STEWART GALANOR SAID:
When Dr. Mantik returned to Eisenhower Memorial Hospital after examining the autopsy X-rays, he took a cross-sectional CAT scan at the neck level of a patient with upper chest and neck dimensions the same as President Kennedy 's. On this CAT scan he drew in the back and throat wounds of the President and connected them with a straight line. ... Clearly, any bullet along this path would have shattered the spine.
But the autopsy pathologists observed and the X-rays confirmed no major trauma to the President's spine had occurred. Thus, a bullet entering the President's back could not have exited his throat. With one simple stroke Dr. Mantik had scientifically disproved the lone assassin theory.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And CTers like Galanor and David Mantik think that we're supposed to just totally ignore JFK's autopsy report, in which the following words appear....
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."
So, Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell certainly didn't think the bullet HAD to hit President Kennedy's spine, did they?
But what do those three guys know, right? After all, they were merely the men who performed the autopsy on the deceased President. Dr. Mantik knows MUCH more than the three autopsists. Right, CTers?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
The throat wound was not established as an exit at the autopsy. That it is an exit wound is ENTIRELY speculative, which makes the SBT entirely speculative. And DVP is well aware of this. He doesn't like it that the SBT has no scientific underpinnings, so speculation and silly animations will have to do.
Dr. Mantik, CTer or not, draws his conclusion from scientific measurement. The SBT is about as far from science as one can get.
I'll go with science on this one. You can speculate as much as you like. It doesn't change scientific findings.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If the bullet didn't go out the only other bullet hole that existed in JFK's upper body (not counting the head), then where else could that bullet have gone, Garry?
Is that such a silly question to ask in light of the fact that no bullets were recovered from the body of the late Chief Executive during the autopsy?
And doesn't the fact that Governor Connally just happened to be hit in his upper back make you stop and stroke your chin just a tad bit and ponder the idea that if a bullet had come out of that bullet hole in JFK's throat, it very likely would (or certainly could) have struck Mr. Connally?
And if the back wound bullet didn't exit JFK's throat, you've now got to explain to me where TWO different bullets went. And you can't explain that, can you? Do you think that TWO bullets just vanished? TWO dum-dum low-velocity shots pelted JFK's body? Is that it? (Yeah, right.)
DEX OLSEN SAID:
What's your take on over a dozen [members of the Parkland medical staff] *originally* describing an orange size gaping wound at the rear of JFK's head?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. Always has been. It's weird. It's incredible. It's inexplicable. But it happened. Dozens of trained medical professionals were wrong about the locality of JFK's large head wound. And the X-rays and photos prove they were wrong.
Seemingly incredible? Yes. But true just the same. Can I fully explain why? No. Sure can't. But I give it a shot HERE and HERE.
DEX OLSEN SAID:
...the photo wasn't of JFK.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
For the record .... Dexter is saying that the famous "red spot" autopsy photo of JFK seen below really isn't a picture of John F. Kennedy at all (despite the verbiage we find on page 41 of HSCA volume 7). (Dex is very funny.)....
For some reason, Dex thinks JFK's hair was much longer on 11/22/63 than the red spot photo depicts. Dex is dead wrong (as usual), as we can see when comparing the Fort Worth pic of JFK below with the red spot autopsy picture shown above....
DEX OLSEN SAID:
Familiar with Occam's Razor?
From The Encyclopedia Britannica:
Occam's razor, also spelled Ockham's razor, also called law of economy or law of parsimony --- The principle gives precedence to simplicity of two competing theories. The simpler explanation of an entity is to be preferred.
In other words, perhaps a shot from the front? ... Sure looks that way to me at Z-313 as well as JFK's reaction in the following frames.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course I've heard of Occam's Razor. I use it all the time. It's the CTers who ignore William of Ockham's logical Razor, not the LNers. Or do you think a massive, complex multi-gun, solo-patsy frame-up theory is LESS complicated than the LNer belief in LHO's sole guilt?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
~sigh~
The Nutters absolutely refuse to understand Occam's Razor. .... When oh when will they understand that Occam's Razor says you should choose the simpler of two hypotheses IF BOTH EXPLAIN ALL THE EVIDENCE (data).
Oswald as a Lone Nut is not even close to explaining all the evidence.
DVP, if you use Occam's Razor all the time, you should learn to use it correctly. If you have two hypotheses, a simple one and a complex one, and the simple one doesn't explain all the evidence but the complex one does, then you should choose the complex one. This is an idea that the Nutters seem incapable of understanding.
Along with the fact that Occam's Razor has nothing to say about the TRUTH of any hypothesis. The truth comes later, with further examination.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're reading way too much into the definition of Occam's Razor, Garry. I use it to merely emphasize just the very basic common-sense principle of: SIMPLER IS BETTER.
Even if there's more breadth and depth to the Occam principle, I don't care. Because the basic principle is still true, in my opinion -- the LESS complicated theory is likely to be the correct conclusion (in general).
How can anyone argue with the basic truth that resides in that principle?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Only if *both* theories explain the evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you don't think the Lone Assassin theory explains the evidence, Benji?
Bizarre.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Davey sobs: "the LESS complicated theory is likely to be the correct conclusion (in general)."
So now you use an old wive's tale as proof of something. Let's see the evidence that what you wrote in the above quote is true.
We will be waiting a long time, because what you wrote has no evidence at all. It is an urban myth, dragged out from time to time as "Occam's Razor." There have been no studies to show that the "less complicated" explanation is likely the true one.
You can't make up logic as you go, DVP. It doesn't work that way.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I didn't say Occam's "proved" anything. I'm merely saying that any idiotic theory that includes a huge amount of supposition and conjecture and guesswork (as the CTers' theories contain in the JFK case) is much more likely to be false when compared with the clean, simple, uncomplicated theory of Oswald shooting some people with his own guns.
IOW - Why clog the works when the real evidence of LHO's obvious guilt works just fine?
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
You have to laugh at this. DVP cannot possibly believe that a theory that requires over a hundred witnesses to be "mistaken," and requires scores of "mistakes" being made by the investigators (FBI, as well as the Post Office, Klein's, and Seaport Traders, etc.) is "clean, simple, and uncomplicated."
DVP, one of these days you are going to have to face the reality of such ridiculous remarks.
"clean, simple, uncomplicated." That's a good one.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oswald's guilt is clean, it is simple, and it is quite uncomplicated. End of story.
It's only when the CTers get their grimy hands on the evidence does it become anything close to complicated.
Go wash your hands, Garry. They need it.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
"LN" theory *cannot* explain the evidence... that's why a majority of Americans don't believe the Warren Commission's "theory".
Now, I know you'll run like you always do... but here's just one example of hundreds that you cannot explain... why did the examiner *PURPOSELY* give a faulty lie detector test to Ruby?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, I agree, Jack Ruby's polygraph was a joke. But it's obvious too that the Warren Commission wasn't even attempting to hide the fact that it was a joke (and a very weird test). All you have to do is read Ruby's testimony in the WC volumes. The weirdness and oddities of Ruby's polygraph are all laid out, word-for-word, in the WC volumes.
Some cover-up there, huh?
David Von Pein
January 31—February 6, 2016
