Hank Sienzant

Spartacus Educational says her specialty was as an orthopedic surgeon who worked with Alton Ochsner into the causes of cancer: https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKshermanM.htm According to that site, the New Orleans Time-Picayune called her an orthopedic surgeon in reporting on her death on July 21st, 1964: They cite no source for the cancer claim that I could find, unless it's Haslam's book. Spartacus Educational says Haslam "argues" in his book (not "establishes") her cancer credentials: My understanding is Spartacus Educational leans toward conspiracy.

The HSCA medical review panel reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded Kennedy was struck twice, both times from above and behind. The original autopsists, with the body in front of them, reached the same conclusions. Your expertise in autopsies is what, exactly? "Somehow faked" - even though the HSCA medical panel reached the conclusion those were JFK's x-rays and the photographic panel concluded there was no evidence of fakery. You could adopt the argument that they were right, but that would be no fun and would mean abandoning your belief in extra shots striking JFK. The HSCA medical review panel reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded two shots from above and behind. You have what? Complaints about the extant evidence, which doesn't overturn any of the conclusions. I'm confused about something: Why do we conduct an autopsy, and at that autopsy, take photos and x-rays of the deceased? I thought it was to reach a conclusion about what caused the death of the deceased and to document that conclusion via the evidence gathered, rather than rely on the memories of some observers decades later about what the evidence revealed. While memories fade, the evidence doesn't. Isn't that why the HSCA panel used the extant autopsy evidence to reach their conclusions? Now that's funny. We both know conspiracy believers will reject any evidence and any conclusion by any panel that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. You yourself did this above in rejecting the HSCA autopsy experts conclusions: If you're wedded to something, divorce is hard and messy.

Curiously, you don't quote Henry Lee with disagreeing with the conclusions of the House Select Committee on Assassinations Medical Panel or with the original autopsists. Did he actually study the extant autopsy materials and reach a different conclusion? I remind you the HSCA autopsy panel had sterling credentials as well and actually agreed with the original autopsists about the origin of the shots (above and behind). And that panel had over 100,000 autopsies performed between them. And they actually studied the extant autopsy materials before reaching their conclusion. What did Henry Lee do concerning the JFK autopsy? Yeah, you said that already. But when I asked you to cite your source ("according to who?") you simply repeat your claim instead. Hilarious. What world are you living in? Humes and I are in the real world. Humes wasn't charged with any crime. Your complaint here makes absolutely no sense. Sorry, no. Instead of attacking me and calling me "blind", why don't you quote the autopsy experts that said they disagreed with the conclusions of the original autopsy and the HSCA review panel? Both those groups reached the same conclusions: two shots from above and behind struck the President. One bullet exited the throat of Kennedy and the other exited the right top of his head. So now you're complaining about the handwritten date on the Supplemental autopsy report instead of the lack of a date on the autopsy report? Sorry, same points as before: if these supposed conspirators you conjecture were attempting to fool everyone, do you think they'd overlook something as simple as the date? How does the lack of a date or a handwritten date overturn the conclusions or call into question the conclusions of the autopsy or the supplemental autopsy report? Wouldn't Humes be the best person to know when the various reports were prepared? ad hominem.

I answered your points in two separate posts:

What in particular struck you that way? Hank

I'm a real person. Is "case" synonymous with "person" where you come from? Or are you just going all ad hominem on me? I thought I just did, and posted how we know the date. From Humes testimony, which I cited. Who would know the date it was prepared better than he? Doug Horne? As Humes admitted in his testimony, the drawings weren't intended as a substitute for the photographs taken at autopsy. He admitted they were in part schematic because the illustrator wasn't working from the actual photographs, but only Humes verbal description: == quote == Commander HUMES - When appraised of the necessity for our appearance before this Commission, we did not know whether or not the photographs which we had made would be available to the Commission. So to assist in making our testimony more understandable to the Commission members, we decided to have made drawings, schematic drawings, of the situation as we saw it, as we recorded it and as we recall it. These drawings were made under my supervision and that of Dr. Boswell by Mr. Rydberg, whose initials are H. A. He is a hospital corpsman, second class, and a medical illustrator in our command at Naval Medical School.Mr. SPECTER - Did you provide him with the basic information from which these drawings were made?Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.Mr. SPECTER - Distances, that sort of thing?Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We had made certain physical measurements of the wounds, and of their position on the body of the late President, and we provided these and supervised directly Mr. Rydberg in making these drawings.Mr. SPECTER - Have you checked the drawings subsequent to their preparation to verify their accuracy?Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.Mr. SPECTER - And proportion?Commander HUMES - I must state these drawings are in part schematic. The artist had but a brief period of some 2 days to prepare these. He had no photographs from which to work, and had to work under our description, verbal description, of what we had observed. == unquote == And if you read the transcript of his testimony before the Commission, you can see that Specter is building a case for having the photographs and x-rays in evidence, so much so that Chief Justice Warren has to interject his own question: == quote == Mr. SPECTER - Now as to that last factor, would the X-rays be of material assistance to you in pinpointing the specific locale of the exit?Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir. The only path that the X-rays show in any detail are of the minor fragments which passed from point A to point B.Mr. SPECTER - Now that you have finished your major descriptions of the wounds, can you be any more specific in telling us in what way the availability of the x-rays would assist in further specifying the nature of the wounds?Commander HUMES - I do not believe, sir, that the availability of the X-rays would materially assist the Commission.Mr. SPECTER - How about the same question as to the pictures?Commander HUMES - The pictures would show more accurately and in more detail the character of the wounds as depicted particularly in 385 and 386 and in 388-A. They would also perhaps give the Commissioners a better---- better is not the best term, but a more graphic picture of the massive defect in 388.Mr. SPECTER - Going back for a moment, Doctor Humes---The CHAIRMAN. Before we get off that, may I ask you this, Commander: If we had the pictures here and you could look them over again and restate your opinion, would it cause you to change any of the testimony you have given here?Commander HUMES - To the best of my recollection, Mr. Chief Justice, it would not. == unquote == If there was anything nefarious going on, why would he admit that? Why not just rewrite the autopsy papers and claim *these* are the originals? Why admit to burning anything if there's a cover-up of any kind in place? I see a particle trail in the x-ray that travels from back to front. Gunn didn't? What did the HSCA photographic panel conclude of the photos and x-rays? That those photos and x-rays were legitimate. What did the HSCA medical panel (with over 100,000 autopsies conducted between them) conclude from the extant autopsy evidence? That JFK was struck twice, both times from behind. Why is it that I keep citing the legitimate experts in this case and you keep telling me why all the experts were wrong? Have Doug Horne, Dave Mantik, or Jerry McKnight ever conduct even one autopsy? What did he do that would get his testimony excluded? It wouldn't. If what he did was so bad, the defense would love to cross-examine him. How so? Please cite for this. Humes explained why he didn't dissect the bullet path in the skull at autopsy. And did go on in his testimony to describe the supplemental examination. == quote == Commander HUMES - Exhibit 391 is listed as a supplementary report on the autopsy of the late President Kennedy, and was prepared some days after the examination.This delay necessitated by, primarily, our desire to have the brain better fixed with formaldehyde before we proceeded further with the examination of the brain which is a standard means of approach to study of the brain.The brain in its fresh state does not lend itself well to examination.From my notes of the examination, at the time of the post-mortem examination, we noted that clearly visible in the large skull defect and exuding from it was lacerated brain tissue which, on close inspection proved to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.We also noted at this point that the flocculus cerebri was extensively lacerated and that the superior sagittal sinus which is a venous blood containing channel in the top of the meninges was also lacerated.To continue to answer your question with regard to the damage of the brain, following the formal infixation, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck and I convened to examine the brain in this state.We also prepared photographs of the brain from several aspects to depict the extent of these injuries.We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm.The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex.The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.In addition, there was a laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is the corpus callosum. Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain.When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution.Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.When the brain was turned over and viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.This laceration partially communicates with an oblique 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions.There were irregular superficial lacerations over the basular or inferior aspects of the left temporal and frontal lobes. We interpret that these later contusions were brought about when the disruptive force of the injury pushed that portion of the brain against the relative intact skull.This has been described as contre-coup injury in that location.This, then, I believe, Mr. Specter, are the major points with regard to the President's head wound. == unquote == Not according to Perry's testimony to the Warren Commission. I see nothing in the below about Humes trying to get him to change his story: == Quote == Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital? Dr. PERRY - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - When did that conversation occur? Dr. PERRY - My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when. Mr. SPECTER - Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday? Dr. PERRY - No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer. Mr. SPECTER - What was the medium of your conversation? Dr. PERRY - Over the telephone. Mr. SPECTER - Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda? Dr. PERRY - He did. Mr. SPECTER - Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him? Dr. PERRY - He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings. Mr. SPECTER - Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is? Dr. PERRY - Autopsy, postmortem examination. Mr. SPECTER - What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please? Dr. PERRY - The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time. Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, did you observe any bruising of the neck muscles of President Kennedy when you were engaged in your operative procedure that you have described? Dr. PERRY - This bruising, as you describe, would have been obscured by the fact that there was a large amount of blood, hematoma, present in the neck and the mediastinum and hence all the blood tissues were covered by this blood. == quote == Yeah, he only conducted the autopsy on the President. Why call him to the stand? According to what legal experts? You? Yeah, two of the three medical professionals who conducted the autopsy of the President. We should just skip what they have to say and go right to the conspiracy theorist version of events. It would save us all a great deal of time. Hank

Didn't I cover this subject with you in detail on the International Skeptics forum? You are MicahJava there, are you not? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12325583&postcount=303 Hank

It's Hank Sienzant, but Joe Zircon works fine. I posted at alt.assassination.jfk for about a decade (starting in 1998) under that alias to honor my wife's wishes. "Joe Zircon" is a play on "Joe Diamond", the name of the person who shot the accused assassin in Richard Condon's novel "Winter Kills". "Joe Diamond" is of course a play on "Jack Ruby", who shot and killed Oswald. Absolutely. Our only disagreement is which side has the nutters and which side has the evidence on their side. You'll note in this thread the only one who has been posting evidence is me. You and others have been posting opinion, assertions, and utilizing logical fallacies to attempt to rebut that evidence. Let's start with : What did Oswald say when he was asked where he was during the shooting? Oswald said he was inside the building at the time of the shooting. What time do you think the questioner was asking about? Hank

What a bizarre criticism. I post on my schedule, when I have time. You can post on your schedule. You can read my posts when you have time, and I'll read yours when I have time. Deal? Hank

What I wrote (and cited) was in direct response to your claim: "... Further, the rifle in the BYP is not the one found at the depository. " Here's what I wrote: Instead of rebutting any of that or even addressing any of that, you simply changed the subject! That's a logical fallacy called a red herring: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Red-Herring Now try responding to the point. You claimed the rifle in the Depository was not the same rifle as that in the back yard photos (BYP). I pointed out the experts working for the HSCA disagree with your assessment. This is the point where you provide your evidence to support your claim (not your argument or opinion, your evidence). Got any?

Please stop creating straw men to knock down. I said nothing about 56 witnesses to two or four shots. Your argument is not a rebuttal to anything I said. I asked: == quote == Weren't there other witnesses who put the first two shots as bunched? Weren't there other witnesses who heard only two shots? Weren't there other witnesses who heard four or more? Now, tell me how you know these witnesses (whom you neither name nor cite their statements) are the right ones. Start there. Then tell me how these witnesses support anything you're alleging. Make a case, not a Gish Gallop. == unquote == You failed to do any of that. Instead, in defense of your Gish Gallop logical fallacy, you set forth another logical fallacy, that of a straw man argument, where you rebut something I didn't say and pretend that is adequate. It's not. And ignoring that Oswald put himself in the building at the time of the shooting isn't helping your argument any. Again, here's the fuller quote: == QUOTE == 1st REPORTER : Did you kill the President? LEE HARVEY OSWALD : No, sir, I didn't. People keep -- [crosstalk ] Sir? 1st REPORTER : Did you shoot the President? LEE HARVEY OSWALD : I work in that building. 1st REPORTER : Were you in the building at the time? LEE HARVEY OSWALD : Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir == UNQUOTE == He is asked if he was in the building *at that time* -- and it's evident from the preceding question to Oswald that the question is referencing the time when the President was shot. Oswald claimed he was inside the building at the time the President was shot. He didn't put himself outside on the steps. He put himself inside the building at that time -- at the time the President was shot. The only one avoiding the context is you.

Not once have I cited the Commission's conclusions, other than to compare it to the HSCA's about the source of the shots that struck the victims. Those conclusions were identical. In all other cases, I've cited the testimony to the commission by experts. Expert testimony that supports the conclusion that both the WC and the HSCA reached: Oswald fired all the shots that struck either victim in the car.

Hilarious. Seriously. You can't debate the facts so you resort to name-calling. I've seen it a multitude of places, from a multitude of conspiracy believers. They must label me dishonest or a "pathological xxxx" even though I back up my points with citations to the evidence. You call it a "fake-debate routine", but don't explain what is fake about any of it. I'm utilizing the actual evidence to support my conclusions. I don't care if you respect me or not, or what names you call me. That's like water off a duck's back to me. But the only one ignoring the evidence is you. I cite the actual testimony from the experts, and you repeat your opinions, which have no value here. Hank

Hilarious. The only one ignoring rebuttals has been you. 1. Asked and answered already. The bullet is long gone by the time the Zapruder film captures frame 313. The bullet was travelling over 2000 feet per second, and Zapruder's camera exposed film at the rate of 18.3 frames per second. At Z312, Kennedy's head is not yet struck. At Z313 the head is visibly damaged, and one large fragment (most likely the Harper fragment) can be seen spirally upward at about the one o'clock position in that frame. At a minimum of 2000 feet per second, the bullet that struck JFK in the head travels about 110 feet between frame 312 and 313. Momentum, from my college physics classes, is imparted at the moment of impact. The moment of impact must have been between Z312 and Z313. That means the movement caused by the bullet itself is reflected in those two frames. In Z313 JFK's head moves forward and down relative to Jackie. That's the movement you see caused by the bullet strike. Anything that transpires after frame Z313 is not caused by the bullet strike, because the bullet is long gone. 2. Asked and answered already. The Harper fragment was found in front of the limo at the time of the head shot. This is reflected in both the FBI interview of Harper and the map Milicent Cranor asked Harper to mark (previously provided to you). 3. I'm unaware of any ballistics test that establish what you claim. Enlighten me with a link to the actual test(s) that establish this. Are you referring to the tests performed by Light, Dziemien, and Olivier, perchance? If so, please quote the conclusion of the expert, not your own conclusion. Here, I'll do it for you: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier.htm == QUOTE == Mr. SPECTER. I hand you Commission Exhibit 862, move its admission into evidence, and ask you what that depicts? Dr. OLIVIER. This is the same skull. This is just looking at it from the front. You are looking at the exit. You can't see it here because the bone has been blown away, but the bullet exited somewhere around---we reconstructed the skull. In other words, it exited very close to the superorbital ridge, possibly below it. Mr. SPECTER. Did you formulate any other conclusions or opinions based on the tests on firing at the skull? Dr. OLIVIER. Well, let's see. We found that this bullet could do exactly--could make the type of wound that the President received. Also, that the recovered fragments were very similar to the ones recovered on the front seat and on the floor of the car. This, to me, indicates that those fragments did come from the bullet that wounded the President in the head. Mr. SPECTER. And how do the two major fragments in 857 compare, then, with the fragments heretofore identified as 567 and 569? Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar. == UNQUOTE == CE 567 and CE569 are two fragments found in the limo by the Secret Service on the evening of the assassination. They were ballistically matched to Oswald's rifle (CE139). == QUOTE == Mr. EISENBERG - Did you examine this bullet to determine whether it had been fired from Exhibit 139 to the exclusion of all other weapons? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion? Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment was fired in this rifle, 139. ... Mr. EISENBERG - Can we go back a second? I don't think I asked for admission of the bullet fragment which--Mr. Frazier identified. May I have that admitted? Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted. Mr. EISENBERG - The bullet fragment will be 567 and the photograph just identified by Mr. Frazier will be 568. Mr. McCLOY - It may be admitted. ... Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG - What was your conclusion? Mr. FRAZIER - This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139. Mr. EISENBERG - Again to the exclusion of all other rifles? Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. == UNQUOTE == The bullet that struck Kennedy in the head, therefore, according to the expert testimony, was fired from Oswald's weapon -- to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Hank

Humes testimony dates it: == QUOTE == Commander HUMES - I believe at this point I would like to have, if you have my gross autopsy description because I will give the dimensions of these wounds at this time. Mr. SPECTER - We will use the Commission Exhibit No. 387 and I will ask you first of all, for the record, to identify what this document is, Dr. Humes. (The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 387 for identification.) Commander HUMES - This document is a copy of the gross autopsy report which was prepared by myself, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck, and completed within approximately 48 hours after the assassination of the President. == UNQUOTE == Here is CE387: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0501b.htm Hank