abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Ah, those were the days.
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
Ah, those were the days.
The cowlick is near the EOP. They are maybe 3 or 4 inches apart.
IIRC, the autopsy had the headwound above and to the right of the EOP, which means you're splitting hairs over an inch or so.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 15,741
Most folks would call that a tantrum.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
No. It was 40 plus medical witnesses. I was never sure why he chose to state it that way. Possibly 40 was as high as he could count (all his fingers and toes twice -- after that he lost track), or maybe he just thought 40 plus sounded more impressive than 41.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Clint Hill was on the left front of the running board of the Secret Service limo traveling immediately behind the Presidential limo at the start of the shooting. He was on the driver's side of the car.
You can see him in this photo, wearing sunglasses (ignore the text, which is wrong).
http://surftofind.com/witnes22321.jpg
This photo was taken at approximately frame Z255 of the Zapruder film - just about three seconds before the head shot.
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z255.jpg
There was NO ONE walking alongside the limo during the shooting. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill jumped off the follow-up car and raced to the Presidential limo, but couldn't get there in time. He barely got aboard the limo at all, as it was starting to speed up as he grasped the rear handhold.
You can see some of that in this (Marie Muchmore film):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMdreKlLhJY
And here (Orville Nix film):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU4mAVCprAU
In both, Hill enters the frame from the right side of the frame, from the follow-up car.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
Perhaps you meant to say the patch of Elm Street where the entire shooting took place is less than the length of a football field.
But Dealey Plaza is quite larger than a football field.
The distance from the rifle in the sixth floor window to the head at the time of the head shot is 265.3 feet...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0158a.htm
Mr. SPECTER - I now show you a document marked as Commission Exhibit No. 902, which characterizes what was believed to have been the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from rifle in window to the President of 265.3 feet, with the photograph through rifle scope identified on the document being the view which the marksman had of the President at the time the President was struck in the head, and I ask you again for an opinion as to the ease or difficulty of that shot, taking into consideration the capabilities of Mr. Oswald as a marksman, evidenced by the Marine Corps documents on him.
Major ANDERSON - I consider it to be not a particularly difficult shot at this short range, and that Oswald had full capabilities to make such a shot.
As noted, the black car in the aerial photo is roughly halfway down Elm Street. The distance to the overpass at the time of the head shot was measured, and found to be roughly that distance between the rifle and JFK (268.6 feet).
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0066b.htm
Last time I walked it off, the football fields I'm familiar with measured 120 yards - or 360 feet, counting both end zones. The length of Elm Street between Houston Street and the overpass is over 500 feet long.
Dealey Plaza is a triangular patch of land comprising the area between the overpass on the South, Houston Street on the north, and Elm and Commerce Streets on the West and East (and the land just outside those streets). Main Street runs right down the middle of Dealey Plaza.
Not to be too picky, but it's actually the sixth floor. Second floor from the top. The building has seven floors in total.
That's why this place is named the way it is:
http://www.jfk.org/
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Actually, I told you to look it up online, and informed you "you won't have to spend a friggin' penny" to purchase the volumes. You're not summarizing my advice accurately.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11475643&postcount=1322
If you actually read the volumes, you'd find that those drawings were, as testified to by Dr. Humes, who conducted the autopsy, schematic in nature:
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.
Mr. SPECTER - Would it be helpful to the artist, in redefining the drawings if that should become necessary, to have available to him the photographs or X-rays of the President?
Commander HUMES - If it were necessary to have them absolutely true to scale. I think it would be virtually impossible for him to do this without the photographs.
You could find that information in the second volume of the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of evidence. Right here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0180a.htm
If you actually bought them, you wasted your money, but not for the reason you think. When I bought them in the early 1980's, they weren't available online. They are available online at present - as I pointed out previously.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/contents_jfk.htm
I also warned you to "Stop getting your education on this subject through a conspiracy filter". But as you're still just repeating conspiracy nonsense, I suspect you are still getting your info from conspiracy books and websites. Including the claim you make above.
You won't learn the truth until you actually start reading the first-person eyewitness testimony, and the expert testimony.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
And the cowlick is above the EOP.
And, as you note, the autopsy report and Dr. Humes testimony put the entry wound above and to the right of the EOP:
Commander HUMES - The second wound was found in the right posterior portion of the scalp. This wound was situated approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occipital protuberance which is a bony prominence situated in the posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above that point.
Conspiracy theorists like to pretend there's a greater conflict here than there actually is.
Hank
You're making a classic conspiracy theorist mistake by assuming that Kennedy was sitting straight up and facing completely forward at the time of the shooting. The trajectories look different when the pictures and x-rays are taken when JFK's body is lying flat on its back on a table versus when Kennedy was riding in a car and reacting to the sound of the first shot for the first time he was hit and reacting to his throat wound for the head shot.
I asked you in another post about your problems with the head wound and a citation for where you're getting your information. This is a list of of pathologists that have examined either John Kennedy's body or the photos and x-rays taken at his autopsy.
Dr. James Humes
Dr. J. Thornton Boswell
Dr. Pierre Finck
Dr. John Coe
Dr. Joseph Davis
Dr. George Loquvam
Dr. Charles Petty
Dr. Earl Rose
Dr. Werner Spitz
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. James Weston
Dr. William Carnes
Dr. Russell Fisher
Dr. Russell Morgan
Dr. Alan Mortiz
Dr. Robert McMeekin
Dr. Richard Lindenberg
Dr. Fred Hodges
Every single one of these pathologists agree that all the damage to Kennedy's head was caused by one bullet traveling through JFK's head from the rear to an exit on the right front of his head. Even Cyril Wecht, who believes that there was a bullet fired at JFK from the front, admits that there's no evidence for it and so the bullet from the rear must have conveniently hidden all evidence of a frontal hit.
Can you link to any sources that calls into question the findings of the above pathologists?
If one error (which HSienzant has shown wasn't even an error) is enough for you to burn a book, how have ever gotten past the first page of ninety-nine percent of conspiracy books without having fire fighters on call 24/7?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Wow, a LN EOP theorist. You can tell how that trajectory is ridiculous just by looking at the Z film. That is also shown by how quickly the cowlick theory was cobbled together. Also, it's a little hard to tell without the brain to examine.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
The autopsy facesheet shows the wound on the same level as the ears, right by the EOP. That's a difference of a solid four inches. And the cowlick drop of blood (perhaps that photograph was chosen over the ones that were disappeared because it was so deliciously deceptive) on the photograph isn't the same size as the autopsy report says it was. You are effectively accusing the doctors of not knowing how to use a ruler. My reluctance accept these four-inch-mistakes by trained professionals is why I don't think anybody can trust the autopsy photograph of the back very much. Is there any witness, even an arguably coerced one, who handled the body and placed the wound on the cowlick?
And also, what's with the F8 photo? You can see fairly clearly that the light is reflecting off the edge of the bone around the hole in the skull. It's a hole, not a little splotch like the cowlick photo. Take all the context away, like how the photograph was originally described as portraying the small hole on the back of the head, and I don't see how F8 (actually two photographs) could be anything other than the EOP wound.
Last edited:
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Er... No... You can tell from the Z film that a shot on the back of the head, causes massive ejecta exactly where the autopsy describes.
All that seems to be at question is your judgement of when the bullet hits, and how the back of the head aligns to the TSBD.
I would ask you to look again, but you burned your copy of the autopsy, so you have shown you have no interest in questioning your preconceived conclusions.
Hmmm.... More than a dozen pathologists that collectively have more than a century's worth of experience versus some random person on the internet that refuses to cite any sources so apparently is operating purely on personal incredulity.
Sorry, I think I'm going to go with the people that have actual experience. Do you think you'll ever be able to provide any actual evidence of your position, or is just argument by assertion all the way down?
As to examining the brain, we have the pictures and x-rays from the autopsy, there's absolutely no information the brain could impart at this point. And you do know what happened to the brain, right? Or is this another instance where you're deliberately refusing to learn anything?
Last edited:
Autopsy face sheets are just a rough approximation of the location of wounds. They are not meant to be taken as the final word on wound placement.
The "blood spot" on the rear of the head photographs matches the location of the head wound on every x-ray. Those photographs and x-rays have been examined by teams of photography experts, anthropologists and forensic pathologists and been proven beyond all doubt to be the authentic unaltered autopsy materials of JFK.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
I brought it up because somebody else said they thought the autopsy face sheet matched the cowlick entrance better. So far, nobody has refuted Pat Speer's page which advocates that the F8 autopsy photo shows the EOP wound.
Traxy, the spot on the X-ray that is supposed to be a hole has the obvious appearance of a fracture. I'm not very familiar with the X-rays, but may I ask what is that hole-like dark object about four inches below the crack?
The cowlick entrance wound has no evidence besides a spot that looks like a dried drop of blood on the scalp. What are the odds that the bullet would just happen to pierce right where the scalp parts the hair? Who handled the body and supports the cowlick entrance?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Are you ever going to try to rebut the points I made starting here (and in the next dozen or so posts):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11474726&postcount=1305
Or is that all water under the bridge as far as you're concerned and you've moved on from those points?
Hank
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11474726&postcount=1305
Or is that all water under the bridge as far as you're concerned and you've moved on from those points?
Hank
Last edited:
So we're supposed to refute the guess work of untrained laymen now?
I'll take the opinion of the teams of trained anthropologists, pathologists and photography experts that have examined the evidence first hand over Pat Speer if it's all the same to you.
OK...but
Well, thanks for clearing that up.
For a detailed dissertation of the x-rays and what they show, feel free to consult any one of the reports from the panels of forensic pathologists that have examined them.
The rear of the head photo shows the entry wound as clear as day.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Try it by shooting a skull or a ballistics dummy. The bullet will not deflect far enough. My citation for that is the apparent need to cover-up the true location of the wound. It seems that the EOP wound is independent from the top-right head wound. The people who concluded that it was the result of one bullet to the head probably did not consider the trajectory, or they were somehow coerced. I don't have much more to say if you already accept the EOP wound.
Do you agree that the cowlick entrance wound is a hoax, which involved some coercion, including forcing the artist of the BOH autopsy photo sketch to make the red spot look like an actual hole with depth? Also, do you agree that the F8 autopsy photograph(s) depict the EOP wound?
lol
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Except the opinion of all the qualified experts who examined the x-rays and autopsy photos for the HSCA. You appear to keep forgetting that.
Hilarious. Seriously. This argument is HILARIOUS.
You think they should have done a comb-over to appeal to JFK's vanity?
You appear to think the autopsists wouldn't part the hair to make the wound more visible to the photographer for the historical record. Rather, you're making the assumption that the bullet hit exactly where JFK normally parted his hair. That's your assumption, so we'll await your evidence that establishes your assumption. Go ahead, we'll wait...
While you're at it, establish that's the normal cowlick area of JFK's head, and not the result of a pathologist combing the hair out of the way to make the wound more visible.
What's that? You're *assuming* that's the cowlick area?
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Can you provide the evidence for your assertion? Like the actual results of your tests? We'll stipulate we'll accept your test results rather than go through the expense of replicating them.
Wait, what? You assume the answer you want, and your evidence for that is the assumption you want?
It appears you're arguing for two bullets above. But none of the actual experts (including Cyril Wecht) found evidence of a second shot. Instead, they found evidence of an entry and an exit.
When looking at the body, you don't need to know the trajectory to determine the entry and exit wounds. Those are independent of the evidence from the body. Why do you think they should have considered anything except what the body tells them?
False dichotomy. There are other options you haven't listed. Like they are right and you don't know what you're talking about. So let's see what our true choices are:
(a) They didn't consider the trajectory.
(b) They were coerced.
(c) You don't know what you're talking about.
Feel free to add other options to this list.
Right now, the evidence indicates (c) is the correct answer. We'll await your evidence (not to be confused with your layman's opinion).
So where do you place the wound? And why? And based on what evidence?
It would help if instead of just asking questions, you presented your argument complete with links to the autopsy photo(s) you are referencing.
Hank
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
HSienzant
Philosopher
MicahJava,
You avoided addressing the point whatsoever. "lol" is not an adequate answer.
Care to actually address the point this time around?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
You mean Boswell's notes? This?
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/boswell-sheet1.htm
It also shows the bullet going from right to left once it enters the back of the head. Do you pick and choose the parts you like?
Please document that.
I've underscored the items you need to document in the above. You are stating things you haven't attempted to document in any fashion.
As far as I can determine, nobody but you has mentioned this point in this thread. You're the one raising the issue.
I've underscored the items you need to document in the above. You are stating things you haven't attempted to document in any fashion.
It would help if you actually provided the photos in question and labelled what you're looking at, and explain how you know it's showing what you're claiming it's showing. You refer to F8 as one photo and then say it's "actually two photographs". That's not at all clear.
Hank
Axxman300
Philosopher
This has been done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoMY0eR3eEs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjrupSwqrAs
You'd be wrong on that. A skull does funny things to a bullet.
There was no need to cover-up anything. The impact from behind is obvious to even the casual shooter.
Not really.
Or they were medical experts and ballistic experts.
This would be a lie, proven long ago to be a lie.
The simple truth of the shoots all coming from behind comes from the lack of wounds to Jackie. A shot from the knoll would have killed or wounded her too.
Again, bullets don't lie.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Not very closely related, but suddenly I had a vision of President George W. Bush's near miss with a pretzel.
Could that have been a failed CIA coup?
What kind of pretzel was it? Who bought those pretzels? Why was the congressional investigation shut down so tightly can covered up so thoroughly that no record of it even exists?
devnull
Philosopher
Pffft, I could make that shot all day, every day.
I didnt though. It wasnt me. I swear.
BazBear
Possible Suspect
I was assigned the mission, but HQ screwed up and didn't get the memo that I wouldn't be born until 404 days later.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Hell, a three-year-old could have done it.
Not that I have any particular reason to know that, of course.
Dave
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
I can use my highly developed ******** detector.
"I didn't buy anything or read anything that doesn't shore up my fantasy and burning books is such a cool analogy to coverup my manic hand-waving.
HSienzant
Philosopher
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/182/Willed-Ignorance
Willed Ignorance:
Description: Refusing to change one’s mind or consider conflicting information based on a desire to maintain one's existing beliefs.
Logical Form:
I believe X.
You have evidence for Y.
I don’t want to see it because I don't want to stop believing in X.
Example #1:
I don’t want anything coming in the way of me and my beliefs; therefore, I will only socialize with people who share my beliefs.
Explanation: This is a common form of the fallacy -- excluding oneself from society as a whole to smaller subgroups where the same general opinions are shared.
Hank
How would anybody know if LHO dropped the rifle? Or does "dropped" mean "I dropped my kid off at school". Please provide proof that the rifle was dropped. thx
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
R U 4 real?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
If you examine a firearm equipped with a mounted optic and said optic is not in perfect alignment a reasonable examiner might come to the conclusion that the firearm may have been dropped or damaged in some other fashion.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Please name one person who handled the body who agrees with the cowlick entrance wound. The BOH photo looks like a drop of blood and the x-rays look like a fracture. Do any of your citations attempt to explain why the X-ray looks like a skull fracture and not a bullet hole? I didn't consider that the doctors could have parted his hair out of the way to make a wound visible (it looks like the spot where the hair naturally parts), but like I said, what doctor said that happened?
- Status