From: mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:17:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Incontinental Blather, Inc
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes...
>mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|(David Wright) writes...
>||In article <1APR199200260839@sigma.tamu.edu| mst4298@sigma.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:
>|||david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes... 
>||||mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

>|||||	7) The four doctors who saw the *entire* portfolio of autopsy
>|||||	   snapshots claim that the photos *do* show what they saw
>|||||	   at Parkland, and that the photo that is supposed to be 
>|||||	   a fake is actually just misinterpeted out of the context
>|||||	   of the entire corpus of autopsy shots.

>Look at it this way, the parkland peopple did not see the entrance wound of 
>the head since it did not exist at that time. How can they say that this
>described what they saw at parkland? Also, clearly the throat wound was
>different. Look, the doctors have a choice. They find what they remember as
>being faulty, or they determine there was a conspiracy. Most do the former,
>even though statements at the time say otherwise.

	From "Because they did not see it," it does not follow that "it
	did not exist." The wound could have easily been obscured by 
	JFK's hair, especially considering that all eyes would have been
	trained on a certain other, more obvious wound. The back wound
	was known to only one of the Parkland doctors, and that by
	accident, even after JFK's back was quickly searched (by touch)
	for any possible wounds. As more than one of the Parkland
	doctors has pointed out, their job was to save JFK's life,
	not seek out and describe any and all possible wounds. Once
	JFK was wheeled in, I doubt that any member of the Parkland
	staff gave much, if any, attention to a detailed search for
	possible entry wounds. The entry wound was chicken shit compared
	avulsive wound.

	"Clearly, the throat wound was different..." Why is the throat 
	wound clearly different? 

	Now you are calling four respected physicians liars on the basis
	of little more than reports of conflicting estimates of memories,
	your (and/or Lifton's, which is more probable) depictions of the
	various wounds from *verbal* sources, almost all of which are
	themselves only estimates, and most of those based on memories.
	That's not much to go on.


>||I see. The photos remain the same but the explanation changes from
>||decade to decade? That is great stride in the knowledge of mankind.

>|	Since when did the explanations really change? The 'differences'
>|	between Parkland, Bethseda, the WC, HSCA, etc. are minor,
>|	mostly trivial. If anything, the 'differences' have been played
>|	up, molehill-into-mountain, by several, though not all, of the	
>|	conspiracy writers. 

>Have you read Lifton?

	Yes, I've read Lifton. I find that he magnifies any and every 
	difference, so that molehills find themselves clad with treelines.
	He makes a big to-do about the "different" sizes of the head
	wound at Bethseda and Parkland. I remember one Parkland description
	of the wound as having a maximum dimension of 10cm; the Bethseda
	estimate (yes, estimate) was 13cm. That's a huge, huge difference,
	now, isn't it? There is Lifton's account of Humes testimony to the
	HSCA. Humes' words, when Lifton's comments are stripped away
	(see the HSCA Hearings, vols. 1 & 2) are nowhere near as dramatic 
	as you and Lifton would have me believe.
	
	The testimony of the Parkland Four (for lack of a better description
	for them) blows most, if not all, of Lifton's theory away.



>|	The question is, which x-rays did McClelland see? The areas that
>|	McClelland notes as missing show up in the enhancements. Then
>|	again, you probably don't care about that, either.

>I trust McClelland over your interpretation. It doesn't matter what an expert
>says could be consistent. The phyisical evidence is consistent with a number of
>improbable events.

	It depends on what McClelland was interpeting, now doesn't it? When
	I first saw the head x-rays, I thought something was fishy, too.
	Later, I found out about the enhancements, and looked up the radiology
	reports in the HSCA. After some comparison, and a little thinking,
	it became clear that the x-rays were eithe poorly exposed or poorly
	developed. 

	Among other things, the mysterious 'missing' right eye socket (which
	is one of the things that McClelland noted) shows up quite clearly in
	the x-rays.   

	And I thought that McClelland was a liar who was too afraid to 
	broach the possibility of conspiracy?



>||As to photos, all we have are the ones that were presented to the public,
>||which clearly were incomplete and one was a forgery in the sense it did not 
>||depict the wound in question. 

>|	"forgery in the sense"? rubbish. The photo was taken to show the
>|	entry wound in the back of the head, not the large wound. That
>|	wound is the wound in question. The HSCA testimony is clear about 
>|	that. 

>I was describing what the public saw as an indication that parital truths can
>be as bad as none. Clearly the HSCA wanted to move the wound from the back to
>the front. Look at the drawings of the scenarios.

	The reason the photo was published was to show the entry wound.
	It is clear from the testimony given  to the HSCA, and the photo 
	itself, that the shot was taken expressly to clearly show the
	nature and location of the entry wound. From reading Lifton, Baden,
	and others, it seems that the Kennedy family refused to allow  any 
	of the other pictures be released, even in drawn reproduction.

	I admit that people have probably been misled by the picture. Then	
	again, how many conspiracy authors have used the photos of the
	various goat and wrist test bullets fired by the WC, without
	noting important differences between the tests and Dealy Plaza,
	especially the great differnces in impact velocities?

	Finally (and back to the point), saying that a picture is a "fake"
	or a "forgery" because it may be misleading is just plain wrong.
	
	 
	
                                |  
		              \ | /	 
                               \|/
_________________________   ---(0)---   ______________________________________
\__                      \___/~/|\~\___/                              _______/
  \__ mst4298@zeus.tamu.edu / / | \ \\ 	      Ambiguity is the      ______////
    \__ Mitchell S Todd    /    |    \\   Devil's tetherball     ______////
      \___________________/           \\____________________________////
         \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/_____________\\\///////////////////////////
                           /////\\\\\\\\\\\