Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sandy Larsen

Admin
  • Posts

    8,904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Sandy Larsen

  • Birthday 11/18/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

12,209 profile views

Sandy Larsen's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Dedicated

Recent Badges

  1. They saw no such thing. Yes they did. See this thread, first post.
  2. Here we have further proof that there was a large wound (hole) on the back of JFK's head, and therefore proof that the back-of-head autopsy photo is fraudulent. All three autopsists, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, spoke of an entrance wound near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is the bump low on the back of a head. Apparently, only half of this entrance wound was in evidence at the autopsy because the other half was on a bone fragment that was brought in later. By the time of the HSCA hearings, Dr. Boswell spoke freely of both the small entrance wound and the missing skull fragment adjacent to it. Apparently he thought it was no longer a secret. Dr. Finck was tighter-lipped. But he did slip up when testifying for the Warren Commission. Dr. Humes remained quiet his entire life, but did indirectly reveal the fragment in the autopsy report. Following are the autopsists' comments I've found revealing the missing fragment. You'll see that their purpose in discussing it was to explain how they determined the small EOP wound was one of entrance, not exit. The hole exhibited "cratering" on the inside of the skull, which means it was a wound of entrance. Boswell, HSCA: [speaking of the entrance wound ] "....because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here -- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface." Note: Beveling on the interior surface indicates an entrance wound. Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA: "Regarding the head wounds [Dr Boswell] said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in." Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA: "Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" Boswell to Dr. Aguilar, 1994: “The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.” Finck, WC: "In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone." Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the skull edge where the fragment fits. Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965: "I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance." Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fit there. Finally, I need to remind you that what Boswell and Finck say (above) is consistent with the description of the EOP wound on the autopsy report. The word "fragment" isn't used in the report. But the fact that the hole (and beveling) is said to be on the margins (edge) of the skull implies that the hole is shared by two pieces of skull bone. Otherwise how could the hole be on the margins? Autopsy Report (Humes): "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound [in the scalp] measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."
  3. Since you think this thread is therefore a dead end, and is the end of the Harvey & Lee theory, maybe you will go away.
  4. You completely ignored my first question. Understandably so. Only a WC apologist could believe that three doctors ALL saw a missing bone fragment from the occiput, and half of an entrance wound on the margin of the remaining bone, when in reality there was no missing bone at all and no bullet wound on the margin of the remaining bone. They all hallucinated. Just like all the doctor and nurses at Parkland hallucinated a gaping hole on the back of the head. Incredible.
  5. I don't know how you can possibly believe that, given that I have just disagreed with the Elizabeth Bentley identification favored by most the party's here. But in some cases I defer to Jim Hargrove because he's the resident expert on Harvey & Lee. Moderators are allowed to have opinions as long as any resulting conflict of interest doesn't influence their moderation decisions. I have two other moderators I have to answer to. You're imagining things. I never shut anything down. The only thing I did was to stop your spamming of this thread with mostly irrelevant data. The caller to the Connecticut Tippits didn't state that HARVEY Oswald was in New York in the late 1940s. Don't flatter yourself. Even I knew about that communication before you mentioned it. It's in Armstrong's book. I haven't pursued it because, in reality, Oswald didn't even write to Weinstock... he wrote to the Communist Party headquarters in NYC IIRC. Weinstock just happened to be a guy who replied to it, thanking Oswald for his offer to help out with photographic work. It is something to keep in mind, but probably just a coincidence.
  6. Dave, That spot of blood you're referring to in the cowlick area cannot be the entrance wound seen by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. First off, they all saw the wound near the EOP. How could they all be wrong abut that, let alone Humes alone being wrong? In addition, all three of those doctors said that they saw only HALF of a wound. The other half was on a fragment brought in later. In other words, they saw only half of the hole because it was on the margin of the bone. Even the autopsy report states this. How do you explain this?
  7. I thought something seemed amiss when I wrote that. I was in a rush.
  8. I never said the report should not be questioned. And I never said that other people should agree with my opinion*. I don't know what your problem is. But I do know it's an attitude that we would be better off without. (*An opinion based on sound reasoning, BTW. So you don't make a big deal about it again.)
  9. Francois, I have a question for you. Does it bother you at all that the HSCA moved the entrance wound that Humes saw near the external occipital protuberance up by 4 inches, to the cowlick area of the head? Don't you think that was an astonishing thing to do? Most CTers know the reason the HSCA did that. Do you?
  10. Francois, That claim in and of itself doesn't matter much to me because it is just the memory of one witness and has no corroboration. I happen to believe that Oswald told the truth in his interrogation about buying a coke on the second floor, then taking it down and drinking it with his lunch. All before the shooting, of course. So if Oswald got change from Geraldine Reid for the coke, that would have been around 12:15 PM.
  11. It is several pages back and I don't have the time or patience to search for it. But I will reconstruct it the best I can if you like.
  12. I DID use sound reasoning. Here's my post that you criticized: I had given my reasoning earlier in the thread. Apparently you missed it. Now, if you had asked me to repeat my reasoning rather than responding with your smart-ass reply, I would have been happy to give it to you.
  13. Oh goodie... another data dump. Noted. I guess the rest of us will have to use our considered reasoning and judgement to discern which parts of it are relevant and which parts aren't. Of course, in doing so we risk the condemnation of Matt Cloud, who is averse to the concept of an individual forum member BELIEVING something, even if the belief is based on sound reasoning.
  14. Keven, I think you just outed yourself. Anybody who believes the 1/6 hearings were a farce -- which is what your post suggests -- has either got to be a Trump supporter or is a believer in wacko anti-Trump conspiracies. I watched the 1/6 hearings and they were completely fair. Most, if not all, the witnesses were Republicans. The findings match perfectly with all the news I heard regarding the 1/6 crimes committed by Trump... some of which he himself admitted to. Russiagate was a difficult thing to follow, but not so the 1/6 crimes. It is obvious that Trump is guilty of the charges against him.
×
×
  • Create New...