BE TAKEN...OF THE ENTIRE BODY" (ARRB MD28). He knew that bullets could end up in the damnedest places, that's why Finck suggested entire body X-rays.
As far as I know, you are correct that the first incision SHOULD BE the Y incision, but by Hume's own admission that was not the case in JFK's autopsy. From his ARRB testimony:
Q. But just let me start out first: Where was the first incision made?
A. I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to approach the removal of the brain.
Q. And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you need to cut--
A. No, we had to cut some bone as well.
Q. Where did you make the incision on the scalp?
A. Where we usually--in the coronal plane, over the coronal suture. Of course, half of it was already--I mean, you know, it wasn't a neat incision because part of it was over the large defect that was already present. (p. 101)
You write: "Finck tells us that xrays WERE TAKEN of the body after the Y incision... since he is obviously looking at "entire body x-rays" at somepoint.
Once they begin working on him, the xrays and photos are now NOT reflective of the condition of the body in Dallas... can't be."
Yes that's right but, as I noted above, he also tells us that the X-rays of the SKULL were taken BEFORE his arrival. And Humes, Boswell, Reed and everyone else who was there says that this was BEFORE the first incision into the scalp. So the X-rays of the skull are ABSOLUTELY reflective of the state of the head AS IT ARRIVED at Bethesda.
With regard to the multiple caskets, there is no doubt that there is considerable confusion about this and I will not pretend to know what I cannot. I wish I had all the answers regarding entry times and whatnot, but I don't. However, the fact remains that the folks at Bethesda were told, according to petty officer Donald Rebentisch, that two ambulances carrying two caskets were employed one ofthem empty and one with the body of Kennedy in a deliberate charade to slip the President's body into Bethesda Naval Hospital. And his story is corroborated by Bethesda staff dental technician Robert Muma and another of Rebentisch's associates, Paul Neigler. It also seems that their may have been a third casket carrying the body of a deceased soldier. Like I said, there is confusion about what was what regarding the caskets which I guess was the whole point of the security measure. Does that mean that we are free to conclude that there must have been some illicit pre-autopsy surgery? Hell no! There is still no evidence of such. And if, per Horne, Humes was the one doing the deed, why would it be necessary to put Kennedy's body in a different casket anyway?
You write: "and Finally... you do not address the known fact that not a single person in Dallas tells us the damage is anything close to what is described at Bethesda...
NOT ONE Martin... they all confirm what Hill tells us... ALL of them."
I did address this before in post #11. Here's what I wrote:
The great mystery that remains for many is the discrepancy between what was seen at Parkland and what was recorded at Bethesda. To me is this no longer a mystery. Firstly, as your graphic shows, the Parkland doctors described a wound that was in pretty much the area in which the fragment trail onthe X-ray shows the bullet did exit. Some of them thought it was lower down, some of them not. I don't find it surprising or troubling that some thought the wound was further back than it was. I don't agree with everything Pat Speer says but he does some fine work on this on his website.
Secondly, the autopsy report admits that the skull damage extended into the occipital region which actually confirms part of the Parkland doctors' recollections rather than contradicts it. But the autopsy doctors said that the wound was 17 cm, encompassing most of the right side of the head, which is obviously bigger than what was seen at Parkland. What to make of this? Well, I believe that Dr. Gary Aguilar provided the most reasonable explanation years ago in Murder in Dealey Plaza:
"...that the wound was described as larger at autopsy than noted by emergency personnel is not proof it was surgically enlarged. Wounds picked apart during an autopsy examination are often found to be larger than they first appeared to emergency personnel. In Kennedy's case, moreover, Jackie Kennedy testified that she tried to hold the top of JFK's head down while they raced from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital. It is not hard to imagine the possibility that during the time it took the Presidential limousine to get to Parkland Hospital, clot had formed gluing a portion of disrupted scalp down making JFK's skull defect appear smaller to treating surgeons than it later would to autopsy surgeons." (p. 187)
In other words, the Parkland staff only saw the rear most part of the wound which fooled them into thinking it was located only in the rear of the head. This is perfectly reasonable and I have no problem accepting it as a probable explanation. It is INFINITELY more reasonable than claims that the autopsy doctors performed illicit pre-autopsy surgery which, as I said above, was completely unnecessary anyway.
Firstly, let me just say thank you for remaining civil. All too often in these discussions, where two participants have polar opposite views, things can turn hostile very quickly. And that's something I'm keen to avoid. So again, thanks.
Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what point it is you're trying to make with regard to the X-rays. You write:
"Where are these "torso" xrays that would have been shown to Finck? They must NOT have been shown since he requested BODY XRAYS as there were none available to him when he arrived..."
There were X-rays of the torso made before Finck arrived, he said so himself many times. In his report to General Blumberg, Finck stated: "The brain, the heart and the lungs had been removed before my arrival. X ray films of the head and chest had been taken." After he discovered the back wound, and they couldn't locate the bullet, "I SUGGEST X RAY FILMS BE TAKEN...OF THE ENTIRE BODY" (ARRB MD28). He knew that bullets could end up in the damnedest places, that's why Finck suggested entire body X-rays.
As far as I know, you are correct that the first incision SHOULD BE the Y incision, but by Hume's own admission that was not the case in JFK's autopsy. From his ARRB testimony:
Q. But just let me start out first: Where was the first incision made?
A. I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to approach the removal of the brain.
Q. And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you need to cut--
A. No, we had to cut some bone as well.
Q. Where did you make the incision on the scalp?
A. Where we usually--in the coronal plane, over the coronal suture. Of course, half of it was already--I mean, you know, it wasn't a neat incision because part of it was over the large defect that was already present. (p. 101)
You write: "Finck tells us that xrays WERE TAKEN of the body after the Y incision... since he is obviously looking at "entire body x-rays" at somepoint.
Once they begin working on him, the xrays and photos are now NOT reflective of the condition of the body in Dallas... can't be."
Yes that's right but, as I noted above, he also tells us that the X-rays of the SKULL were taken BEFORE his arrival. And Humes, Boswell, Reed and everyone else who was there says that this was BEFORE the first incision into the scalp. So the X-rays of the skull are ABSOLUTELY reflective of the state of the head AS IT ARRIVED at Bethesda.
With regard to the multiple caskets, there is no doubt that there is considerable confusion about this and I will not pretend to know what I cannot. I wish I had all the answers regarding entry times and whatnot, but I don't. However, the fact remains that the folks at Bethesda were told, according to petty officer Donald Rebentisch, that two ambulances carrying two caskets were employed one ofthem empty and one with the body of Kennedy in a deliberate charade to slip the President's body into Bethesda Naval Hospital. And his story is corroborated by Bethesda staff dental technician Robert Muma and another of Rebentisch's associates, Paul Neigler. It also seems that their may have been a third casket carrying the body of a deceased soldier. Like I said, there is confusion about what was what regarding the caskets which I guess was the whole point of the security measure. Does that mean that we are free to conclude that there must have been some illicit pre-autopsy surgery? Hell no! There is still no evidence of such. And if, per Horne, Humes was the one doing the deed, why would it be necessary to put Kennedy's body in a different casket anyway?
You write: "and Finally... you do not address the known fact that not a single person in Dallas tells us the damage is anything close to what is described at Bethesda...
NOT ONE Martin... they all confirm what Hill tells us... ALL of them."
I did address this before in post #11. Here's what I wrote:
The great mystery that remains for many is the discrepancy between what was seen at Parkland and what was recorded at Bethesda. To me is this no longer a mystery. Firstly, as your graphic shows, the Parkland doctors described a wound that was in pretty much the area in which the fragment trail onthe X-ray shows the bullet did exit. Some of them thought it was lower down, some of them not. I don't find it surprising or troubling that some thought the wound was further back than it was. I don't agree with everything Pat Speer says but he does some fine work on this on his website.
Secondly, the autopsy report admits that the skull damage extended into the occipital region which actually confirms part of the Parkland doctors' recollections rather than contradicts it. But the autopsy doctors said that the wound was 17 cm, encompassing most of the right side of the head, which is obviously bigger than what was seen at Parkland. What to make of this? Well, I believe that Dr. Gary Aguilar provided the most reasonable explanation years ago in Murder in Dealey Plaza:
"...that the wound was described as larger at autopsy than noted by emergency personnel is not proof it was surgically enlarged. Wounds picked apart during an autopsy examination are often found to be larger than they first appeared to emergency personnel. In Kennedy's case, moreover, Jackie Kennedy testified that she tried to hold the top of JFK's head down while they raced from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital. It is not hard to imagine the possibility that during the time it took the Presidential limousine to get to Parkland Hospital, clot had formed gluing a portion of disrupted scalp down making JFK's skull defect appear smaller to treating surgeons than it later would to autopsy surgeons." (p. 187)
In other words, the Parkland staff only saw the rear most part of the wound which fooled them into thinking it was located only in the rear of the head. This is perfectly reasonable and I have no problem accepting it as a probable explanation. It is INFINITELY more reasonable than claims that the autopsy doctors performed illicit pre-autopsy surgery which, as I said above, was completely unnecessary anyway.