The Disappearing Mastoidectomy scar?

[Greg R Parker]

The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by our MD Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. This is done either by itself or in conjunction with other procedures including tympanoplasty and ossicular chain reconstruction. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye.
http://www.nwface.com/seattle-medical/ot...oidectomy/

Taking into account that the operation was in the 1940s, it may not have been as well masked they are today, but still surely not all that prominent, either.

Armstrong uses the USMC enlistment record which states that Oswald had a 3 inch scar from this operation.

What he neglects to tell readers is that upon discharge, the scar was still visible, but had faded to one inch.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=141350

For the record, the mastoid scar was also noted in YH and Soviet hospital records. According to H & L theory (and unless I am mistaken?) this should not be so.

Given that scars do fade over time, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was no longer visible to the naked eye by the time of the autopsy.

Oswald's body upon exhumation was in advanced decay. It would be reasonable to suggest that the scar would stand out more under those conditions with the epidermis no longer there. This is because scars are formed when the epidermis is breached through surgery or injury.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=n40E...is&f=false

With the epidermis gone, the scar is once again visible.

In short, it did not disappear and then reappear - it just faded over time, to the point it was no longer visible to the naked eye. It became visible again due only to the natural processes of decay of the epidermis.

No magic required. No body swap required. No psychobabble required. Science once again trumps z grade movie scenarios.

[Greg R Parker]

The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by our MD Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. This is done either by itself or in conjunction with other procedures including tympanoplasty and ossicular chain reconstruction. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye.
http://www.nwface.com/seattle-medical/ot...oidectomy/

Taking into account that the operation was in the 1940s, it may not have been as well masked they are today, but still surely not all that prominent, either.

Armstrong uses the USMC enlistment record which states that Oswald had a 3 inch scar from this operation.

What he neglects to tell readers is that upon discharge, the scar was still visible, but had faded to one inch.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=141350

For the record, the mastoid scar was also noted in YH and Soviet hospital records. According to H & L theory (and unless I am mistaken?) this should not be so.

Given that scars do fade over time, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was no longer visible to the naked eye by the time of the autopsy.

Oswald's body upon exhumation was in advanced decay. It would be reasonable to suggest that the scar would stand out more under those conditions with the epidermis no longer there. This is because scars are formed when the epidermis is breached through surgery or injury.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=n40E...is&f=false

With the epidermis gone, the scar is once again visible.

In short, it did not disappear and then reappear - it just faded over time, to the point it was no longer visible to the naked eye. It became visible again due only to the natural processes of decay of the epidermis.

No magic required. No body swap required. No psychobabble required. Science once again trumps z grade movie scenarios.

I take it this being conceded and we can expect some revisions to the H & L site?

[Bob Prudhomme]

The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by our MD Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. This is done either by itself or in conjunction with other procedures including tympanoplasty and ossicular chain reconstruction. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye.
http://www.nwface.com/seattle-medical/ot...oidectomy/

Taking into account that the operation was in the 1940s, it may not have been as well masked they are today, but still surely not all that prominent, either.

Armstrong uses the USMC enlistment record which states that Oswald had a 3 inch scar from this operation.

What he neglects to tell readers is that upon discharge, the scar was still visible, but had faded to one inch.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=141350

For the record, the mastoid scar was also noted in YH and Soviet hospital records. According to H & L theory (and unless I am mistaken?) this should not be so.

Given that scars do fade over time, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was no longer visible to the naked eye by the time of the autopsy.

Oswald's body upon exhumation was in advanced decay. It would be reasonable to suggest that the scar would stand out more under those conditions with the epidermis no longer there. This is because scars are formed when the epidermis is breached through surgery or injury.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=n40E...is&f=false

With the epidermis gone, the scar is once again visible.

In short, it did not disappear and then reappear - it just faded over time, to the point it was no longer visible to the naked eye. It became visible again due only to the natural processes of decay of the epidermis.

No magic required. No body swap required. No psychobabble required. Science once again trumps z grade movie scenarios.

I take it this being conceded and we can expect some revisions to the H & L site?

Ever get the feeling you are being ignored? ::bowtie::

[Greg R Parker]

The procedure for mastoidectomy takes place under general anesthesia administered by our MD Anesthesiologist and takes approximately two to three hours. This is done either by itself or in conjunction with other procedures including tympanoplasty and ossicular chain reconstruction. An incision is made just behind the ear. This incision is typically very well masked within an existing skin crease, and the resulting scar usually heals to the point of being imperceptible to the naked eye.
http://www.nwface.com/seattle-medical/ot...oidectomy/

Taking into account that the operation was in the 1940s, it may not have been as well masked they are today, but still surely not all that prominent, either.

Armstrong uses the USMC enlistment record which states that Oswald had a 3 inch scar from this operation.

What he neglects to tell readers is that upon discharge, the scar was still visible, but had faded to one inch.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=141350

For the record, the mastoid scar was also noted in YH and Soviet hospital records. According to H & L theory (and unless I am mistaken?) this should not be so.

Given that scars do fade over time, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that it was no longer visible to the naked eye by the time of the autopsy.

Oswald's body upon exhumation was in advanced decay. It would be reasonable to suggest that the scar would stand out more under those conditions with the epidermis no longer there. This is because scars are formed when the epidermis is breached through surgery or injury.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=n40E...is&f=false

With the epidermis gone, the scar is once again visible.

In short, it did not disappear and then reappear - it just faded over time, to the point it was no longer visible to the naked eye. It became visible again due only to the natural processes of decay of the epidermis.

No magic required. No body swap required. No psychobabble required. Science once again trumps z grade movie scenarios.

I take it this being conceded and we can expect some revisions to the H & L site?

Ever get the feeling you are being ignored? ::bowtie::

Bob, ignore me all you want. Though you just proved you can't. What should not be ignored is the message. The scar did not disappear and reappear, nor is there any need for a body switch to explain it. Medical science explains it. That needs to be acknowledged.

[Jim Hargrove]

Bob, ignore me all you want. Though you just proved you can't. What should not be ignored is the message. The scar did not disappear and reappear, nor is there any need for a body switch to explain it. Medical science explains it. That needs to be acknowledged.

Your conjecture about the vanishing mastoidectomy scar is noted.

We are still waiting for your conjecture about a gunshot wound to his left elbow, the stitches that were required to close the wound, the .22 slug which he carried in his arm for a week before it was removed, and the separate incision that was made two inches above the wound to dig out the slug, and how those scars had apparently completely disappeared just six years later. This is the wound you called "very superficial."

[Greg R Parker]

Bob, ignore me all you want. Though you just proved you can't. What should not be ignored is the message. The scar did not disappear and reappear, nor is there any need for a body switch to explain it. Medical science explains it. That needs to be acknowledged.

Your conjecture about the vanishing mastoidectomy scar is noted.

We are still waiting for your conjecture about a gunshot wound to his left elbow, the stitches that were required to close the wound, the .22 slug which he carried in his arm for a week before it was removed, and the separate incision that was made two inches above the wound to dig out the slug, and how those scars had apparently completely disappeared just six years later. This is the wound you called "very superficial."

What I have posted are medical facts. The only conjecture is that the facts match what actually happened.

You guys either want to ignore any counter-arguments (the bury-my-head-in-the-sand approach until the mean man goes away), or you get abusive, or you want to change the subject.

I simply haven't looked into the gunshot wound (yet). My remark that it was superficial was from memory. If my memory is wrong, I will acknowledge it. Could you save me some time and point me to the autopsy report? If not, I will get back to you after I locate it.

[David Healy]

[quote=Bob Prudhomme][quote=Greg R Parker][quote=Greg R Parker]
...
The scar did not disappear and reappear, nor is there any need for a body switch to explain it. Medical science explains it. That needs to be acknowledged.

considering the medical science, discrepancy of and observation of same that was "present" in Bethesda and Parkland, I'd say what needs to be acknowledged is the Warren Commission Report is completely fucked up. Kennedy died (by gunshot wounds) on the streets of Dallas, that's the only thing they got right. Attempts to justify WCR medical findings (re Kennedy and Oswald) and determination[s] of same, is a complete waste of time for anyone with an IQ over room temperature...

I'm really surprised you're in the middle of this Greg Parker... you did much better with photographic evidence...

[Greg R Parker]

[quote=Greg R Parker][quote=Bob Prudhomme][quote=Greg R Parker]

considering the medical science, discrepancy of and observation of same that was "present" in Bethesda and Parkland, I'd say what needs to be acknowledged is the Warren Commission Report is completely fucked up. Kennedy died (by gunshot wounds) on the streets of Dallas, that's the only thing they got right. Attempts to justify WCR medical findings (re Kennedy and Oswald) and determination[s] of same, is a complete waste of time for anyone with an IQ over room temperature...

I'm really surprised you're in the middle of this Greg Parker... you did much better with photographic evidence...

You've got me confused with some other "Greg Parker". I don't get involved in the photographic evidence.

Your disparagement of every single piece of medical evidence in the WCR is noted.

This however, is an argument outside that box.

[David Healy]

[quote=David Healy][quote=Greg R Parker][quote=Bob Prudhomme]

You've got me confused with some other "Greg Parker". I don't get involved in the photographic evidence.

Your disparagement of every single piece of medical evidence in the WCR is noted.

This however, is an argument outside that box.

perhaps I do, you're not from down undah, eh? For the record, after nearly 20 years posting to these boards-forums I never discuss medical evidence... soooooo, I'll just classify your posts as just this side of WCR blind wing-nutism... Carry on Greg, have a good one!

[David Josephs]

Bob, ignore me all you want. Though you just proved you can't. What should not be ignored is the message. The scar did not disappear and reappear, nor is there any need for a body switch to explain it. Medical science explains it. That needs to be acknowledged.

Your conjecture about the vanishing mastoidectomy scar is noted.

We are still waiting for your conjecture about a gunshot wound to his left elbow, the stitches that were required to close the wound, the .22 slug which he carried in his arm for a week before it was removed, and the separate incision that was made two inches above the wound to dig out the slug, and how those scars had apparently completely disappeared just six years later. This is the wound you called "very superficial."

Noted, yet not accepted... The Marine Corp forms upon his entry shows a 3" mastoid scar noted specifically as a #39: Identifying Body Marks, Scars, Tatoos

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5864[/ATTACH]


In Folsom Exh #1 page 10 we see administrative remarks jump from May 1957 to April 1958... with nothing to report for the October 27, 1957 discharge of his weapon until the trial which finally takes place in April 1958.

Another interesting piece of history overlooked regarding this gunshot episode... CE1961 tells us that from 10/27/57 (the day of the shooting) Oswald is at the Hospital until Nov 15 - over 2 weeks for this little injury seems a bit long to me... and then for it to have been determined a year later that it is was in the line of duty even though it was also determined (and he was reprimanded) for having a personal weapon... and NOT the .45 issued him.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]5863[/ATTACH]


And finally... when he leaves the Marines... we have the mastoid scar at 1" now, and the scar to his left elbow and hand noted....again, as #39: Identifying Marks...
One would think that when the police are looking for a specific individual, their IDENTIFYING MARKS would be of some importance in proving they had the right person...

If one was to read the autopsy, one might conclude that the person Rose autopsied was NOT the same as this person leaving the military... as none of the surgical marks which Identified him when he entered and left the Marines were noted on his body at the time.... And all the close-up photos of Oswald's autopsy are not available...



[ATTACH=CONFIG]5865[/ATTACH]


So what do we have after the Autopsy performed by Dr Rose? No note of a Mastoid scar, no note of the Elbow scar and nothing on his left hand...
All observed visually upon military examination, as opposed to NOT being observed or noted after hours examining the body for an autopsy...




[ATTACH=CONFIG]5866[/ATTACH]