I want to talk about it, but first I want to note that the whole process was GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED. Did you know that they had helicopters hovering above the hearse as it transported Oswald's body to Baylor? That is: government helicopters. The whole process was government-controlled from start to finish.
But, why should it have been? At that point, what legal right did the U.S. government have to Oswald's remains? Marina Oswald should have taken Oswald's body out of this country to have it exhumed. Oh, but just imagine if she had tried to do that. I don't know what legal basis they would have resorted to to stop her, but I guarantee you that they would have come up with something.
And the biggest thing in this second autopsy, if we can call it that, was, reportedly, the finding of Oswald's mastoidectomy scar from when he was 6 years old. But, it's very unsettling because Oswald's first autopsist, Dallas coroner Dr. Earl Rose, didn't find it. And he performed an intermastoid incision in order to open the skull to examine the brain, and yet he didn't notice a large scar? And remember that the mastoid process is large bump of bone. And depending on how much mastoid tissue you remove, you basically flatten it. So, it's not just a scar in the skin; we're talking about a defect in the bone; the loss of bone.
So, Dr. Rose didn't notice it, and keep in mind that he searched Oswald's body for scars, reporting scars that were as small as 1/16 of an inch. For example: "a pale, white, oblong, 1/4 inch scar."
Here's a picture of a guy showing off his mastoidectomy scar.
Wow. That looks to be about 3 inches. Now, you tell me how either Dr. Rose or Mr. Groody could have missed seeing that.
Oswald enlisted in the Marines in 1956 at age 17, and he underwent a physical in which he was reported to have a 3 inch mastoidectomy scar on his left side. Three inches, just like the one above! And, in Oswald's case it was after 11 years. And when he was discharged from the Marines in 1959, it was noted again.
Also note that Oswald's mortician Paul Groody had to do a lot of work on Oswald to make him presentable for an open casket, and he reported finding no mastoidectomy scar either. And, he undoubtedly had to dress up the intermastoid incision that Dr. Rose made.
And note that the Oswald at Atsugi in Japan accidentally shot himself in the left arm, so he had a scar there too. Neither Rose nor Groody reported any such arm scar on the dead Oswald.
So, let's look at the Norton Report to find out exactly what the exhumation doctors found.
They wrote ONE SENTENCE about the mastoid issue:
The mastoid prominence of the left temporal bone revealed an irregularly ovoid 1.0- by 0.5-cm defect penetrating to the interior of the mastoid bone with the defect edges rounded and smooth.
It sounds to me like they found a depression that was 1 centimeter by half a centimeter. I suppose you could call it a hole, except it wasn't a round hole; it was twice as long as it was wide. But, it was still very small. A centimeter is a little less than 4/10 of an inch. So, a half centimeter is a little less than 2/10 of an inch. In someone who was buried in the ground for 18 years, does that meet the threshold of identifying a post-surgical effect?
And what about the inexorable process of decay that takes place? This is from a Science page:
Bones aren’t that different from our flesh and blood. We think of bones as solid and firm parts of our skeleton, that can snap like a piece of chalk when we are injured badly. The truth is that bones are living tissues, just like our other organ systems, containing blood vessels and nerves. Bones are largely composed of collagen, which creates a strong porous matrix, rather than a solid structure. Therefore, the same chemical, physical, and micro-organic processes that break down tissues will also cause bones to decompose!
I say that wear and tear from 18 years of being dead under the ground and the decaying, decomposing process that invariably takes place was fraudulently attributed to mastoid surgery. They certainly did NOT prove their claim, and the burden of proof was on them, and it still is.