From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 8 Apr 92 04:24:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <5APR199221163162@rigel.tamu.edu> 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:
|
|	Here we go again.
|
|||||	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.
|
|||| ..... How can the HSCA determine that the wound was in the right
||||rear, when the faked photo is not correct, and in fact the head wound
||||extends into the Occipital region, and is consistent with McCellannd's 
||||original drawing?
|
|	Actually, reading this several times, I'm wondering what the
|	hell you are getting at. Would you pleasse rephase this to make
|	it clearer to me. Are you saying that the right rear of the head
|	does not include the occipital region? That's  how it reads to
|	me, and it sounds a bit odd.

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.

||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?

||However, this line of argument is not really supported by the facts.
||McCellend still says that that the X-rays don't show what he
||saw. Who cares what the HSCA thought was consistent with whatever
||story they came up with?
|
|	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.
	
||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.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)