Explain this and I'll take you more seriously

[Sandy Larsen]

17 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The EOP bullet was said to have created a 6 by 15 mm hole in the scalp (not skull). It was said to have skidded a little on the skull, thus creating the 15 mm length. It was said to have entered into the skull as signified by a beveling of the inside surface of the skull (typical for a bullet entry). It was said that the beveling was seen on the margin of the skull bone... that is to say, on the edge of the skull bone where a fragment had broken off. Funny thing, though... that fragment was at first missing and arrived later. Which begs the question:

How did that fragment at the EOP site escape if there wasn't a large hole on the back of the head? Nobody at the HSCA seemed to care... they asked no follow-up questions as far as I've seen.

 

Boswell, HSCA:

[speaking of the EOP 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"

 

Can anybody say "Harper fragment?"

Sure, I knew you could.

 

Dr. Finck seemed to say the opposite - that he could examine the EOP wound in the skull as an undisturbed perforation in the bone. And he arrived after the top of the skull had been opened up to remove the brain.

 

I believe that Boswell is the one telling the truth. Because his story fits in very well with all the other evidence and testimony regarding a blowout on the back of the head, the late arrival of the BOH fragment, and the Harper fragment being identified as being occipital.

I believe that the Harper fragment was found shortly after the assassination, not by Mr. Harper. It was flown to Washington and arrived late at the autopsy. It was realized that it fit the hole in the back of the head , and that this would reveal a shot from the front. Therefore it was flown back to Dallas and planted in Dealey plaza in FRONT of where Kennedy had been shot, so that it could fit the official story of shots from the back. Unfortunately for the FBI it was found by someone who would get it identified as being occipital before turning it in. The FBI couldn't let the "occipital" part stand, and so conveniently lost the fragment. They took a picture of of a different fragment and thereafter claimed it to be the Harper fragment.

 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I believe that Boswell is the one telling the truth. Because his story fits in very well with all the other evidence and testimony regarding a blowout on the back of the head, the late arrival of the BOH fragment, and the Harper fragment being identified as being occipital.

I believe that the Harper fragment was found shortly after the assassination, not by Mr. Harper. It was flown to Washington and arrived late at the autopsy. It was realized that it fit the hole in the back of the head , and that this would reveal a shot from the front. Therefore it was flown back to Dallas and planted in Dealey plaza in FRONT of where Kennedy had been shot, so that it could fit the official story of shots from the back. Unfortunately for the FBI it was found by someone who would get it identified as being occipital before turning it in. The FBI couldn't let the "occipital" part stand, and so conveniently lost the fragment. They took a picture of of a different fragment and thereafter claimed it to be the Harper fragment.

 

Could the harper fragment be described as "10 by 6.5 centimeters" as described in Sibert and O'Neill's 2:00 AM 11/23/1963 teletype?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Could the harper fragment be described as "10 by 6.5 centimeters" as described in Sibert and O'Neill's 2:00 AM 11/23/1963 teletype?

That would be my guess.

It's interesting to note that SS Agent Sam Kinney,  in a deathbed confession, said that he found a skull fragment and bullet in the limousine when he was cleaning it. He placed them both on a stretched at Parkland Hospital.

 

[Micah Mileto]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I believe that Boswell is the one telling the truth. Because his story fits in very well with all the other evidence and testimony regarding a blowout on the back of the head, the late arrival of the BOH fragment, and the Harper fragment being identified as being occipital.

I believe that the Harper fragment was found shortly after the assassination, not by Mr. Harper. It was flown to Washington and arrived late at the autopsy. It was realized that it fit the hole in the back of the head , and that this would reveal a shot from the front. Therefore it was flown back to Dallas and planted in Dealey plaza in FRONT of where Kennedy had been shot, so that it could fit the official story of shots from the back. Unfortunately for the FBI it was found by someone who would get it identified as being occipital before turning it in. The FBI couldn't let the "occipital" part stand, and so conveniently lost the fragment. They took a picture of of a different fragment and thereafter claimed it to be the Harper fragment.

 

Do you think Finck was intentionally lying when he described the cranium around the EOP wound intact? His statements offer some of the best evidence for the EOP wound, because if the real wound was high in the cowlick then that area of the skull almost certainly would have been separated during the brain removal procedure. Finck arrived after the brain had already been removed and reported what he saw then.

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Do you think Finck was intentionally lying when he described the cranium around the EOP wound intact? His statements offer some of the best evidence for the EOP wound, because if the real wound was high in the cowlick then that area of the skull almost certainly would have been separated during the brain removal procedure. Finck arrived after the brain had already been removed and reported what he saw then.

 

Oh absolutely, Finck was lying. He knew that the fragment adjacent to the EOP hole was missing, and he even slipped up in his Warren Commission testimony indicating so. I'll show you where.

First, I'll remind you of what Dr. Boswell said... that the EOP hole was half on the fragment and half on the skull. (He also said that the fragment was missing, and brought in later.) Because of that, the cone-shaped beveling of the bone was half on the skull and half on the fragment. The beveling was on the inside of the skull, indicating that it was an entrance wound. Now, here is what Finck said:

"... if you look at the route of entrance in this case here, C, from the outside you will not see a crater. If you examine it from the inside, you will see a crater corresponding to the bevelling, coning, shelving, previously described by Commander Humes. 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."

The part I've highlighted in red begs the question, why is Finck talking about having "enough portion of the crater" to identify the wound as being an entrance? If there wasn't a missing fragment, they would have had the whole crater, not just a potion of it. But even more convincing is when he said there was "enough curvature" to know which side of the bone was the inside of the skull! He was obviously thinking of the fragment when he said that. With a small fragment the curvature would be too little to see which side of the bone was the inside of the skull. With a large fragment the curvature could be seen and so the inside of the bone could be determined.

Had there been no missing fragment, there would have been no question as to which side of the bone that beveling (crater) was on.

I don't think you should worry about losing Finck's anti-cowlick-wound testimony. I mean, that was such an obvious fraud that no convincing is required. Humes and the others held the body in their hands... they knew where the wound was.