JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
No Other said:
In regards to the "see-under" mount,please provide me the link, book, or anything that says this particular rifle was set up this way. The obvious question is why was it there if it was not used?
Click to expand...

Here ya' go. This is from the shooters point of view on a M/C with the same type scope and mount. You'll notice that they are well clear of the iron sights.
 

Attachments

  • carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21.jpg
    carcano-oswald-rifle-scope21.jpg
    62.3 KB · Views: 12
HSienzant said:
And that's where the conspiracy claim that the scope was mounted for a left-handed shooter comes from. The truth of the matter is you can't mount it on the right side, because the bolt is there, and mounting it anywhere but on the left side would interfere with the bolt-action of the rifle. You wouldn't be able to recycle the weapon, rendering it useless.

Hank
Click to expand...

As some one who is right handed but left eye dominant, I feel I must say that some of us CAN be right handed and left eye dominant.

Also, we can be right handed and left foot dominant. Where's all my goofy brahs? Dropping into a gnarly barrel at Pipeline, I bet ...
 
Conspiracy theorists have a long history of portraying the rifle as clapped out, unusable, old surplas from ww1. It is one of those "facts" that appears so often they don't think to check it. Of course, if it was planted, why would a conspiracy use that, and not... You know... A rifle somebody could believe would kill the president? (why not leave the rifle that DID shoot the president?)
 
Tomtomkent said:
Conspiracy theorists have a long history of portraying the rifle as clapped out, unusable, old surplas from ww1. It is one of those "facts" that appears so often they don't think to check it. Of course, if it was planted, why would a conspiracy use that, and not... You know... A rifle somebody could believe would kill the president? (why not leave the rifle that DID shoot the president?)
Click to expand...

Yep, shooters tend to get hung up on their weapon of choice. Often what they trained or served with. The drum major in my old bagpipe band use to carry his service 45 from Korea when parading. My nephew used the money he got for Christmas one year to buy a Mosin Nagant M1891/30, just cause he liked it from the Medal of Honor video game. I asked him and his father (my brother) if it was a replica, decommissioned or operational. They couldn't say, something you really want to know.
 
Last edited:
When I mounted a scope on my 6.5 mm Carcano I had to bend the Weaver mount to hold the scope on the left side so that I could use the stripper clip to load the magazine. Without a stripper clip the rifle holds one cartridge at a time, in the chamber only. With the scope mounted to the left it made it a bit more cumbersome to use right handed as I'm used to rifles with the scope mounted directly over the action. I shot a Dragonov with a scope mounted to the left of the bore, it was also cumbersome.

While it was not too hard to get used to leaving my head off to the side a bit when using a left mounted scope to shoot on the right shoulder, it was rather difficult to use the Carcano on the left shoulder. Unless the rifle was canted at a rather extreme angle, it would be silly to believe it was intended for a left handed shooter.

But in any case I'm sure a motivated former Marine would have no problem using that Carcano left or right handed to shoot a larger target at close range.
 
If there was no hole right by the EOP, then why was the cerebellum slightly damaged and the brain stem completely severed?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Maybe because Kennedy believed in conspiracy theories too?

Dave
Click to expand...

1276852649_chilling-sloth.gif
 
HSienzant said:
Quote the autopsy results on that. You can't.

Hank
Click to expand...


The cerebellum was damaged

Dr. James J. Humes, testifying before the Warren Commission:

"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 (flocculus cerebelli?) 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."

Dr. James J. Humes, interview with HSCA forensic pathology panel:

Dr. COE: Dr. Humes, looking at photograph No. 46, I am curious to know whether this destruction you feel is a postmortem artifact in removing the brain, or was part of this, was caused by the bullet you think perhaps? You have a junction between the cerebellum and the---

Dr. HUMES: No; well, I think it was partly caused by the bullet.

Dr. COE: It was?

Dr. HUMES: It was great - it was a tearing type of disruption that basically had to go back to our description. The corpus callosum was torn, was it not Jay? And the midbrain was virtually torn from the pons.

Dr. James J. Humes, testifying before the AARB:

Q. Looking at the basilar view, are you able to ascertain whether either the left or the right cerebellum has been disrupted? We touched on this issue before, but I just wanted to return to that.

A. In this photograph, it would appear the right cerebellum has been partially disrupted, yes.

Q. But not the left cerebellum?

A. Not the left. The left seems pretty intact.

Dr. Paul Conrad Peters, Parkland hospital doctor, letter to author Harry Livingstone (Dr. Peters viewed the autopsy photographs in 1988:

“the cerebellum was indeed depressed on the right side compared to the left.”

-

HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel On the Head Entrance Wound Entrance (gunshot) wound of the back of the head:

"The panel notes that the posterior-inferior portion of the cerebellum virtually intact. It certainly does not demonstrate the degree of laceration, fragmentation, or contusion (as appears subsequently on the superior aspect of the brain) that would be expected in this location if the bullet wound of entrance were as described in the autopsy report."

-

1967 book The Death of a President by William Manchester (endorsed by the Kennedy family, Manchester was given full access to existing medical materials and interviewed Dr. Burkley five times):

"The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy's cerebellum, the lower part of his brain."

-

The brain stem was damaged (maybe even severed entirely)

Dr. James J. Humes, AARB testimony (again):

Gunn: When you removed the brain, which part of the brain did you cut in order to remove it?

Humes: The brain stem.

Gunn: Was the brain--were you able to ascertain whether the brainstem had received any damage prior to the time that you made the incision?

Humes: It was my impression that it had, yes.

Gunn: Was the brainstem already disconnected at the time that you--

Humes: No, it was not disconnected.

Gunn: How was it that you had the impression that it was--that it had received some kind of laceration or injury?

Humes: Well, one of these photographs shows you, as I tried to point out earlier, the one that was here a few minutes ago--

Gunn: The basilar view?

Humes: Yeah, the basilar view shows this disrupted-looking area right there. That's the brain stem.

Gunn: Looking at the basilar view, are you able to ascertain whether either the left or the right cerebellum has been disrupted? We touched on this issue before, but I just wanted to return to that.

Humes: In this photograph, it would appear the right cerebellum has been partially disrupted, yes.

-

James Curtis Jenkins, laboratory technologist/assistant to autopsy (who handled Kennedy's brain), 1990 statement to author Harrison Livingstone:

"It wasn't necessary to surgically remove the brain from the skull. I remember Humes saying 'This brain fell out in my hands. The brainstem has been surgically cut.'"

James Curtis Jenkins, 1993 statement to author William Law:

"Dr. Humes removed the brain, and made a kind of an exclamatory statement. I think what he said was 'The damn thing fell out in my hand.'"

(when asked what this could mean) "the brainstem had already been severed."


-

And finally, the autopsy reference you were asking for:

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgur.com/HbK5Bo0.png[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What you've quoted show that the cerebellum was indeed damaged.

What you've quoted does NOT show that the brain stem was damaged PRIOR to the brain being removed. The testimony and other documents from the time of the autopsy are far likely more likely to be accurate than the statements made 27 years after incident and based on recollections of a conversation.
 
MicahJava: Dump all these minutiae. Tell the world who snuffed JFK. Come on, after this much time & effort you must surely know.

Name some names. Gimme a culprit. J'accuse & all that.

Because you're getting pretty boring.
 
sackett said:
MicahJava: Dump all these minutiae.
Click to expand...

Or at least quit repeating it. We went over this several times with Robert Prey, who made exactly the same arguments from exactly the same sources just a few years ago in this very thread (or rather one of its many ancestors). MicahJava is relying on his six-month-old foray into assassination literature, perhaps neglecting that his critics have in many cases been debating these points for years if not decades before him.
 
JayUtah said:
Or at least quit repeating it. We went over this several times with Robert Prey, who made exactly the same arguments from exactly the same sources just a few years ago in this very thread (or rather one of its many ancestors). MicahJava is relying on his six-month-old foray into assassination literature, perhaps neglecting that his critics have in many cases been debating these points for years if not decades before him.
Click to expand...
Exactly, that's why I brought up the whole 40ish medicalish witnesses.

At least MicahJava didn't call it a "blow out to the back of the head".

World's most flogged dead horse.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Conspiracy theorists have a long history of portraying the rifle as clapped out, unusable, old surplas from ww1. It is one of those "facts" that appears so often they don't think to check it. Of course, if it was planted, why would a conspiracy use that, and not... You know... A rifle somebody could believe would kill the president? (why not leave the rifle that DID shoot the president?)
Click to expand...

Well, the problem with conspiracy types is that their theories are not very solid, and they know it, if only unconsciously. The result is that they try to fit everything to the theory and end up with various contradictions that they have to explain with further speculations and conspiracies, ad infinitum. That's why CTs get more unwieldy as they go along.
 
The small head wound was right next to the external occipital protuberance. Get over it.
 
MicahJava said:
The small head wound was right next to the external occipital protuberance. Get over it.
Click to expand...

You do realise this is entirely possible for reasons that have nothing to do with the angle of impact?

Think about the reason for larger exit wounds than entry.
Consider what might happen if the pressure wave expands against a solid limit, like a skull. Why would it not explode out?

We know the wound on JFKs head covers a long distance down the side of the head. But we also know the Occipital bone was damaged at the edge closest to the ear, and not on the occipital nodule.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Why would it not explode out?
Click to expand...

I wrote a pretty extensive post on the fluid dynamics of scalloping wounds in one of the predecessors to this thread. Sad that we always have to start from scratch every time someone new gets all excited about having discovered the JFK conspiracy books and sites.
 
F8-JFK-Autopsy-Photo-Pat-Speer.gif


Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif


The U.S. government wants you to think this is a picture of the forehead.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
The scope was a 4x18 Ordnance Optics Inc. Scope here is a picture of that model scope mounted to that model Carcano. (Not LHO's one).

It's pretty obviously a left mounting see-under scope arrangement. and it exactly matches LHO's weapon.

If you had bothered, you could have googled that yourself.
Click to expand...
I was not making the claim without supporting it. I guess the original poster could have done what you did too but it is easier to attempt to admonish me versus someone who thinks like you...
 
HSienzant said:
(a) Straw man argument. I didn't say LHO dropped the rifle, I said the rifle was dropped between some boxes. I never specified by whom.
Then who dropped it and how do you know who dropped it? You used the wrong fallacy, this is not even close to a Straw Man argument...

(b) The weapon wasn't exactly well-hidden. Oswald (or whomever) could have put it in an outgoing box destined for shipment to himself and it would never have been found in the Depository, correct? Instead it was found on the northwest side of the building immediately next to the stairwell that leads to an escape. Oswald (or whomever used it, but most likely Oswald) would have carried the weapon to the stairwell to facilitate his escape (he didn't know how quickly the cops would respond, and indeed, one of them [Officer Baker] was inside the building within about 40-60 seconds of the assassination). Once he reached the stairwell, the rifle (which could have been used to shoot one officer) was abandoned amongst some boxes. Having served its purpose, there was no need to take care of it any longer. The shooter would have simply dropped it amongst some boxes with one and shoved another box over it with the other. He would not have taken care to place it gingerly anywhere -- the goal at that point (whether the shooter is Oswald or someone else intent on framing Oswald) is to get out of the building as quickly as possible. Every second of delay adds to his chance of discovery. So I don't need to show proof the rifle was dropped. You would need to show evidence it wasn't, contrary to all the reasonable reconstructions of the event.
Click to expand...
Wow, this is entertaining but nothing factual.

(c) The weapon had an out of alignment telescopic sight. That is consistent with it being dropped. It is inconsistent with it being handled carefully.
Click to expand...
A weapon with an out of alignment telescopic sight being consistent with it being dropped is like frontal lobotomy being consistent with a headache. Both are correct but are not necessarily linked unless you can provide that one caused the other. All you have done is provided a guess.

The reasonable conclusion is the weapon was dropped - mostly likely when it was hidden. Ball in your court.

Hank
Click to expand...
The ball has to be moved with facts and not with speculation, you have not provided anything that pushes your claim. Do you wish to include something that has merit? Heck, we are talking about a rifle that was never even tested for recent firings when in the hands of the Dallas Police or FBI.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It can be used or ignored, depending on the preference of the shooter. The iron sights are always available. So we just don't know if the shooter used the scope or the iron sights, and we just don't know if the scope was in the same condition during the shooting as it was found after the shooting.

All complaints about the scope are meaningless, because there's no evidence that scope was necessary to the commission of the assassination.

Your question reduces to railing against the darkness, instead of just clapping your hands together and turning on the light.

Hank
Click to expand...
I guess if you would have known this prior to your posting about the dropping of the rifle, there would not be a need to defend your comment. By the way, your homilies and superfluous comments advance your image of a Thinker but if you continue to refer to fallacies or endearments it would do you good if you can state one that is germane.
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cUoV5Wyk90U/VdcU4ens42I/AAAAAAABHCk/Qz01L0SvaE8/s1600/F8-JFK-Autopsy-Photo-Pat-Speer.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrxWL8/VddxAzaNwmI/AAAAAAABHDo/i5zn4ndkzSo/s1600/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif[/qimg]

The U.S. government wants you to think this is a picture of the forehead.
Click to expand...

Does it?
 
MicahJava, before you go on posting autopsy photographs, you may wish to consider reading the previous incarnations of this thread, where overly cropped and enlarged photographs have been discussed before, noting the context and location within the autopsy photos.
Point of fact, you might just want to take a while to look at the autopsy photos as taken, and see where those photos fit. Then consider what they "US Government" actually has to say on the matter.
 
Tomtomkent said:
MicahJava, before you go on posting autopsy photographs, you may wish to consider reading the previous incarnations of this thread, where overly cropped and enlarged photographs have been discussed before, noting the context and location within the autopsy photos.
Point of fact, you might just want to take a while to look at the autopsy photos as taken, and see where those photos fit. Then consider what they "US Government" actually has to say on the matter.
Click to expand...

The people who were there say that it's a picture of the back of the skull with the small wound visible. There is no serious evidence for the cowlick wound. On a sliding scale of credibility for what could be the President's true injuries, cowlick is near the bottom.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ
 
MicahJava said:
The people who were there say that it's a picture of the back of the skull with the small wound visible. There is no serious evidence for the cowlick wound. On a sliding scale of credibility for what could be the President's true injuries, cowlick is near the bottom.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ
Click to expand...

You might be married to Pat Speer, and iirc you've stated that your six months into examining the JFK assassination so going back in the never ending JFK threads here may be of value - as I and others have pointed out, the autopsy pics/interpretation issue has been done over and over with no resolution for folks that are working backwards from the "anybody but LHO" viewpoint.
 
BStrong said:
You might be married to Pat Speer, and iirc you've stated that your six months into examining the JFK assassination so going back in the never ending JFK threads here may be of value - as I and others have pointed out, the autopsy pics/interpretation issue has been done over and over with no resolution for folks that are working backwards from the "anybody but LHO" viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Nope, just married to the original information from people who were there and saw the body. Speer's site works with the medical evidence at face value, no evidence fabrication needed. Sorry if the EOP wound disagrees with your pet theory that there was no conspiracy or coverup of any kind.
 
MicahJava said:
Nope, just married to the original information from people who were there and saw the body. Speer's site works with the medical evidence at face value, no evidence fabrication needed. Sorry if the EOP wound disagrees with your pet theory that there was no conspiracy or coverup of any kind.
Click to expand...

It's not a "pet theory", it's the findings of 5 separate panels of forensic pathologists who have studied the autopsy materials in depth.

It's you who has the pet theory, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. You're clearly not a "grassy knoll" guy, so you tell us, where was the kill shot fired from and what evidence do you have to support it?
 
MicahJava said:
The people who were there say that it's a picture of the back of the skull with the small wound visible. There is no serious evidence for the cowlick wound. On a sliding scale of credibility for what could be the President's true injuries, cowlick is near the bottom.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ
Click to expand...

You do realise we have autopsy records and photographs?
We can compare the later recollections, to the findings at the time, and a full photographic record.

We can see that the US Government did not place that wound "on the forehead", but on a long wound, along the side of the head, starting towards the rear. The occipital bone IIRC.

You should probably try and understand what the "US government wants us to believe" before you try and tell us. If you want to debunk "the official story", then getting that official story right, tends to be an important first step.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You do realise we have autopsy records and photographs?
We can compare the later recollections, to the findings at the time, and a full photographic record.

We can see that the US Government did not place that wound "on the forehead", but on a long wound, along the side of the head, starting towards the rear. The occipital bone IIRC.

You should probably try and understand what the "US government wants us to believe" before you try and tell us. If you want to debunk "the official story", then getting that official story right, tends to be an important first step.
Click to expand...

The HSCA's contention was that the F8 photograph(s) depict the forehead, with the scalp peeled over the eyes.
 
MicahJava said:
The HSCA's contention was that the F8 photograph(s) depict the forehead, with the scalp peeled over the eyes.
Click to expand...

And yet we can see the full extent of the wound in the totality of the evidence. Or is there a reason you are ignoring this point every time it is made?
 
traxy said:
It's not a "pet theory", it's the findings of 5 separate panels of forensic pathologists who have studied the autopsy materials in depth.
Click to expand...

Researchers found that the people who handled the body weren't as sure as you want it to sound (but they kept it on the down-low). The people who handled the body are more important than panels of shills made to play cleanup. The EOP wound couldn't deflect enough to exit out of the top-right side of the head, and there is no medical evidence connecting the back wound to the throat wound.

It's you who has the pet theory, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. You're clearly not a "grassy knoll" guy, so you tell us, where was the kill shot fired from and what evidence do you have to support it?
Click to expand...

I'd be lying if I said I didn't speculate possible shot sequences in my mind and judge the evidence based on what I know, but the head wound almost certainly had to be caused by at least two bullets if the small wound was all the way down near the EOP as the evidence shows. Even if all of the shots were from behind, a shill may have lit a firecracker on the grassy knoll as a basic distraction technique.
 
MicahJava said:
What?
Click to expand...

We have the autopsy report.
We have the autopsy photographs.
We can see if that is truly a "wound to forehead" as you are trying to categorise it.
Or we can see if it is a wound who has one extent at the forehead.
We can, in short, put those closely cropped images into context. We can put their description into context. Yet you seem to be making an effort not to register this.

We can, in point of fact, test the accuracy of those later claims, because we have accurate records from the time.


Again, you really would have been wise to see what has already been discussed on the previous threads. The context of those photographs was covered at length.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom