JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
You see, here's the problem:

For there to be a conspiracy, the wound has to be somewhere other than where it is clearly, and indisputably seen in the autopsy photos, and replicated in the records.

The insistence it was somewhere else, is MichaJava's alone. His insistence that there is a wound lower down, and that this means another shooter, another rifle, and another killer, simply does not measure up.

The wound we have evidence for, despite his complaints, IS in those photographs, and IS consistent with Oswald's rifle.

No amount of denial will make it more convincing. The evidence that would be required to indicate additional wounds, has been asked for, over and again. It has never materialised. And unfortunately, what MichaJava thinks looks like a wound, or not, is not evidence of anything.
 
MicahJava said:
The nature of the EOP wound is some of the best evidence for a fourth shot that may have been low-velocity or somehow noise suppressed.
Click to expand...

It's just too bad the evidence for that wound doesn't include a single clear photograph...or an x-ray...or the endorsement of a single member of any of the 5 separate panels of pathologists who've examined the evidence in depth.
 
traxy said:
It's just too bad the evidence for that wound doesn't include a single clear photograph
Click to expand...

The f8 photograph(s) were originally labeled in 1966 as "depicting misssile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp". What problem do you have with the interpretation of the f8 picture depicting the top-posterior part of the skull, shot from above?


...or an x-ray
Click to expand...

What am I missing here?

H51SW44.jpg



...or the endorsement of a single member of any of the 5 separate panels of pathologists who've examined the evidence in depth.
Click to expand...

I don't think you are correct. I haven't read a lot about the x-rays, but I think you're making things up. There was some discussion of the EOP spots in the x-rays.
 
What are you missing on what? The diagram indicating the occipital bone 11?

Well, as you talk in reference of the node, what occurs to me, looking at that diagram, is that perhaps you miss the extents of the occipital bone. Which would mean your claims of being inches out, could simply mean you are measuring from the nodule not the edge of the bone.
 
MicahJava said:
I really think this whole idea of a "first missed shot" is mostly based on misinterpretations of eyewitness evidence. Is there any good reason to think the first shot missed?
Click to expand...

Is ther any good reason to deny it? You've done a lot of selective picking of evidence but it is not impressive. And symptomatic of myour 'I say so there it is' attitude.

Why? We know this wound existed. There's no evidence of brain damage consistent with an EOP entry wound exiting out of the large head wound location. That's also probably ballistically impossible. The closest thing to the official story you can get is if the MC at the snipers next somehow (after the 313 head shot) made a small tangential wound or some kind of ricochet hitting that area.
Click to expand...

You knowledge of ballistics is poor, at best.

Any investigation into JFK should include the EOP wound, the nature of the wound, and how it got there.

No, not really. The postulation of subsonic weapons/ammunition is based on some evidence, here's some off the top of my head:

1. From basic deduction of the eyewitness accounts, we can understand that there probably was no gunshot before z190. Since Kennedy and Connally indisputably react to a gunshot by z224, we already postulate that something more sophisticated than a Carcano was involved (because according to experts in firearms, the scope from the Carcano would have been very inaccurate if the rifle was just assembled, and it needed to be zeroed-in with a starter shot that was unlikely to hit any target). But also importantly, let's remember that Connally always swore that he was hit very quickly after he heard the first shot, and that he didn't remember hearing the shot that his him. What does that sound like to you?
Click to expand...

I'd say your posulation is pretty thin on actual evidence.

2. There is also the information about a bullet that hit an area near a manhole cover and was recovered in the grass. There is indeed a long mark still on the curb, but it isn't that deep and therefore it may be incompatible with a high-powered rifle shot.
Click to expand...

So you say this subsonic round missed?

While it was initially reported to be a "rifle bullet", one rumor circulated that it was a .45 caliber bullet recovered. This opens up the possibility that something like the .45 De Lisle silenced carbine was used.
Click to expand...

Rumor is not fact or evidence.

3. The testimony about Kennedy's back wound being shallow and a downward angled tract
Click to expand...

Selective testimony does not impress me.

4. The information about an actual whole bullet being recovered from Kennedy's back
Click to expand...

Which is now conveniently nowhere to be found.

5. The information about an old shell casing discovered on the roof of the Dallas County Records Building, which had a dented lip, which is sometimes done to fit a plastic sabot.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't this just an empty envelope with the words ".45 shell casing" that the buffs turned up after they go t free reign on the evidence? No actual sheel found? If so please post a picture.

6. The small head wound was reported to be an elliptical 15x6mm, "ragged", and "slanting".
Click to expand...

Meaning little.

That's a big pile of nothing you got there.

Any investigation into the Dealey Plaza shooting should factor in the possibilities of noise-suppressed weapons/ammunition.
Click to expand...

First of all learn about noise supression aside from watching Hollywood movies, second, learn about what noise supression does to accuracy.
 
All of which are not extraordinary evidence. You are proposing that a loud Carcano shot occurred in Dealey Plaza and Kennedy responded by smiling and waving to the crowd like nothing happened. No witness ever stated that Kennedy smiled and waved after the first shot. The witnesses are most likely describing the first loud shot as occurring at z190-224.
Click to expand...

Most of the eye-witnesses thought it was a firecracker (as did the Secret Service). So yeah.


Fire a 6.5x52mm round into a ballistics dummy, with a proper angle of elevation, into the back of it's head at the EOP location. Call me when it exits out of the top-right side of the head. The head wound may be consistent with a cowlick entry wound, but try that with where the wound really was. Then explain how the brain damage of the ballistics dummy is similar to the brain damage in the official medical evidence.
Click to expand...

You mean like this test?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

Plus, you're using "Cowlick" wrong. I don't know if English is your primary language, but a cowlick is on the front of the head referring to a rediculous hair part.



The nature of the EOP wound is some of the best evidence for a fourth shot that may have been low-velocity or somehow noise suppressed. This is obviously the reason why these government robots weren't having it when the evidence was clear that the small head wound was by the EOP.
Click to expand...

The problem is that Kennedy was only struck in the head once.

You know that part is on film, right?


We were discussing the existence of this technology in the early 1960's, remember? Like the .22 74 Winchester silenced rifle, the Silenced Springfield M1903A4, and the .45 De Lisle silenced carbine?
Click to expand...

Except none of them were used. More importantly, no professional shooter/agent/hitman would use one of those weapons in the scenario of the JFK Assassination. If the goal is to kill the President and pin it on Oswald using a different bullet caliber would be stupid.

You do see the problem if there was no shot before z190-224, right? Connally always swore that he was hit a moment after the first loud shot, and he always said he didn't hear the shot that hit him.
Click to expand...

Nobody hears the rifle shot that hits them. Speed of sound and all that.

I was, of course, talking about a possible shot that presumably missed and hit the concrete curb next to the manhole cover, leaving that shallow mark.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...a subsonic .45 round would have bounced. It would have been found. The Carcano round shatters on impact with asphalt or concrete.


There is no medical evidence suggesting the back wound and throat wound are connected, IMO not even the slightest hint that a fragment could've exited the throat.
Click to expand...

Again, you need to get up to speed on the Carcano and it's peculiar bullet. The round is designed to have a high gain twist when it leaves the barrel. Comparing a 30-06 round with a 6.5×52mm is like comparing a Volvo to a locomotive. It's a round that can pass through two people easily. In 1963 the FBI and every other law enforcement agency had no data on the 6.5×52mm round because nobody used it. This would have been true for forensic pathologists who had nothing to compare the wounds to.

You are drawing info from people who had never dealt with wounds from a Carcano ever before. In a way, Oswald's cheapness ended up being brilliant.

A compilation of evidence for a shallow, low-angled back wound that I'm going by is here, at page 506 of the PDF: http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
Click to expand...

What? A JFK CTer wrote a paper saying Oswald didn't do it? Shocked, shocked I say.


I think it's a significant detail that it was "weathered" on one side, and that the casing had an unnatural "crimp" on it's side. Who even thinks to stage such elaborately delicious evidence?
Click to expand...

I hike Fort Ord, California often, and I have since the base closed in 1993. There are shell casings lying around on the trails that date back to WWI, and depending on the soil they've been laying in it is usually impossible to tell by looking how old the casing is...

...you have to check the stamp on the bottom, which tells you when the bullet was made. It still doesn't tell you when it was fired, but bullets have a shelf-life.

You're talking about a bullet found on a building a decade or more after the assassination. A roof top of a commercial building in continuous operation since 1963, with maintenance personnel accessing the roof many times afterwards. You're talking about the state of Texas, where many residents own and shoot rifles. The idea that some guy went up to the roof one night and did his own private (and illegal) JFK test is more plausible than a professional hitman not policing his brass after committing a capital offence.



Of course, this is getting into the realm of things that we cannot know for sure, but these possibilities have to be examined with the perspective of the EOP wound and any other unambiguous discoveries.
Click to expand...

Which means you're playing games...

It's painful to watch because I made the same HUGE mistake years ago. You are wrong about everything. Your source material is written by men with personal agendas, the biggest being the mythology of the Vietnam War, and how JFK was going to pull out in 1964. These men are not clear-headed or objective. Every site you've linked to ignore counter evidence, and goes out of the way to attack anything that points to Oswald being the lone shooter.

You are willingly accepting lies as truth.:thumbsup:
 
kookbreaker, if you give me a 50% discount on www.spectrum-scientifics.com, I can buy the Life-Size Human Skull Model. Then I'll give you $40 if I can't perfectly replicate the open-cranium photograph with the jar lid and drainage hole tilting at the right angle. We can see if that hole in the photographs matches the location of a hole by the EOP.
 
MicahJava said:
kookbreaker, if you give me a 50% discount on www.spectrum-scientifics.com, I can buy the Life-Size Human Skull Model. Then I'll give you $40 if I can't perfectly replicate the open-cranium photograph with the jar lid and drainage hole tilting at the right angle. We can see if that hole in the photographs matches the location of a hole by the EOP.
Click to expand...



Sorry, the skull is modelling the periodic scarf and cannot be bothered with your silliness.

[IMGW=600]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4szlk0h5jt70uss/2016-09-26%2015.54.13.jpg?dl=1[/IMGW]
 
MicahJava said:
But also importantly, let's remember that Connally always swore that he was hit very quickly after he heard the first shot, and that he didn't remember hearing the shot that his him. What does that sound like to you?
Click to expand...

The bolded is correct. The other is untrue. Connally testified to three shots, in chronological order, one he heard but didn't know what, if anything, it hit. A second which he didn't hear, which struck him. A third that he knew struck the President in the head. No more, no less.

I am unable to find anything where the Governor says he was hit "very quickly after he heard the first shot."

Oh, there's this often-quoted snippet of testimony which you can open any conspiracy book and find displayed prominently:

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.

But then there's this testimony from the same session which no conspiracy book ever quotes:

Mr. SPECTER. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

Ten seconds from the first to the third shot is five seconds between shots, assuming evenly spaced shots. [shot - five seconds - shot - five seconds - shot]. Twelve seconds is six seconds between evenly spaced shots.

If you want to argue for two close shots - at 190 and 224, AND the accuracy of the Governor's recollections, that puts a bit less than two seconds between the first two and about eight to ten seconds between the second and third.

Do you think that spacing of shots (the first and second much closer together than the second and third) is correct?

If not, it causes you a problem: You are the one citing the Governor as accurate about the timing of the shots - but not carrying your thinking through the entire shooting scenario - you're essentially ignoring that accepting what you claim is the Governor's timing for the first two shots argues against another aspect of the timing you've argued for -- that the second and third shots were closer together the first and second.

The Governor is either right or wrong about the timing, but he can't be both, depending on what you want to discuss.

Another way to reconstruct this is to work backward. The head shot at 313 and the shot at 224 are almost exactly five seconds apart (4.86 seconds at 18.3 frames per second). Allowing the same amount of time for the first shot puts the first shot at frame 135 or prior, doesn't it, if Connally's timing guess of ten to twelve seconds is accurate.

Now, do you think the first shot was anywhere near frame 135, which follows precisely from Connally's ten second estimate for the time of the shooting, or do you think the Governor was wrong about that?

There's a ton wrong with your post, but this pound will do for now.

Please explain how the Governor's statements, in total, argue for your reconstruction, because from here, it looks like you're just picking out the stuff you like and discarding the rest.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
The bolded is correct. The other is untrue. Connally testified to three shots, in chronological order, one he heard but didn't know what, if anything, it hit. A second which he didn't hear, which struck him. A third that he knew struck the President in the head. No more, no less.

I am unable to find anything where the Governor says he was hit "very quickly after he heard the first shot."

Oh, there's this often-quoted snippet of testimony which you can open any conspiracy book and find displayed prominently:

Mr. SPECTER. What is the best estimate that you have as to the time span between the sound of the first shot and the feeling of someone hitting you in the back which you just described?
Governor CONNALLY. A very, very brief span of time. Again my trend of thought just happened to be, I suppose along this line, I immediately thought that this--that I had been shot. I knew it when I just looked down and I was covered with blood, and the thought immediately passed through my mind that there were either two or three people involved or more in this or someone was shooting with an automatic rifle.

But then there's this testimony from the same session which no conspiracy book ever quotes:

Mr. SPECTER. Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot. Did you hear a second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds. It was extremely rapid, so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots; a very short period of time.

Ten seconds from the first to the third shot is five seconds between shots, assuming evenly spaced shots. [shot - five seconds - shot - five seconds - shot]. Twelve seconds is six seconds between evenly spaced shots.

If you want to argue for two close shots - at 190 and 224, that puts a bit less than two seconds between the first two and about eight seconds between the second and third.

Do you think that spacing of shots (the first and second much closer together than the second and third) is correct?

If not, it causes you a problem: You are the one citing the Governor as accurate about the timing of the shots - but not carrying your thinking through the entire shooting scenario - you're essentially ignoring that accepting what you claim is the Governor's timing for the first two shots argues against another thing you've argue for -- that the second and third shots were closer together the first and second.

There's a ton wrong with your post, but this pound will do for now.

Please explain how the Governor's statements, in total, argue for your reconstruction.

Hank
Click to expand...

I think Connally is essentially like many other "two-shot witnesses"; he most likely did not perceive the last two loud shots as being separate because they were so close to eachother. I think the entirety of the witness evidence points to a theory in which the first loud shot was at z190-224, followed moments later by two loud shots close together.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I think Connally is essentially like many other "two-shot witnesses"; he most likely did not perceive the last two loud shots as being separate because they were so close to eachother.
Click to expand...

So you're putting words into his mouth now.
 
kookbreaker said:
Sorry, the skull is modelling the periodic scarf and cannot be bothered with your silliness.

[IMGW=600]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4szlk0h5jt70uss/2016-09-26%2015.54.13.jpg?dl=1[/IMGW]
Click to expand...

So you wouldn't want to try to replicate the angle of the photo? It might just take a coin, a small jar, and a 15x6mm piece of tape representing the EOP wound.
 
MicahJava said:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Purdy.htm

This is a 1996 AARB interview of HSCA staffer Andy Purdy.

Skip to 31:29 of part one: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Purdy_S1.mp3

Purdy: "During the course of that meeting, as I think the transcript shows, when they were- in fact, somebody said 'this shouldn't- we shouldn't even be recording this'. And I think it was Petty who took, I believe it was Humes, out of the room to basically set him straight. Basically 'you're just wrong, you're just clearly wrong, this is not something evidentiary'... And that's why they keep things on- is the whole thing altered or whatever. It's like Humes is lying, we don't even have to. Or he's mistaken, or he's being overly firm about something that doesn't have evidentiary significance. And unless he takes his stupid, incompetent position, which is the lower thing's the entrance hole. I mean, we're practically- he's practically down to the shirt."

There you have it, proof that Dr. Humes was coerced into agreeing with the cowlick placement of the small head wound. Just like he was coerced into raising the back wound for the Rydberg drawings. There goes the closest thing you can call evidence for the higher placement of the small head wound. The only other evidence for that red spot being an entry wound is badgeman-esque.
Click to expand...

What a joke your argument is.

This is what happens when someone who reads conspiracy literature - and not the actual testimony - testifies. And when a conspiracy buff like yourself reads that testimony and accepts hearsay repeated from conspiracy books as the truth. It's actually the exact opposite of the truth.

Here's the actual exchange, and it's got nothing to do with coercing Humes. It's one doctor telling the other doctors on the medical panel to shut up and listen to Doctor Humes. I apologize for the length of the post, but it's necessary to get the point across. The medical panel invited Dr. Humes to testify, and this is what transpired.


Dr. PETTY. Joe Davis, you have questions, I think, about the inshoot area, don't you?*
Dr. DAVIS. Well, in terms of the inshoot, my impression when I first looked at these films was that the inshoot was higher, and I equated that with the lesion in photograph, I believe it was No. 26, color photograph- ------well, it's 43------- and I interpreted---- which on is this?
Dr. BADEN. This is No. 42.
Dr. PETTY. We were wondering if that had been the inshoot.
Dr. HUMES. No, no, That's no wound.
Dr. DAVIS. Because in No. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other, lower down in the neck, as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.
Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.
Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel--
Dr HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it's longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the--
Dr. HUMES. And this photograph No. 45, I am quite convinced, is an attempt to demonstrate that wound, and not a very successful one I'm afraid, because I can't for sure pick it out. This, I believe, was taken looking down at the inside looking close to the posterior cranial fossa.
Dr. BOSWELL. And what we see here is a lot of red and fragments of bone.
Dr. COE. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, have you discussed these photographs with the other pathologists who have previously gone over this this with you?
Dr. HUMES. I have not.
Dr. BOSWELL. I went over the photographs with Humes.
Dr. COE. Because at least there's already one of them right---I had the impression that they apparently thought---I was just curious as to---
Dr. HUMES. Our written description clearly, I think, indicates that point right there.
Dr. COE. But they describe, some of them, the entrance they feel being 10 centimeters above the occipital proturberance.
Dr. PETTY. Well, there have been all sorts of changes from the original--l mcan, right and left and up and down.
Dr. COE. No. That's why I was interested in whether they had discussed it with the pathologists or whether the pathologists had been interpreting entirely from the photographs when they made the statement.
Dr. PETTY. SO, on photograph No. 42, then, down right at the hairline, right at almost in the midline, is the inshoot wound, and this photograph is not taken with the inshoot wound centered in the photograph, but rather the posterior extension of the scalp tear is the subject of the photograph.
Dr. HUMES. Again, to be sure that it was related to the gentleman's head rather than focusing specifically on a wound, no I don't think we took the photograph specifically at that site, do you, Jay?
Dr. BOSWELL. No.
Dr. PETTY. And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and that the wound in the skull was a little above that.
Dr. BOSWELL. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Because apparently the bullet had tunneled a little under the skin and then that corresponds with the diagram that I saw which showed a point on the back of the body, the diagram with an arrow pointing upward and slightly to the left.
Dr. HUMES. You caught---I don't know what you are referring to.
Dr. DAVIS. What I'm saying--what I'm inferring: in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could only conjecture as to how long the tunneling but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.
Mr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?
Dr. DAVIS. Yes.
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this discussion belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. HUMES. I agree.
Dr. LOQUVAM. We have no business recording this. This is for us to decide between ourselves; I don't think this belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. Well, we have to say something about our feeling as to why we're so interested in that one particular area.
Dr. HUMES. Could I make a comment that I think would be helpful to you, and you can throw out anything I say or whatever? But I feel obligated to make a certain interjection at this point, having heard this theory which I hadn't heard from the committee because I didn't pay that much attention quite frankly. Our attention was obviously directed to what we understood and thought to be clearly a wound of entrance. If such a fragment were to have detached itself from the main mass of the missile, it would have to be a relatively small fragment because the size of the defect in the skull which approximated this point was almost identical with the size of the defect in the skin. Do you follow that line of reasoning?
Dr. PETTY. Yes, that makes sense. I mean, I've seen the same thing.
Dr. DAVIS. I've seen the same thing---bothers me a bit--part of that casing comes off.
Dr. COE. The reason we are so interested in this, Dr. Humes, is because other pathologists have interpreted the---
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this belongs in the damn record.
Dr. HUMES. Well, it probably doesn't.
Dr. LOQUVAM. You guys are nuts. You guys are nuts writing this stuff. It doesn't belong in that damn record.
Dr. BADEN. I think the only purpose of its being in the record is to explain to Dr. Humes what--
Dr. LOQUVAM. Why not turn off the record and explain to him and then go back and talk again.
Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions, but to get his opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles [Dr. Charles Petty] and Joe [Dr. Joe Davis] talking like mad in the damn record, and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry.


Conspiracy books paint that - by quoting selectively - as Dr. Loquvam being party to a coverup and trying to keep Humes testimony out of the record when he says "I don't think this belongs in the damn record". But the truth is quite different. Dr. Loquvam was telling the other members of the panel to shut up and listen to Humes and let's get his opinions on the record. Humes' opinions were the ones they were trying to get on the record and why they invited him to testify.

And then you get Purdy, who supposedly attended that discussion, and heard all the above, repeating not what actually transpired but testifying to the conspiracy spin on it that he read somewhere and now 'recollects' and even testifies to his reconstruction of a false memory of Dr. Petty taking Dr. Humes aside to set him straight.

And you don't quote the actual transcript of the exchange, but Purdy's faulty recollection of the exchange from his testimony to the ARRB, which is about two decades after the exchange.

Moreover, Humes testimony is that the wound is in the hairline at the bottom of the head. As Purdy stated, "He's practically down to the shirt". Yet you claim, somehow, this is evidence "that Dr. Humes was coerced into agreeing with the cowlick placement", which disagrees entirely with what Purdy said and Humes testified to.

And that's why I say "What a joke your argument is."

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I can read. I do not think there is any decent evidence in the whole eyewitness record that the first loud shot occurred before z190.
Click to expand...

Except we examined Connally's testimony and he testified to the three shots lasting ten to twelve seconds. We know (and he testified) the third shot was at Zapruder film frame 313, and the camera exposed film at 18.3 frames per second.

So we know that Governor Connally is saying the first shot happened at Zapruder film frame 135 or prior, if we accept his eyewitness testimony as accurate.

Don't we?

The rest of your post is equally wrong, but I don't have time to rebut the whole thing. This should do for now.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I think it's a significant detail that it was "weathered" on one side, and that the casing had an unnatural "crimp" on it's side. Who even thinks to stage such elaborately delicious evidence?
Click to expand...

Plenty of people.

Piltdown man.
The Cardiff Giant.
The Etruscan Warriors.

The JFK assassination is ripe breading ground for a lot of nonsense.
Beverly Oliver.
Ed Hoffman.
Gordon Arnold.

Three 'eyewitnesses' who all came forward years after the fact, but that were not in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

Your argument from personal incredulity doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I was, of course, talking about a possible shot that presumably missed and hit the concrete curb next to the manhole cover, leaving that shallow mark.
Click to expand...

Except we already discussed that. You're wrong.

Besides, you're contradicting yourself.

MicahJava said:
I have already suggested that the early reports of a bullet found in the grass have physical evidence in the form of a deep indention on the side of the stone surrounding the manhole cover.
Click to expand...

It's evidence of a conspiracy whether it's a deep indentation or a shallow mark?

Gotcha - it's evidence of a conspiracy no matter what.

All the best.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I think Connally is essentially like many other "two-shot witnesses"; he most likely did not perceive the last two loud shots as being separate because they were so close to eachother. I think the entirety of the witness evidence points to a theory in which the first loud shot was at z190-224, followed moments later by two loud shots close together.
Click to expand...


Except you're quoting Governor Connally on when he was hit, and ignoring entirely how it conflicts with your reconstruction above. As I noted the first time. Do you not understand why I don't find that convincing?

Do try to address the points I made.

Click on the link to see them again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510558&postcount=1733

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
Plus, you're using "Cowlick" wrong. I don't know if English is your primary language, but a cowlick is on the front of the head referring to a rediculous hair part.
Click to expand...


Guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowlick

A cowlick can be anywhere on the head.

Even at the external occipital protuberance.

A cowlick is a section of hair that stands straight up or lies at an angle at odds with the style in which the rest of an individual's hair is worn. Cowlicks appear when the growth direction of the hair forms a spiral pattern. The term "cowlick" originates from the domestic bovine's habit of licking its young, which results in a swirling pattern in the hair. The most common site of a human cowlick is in the crown, but they can show up anywhere. They also sometimes appear in the front and back of the head.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
What a joke your argument is.

This is what happens when someone who reads conspiracy literature - and not the actual testimony - testifies. And when a conspiracy buff like yourself reads that testimony and accepts hearsay repeated from conspiracy books as the truth. It's actually the exact opposite of the truth.

Here's the actual exchange, and it's got nothing to do with coercing Humes. It's one doctor telling the other doctors on the medical panel to shut up and listen to Doctor Humes. I apologize for the length of the post, but it's necessary to get the point across. The medical panel invited Dr. Humes to testify, and this is what transpired.


Dr. PETTY. Joe Davis, you have questions, I think, about the inshoot area, don't you?*
Dr. DAVIS. Well, in terms of the inshoot, my impression when I first looked at these films was that the inshoot was higher, and I equated that with the lesion in photograph, I believe it was No. 26, color photograph- ------well, it's 43------- and I interpreted---- which on is this?
Dr. BADEN. This is No. 42.
Dr. PETTY. We were wondering if that had been the inshoot.
Dr. HUMES. No, no, That's no wound.
Dr. DAVIS. Because in No. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other, lower down in the neck, as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.
Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.
Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel--
Dr HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it's longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the--
Dr. HUMES. And this photograph No. 45, I am quite convinced, is an attempt to demonstrate that wound, and not a very successful one I'm afraid, because I can't for sure pick it out. This, I believe, was taken looking down at the inside looking close to the posterior cranial fossa.
Dr. BOSWELL. And what we see here is a lot of red and fragments of bone.
Dr. COE. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, have you discussed these photographs with the other pathologists who have previously gone over this this with you?
Dr. HUMES. I have not.
Dr. BOSWELL. I went over the photographs with Humes.
Dr. COE. Because at least there's already one of them right---I had the impression that they apparently thought---I was just curious as to---
Dr. HUMES. Our written description clearly, I think, indicates that point right there.
Dr. COE. But they describe, some of them, the entrance they feel being 10 centimeters above the occipital proturberance.
Dr. PETTY. Well, there have been all sorts of changes from the original--l mcan, right and left and up and down.
Dr. COE. No. That's why I was interested in whether they had discussed it with the pathologists or whether the pathologists had been interpreting entirely from the photographs when they made the statement.
Dr. PETTY. SO, on photograph No. 42, then, down right at the hairline, right at almost in the midline, is the inshoot wound, and this photograph is not taken with the inshoot wound centered in the photograph, but rather the posterior extension of the scalp tear is the subject of the photograph.
Dr. HUMES. Again, to be sure that it was related to the gentleman's head rather than focusing specifically on a wound, no I don't think we took the photograph specifically at that site, do you, Jay?
Dr. BOSWELL. No.
Dr. PETTY. And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and that the wound in the skull was a little above that.
Dr. BOSWELL. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Because apparently the bullet had tunneled a little under the skin and then that corresponds with the diagram that I saw which showed a point on the back of the body, the diagram with an arrow pointing upward and slightly to the left.
Dr. HUMES. You caught---I don't know what you are referring to.
Dr. DAVIS. What I'm saying--what I'm inferring: in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could only conjecture as to how long the tunneling but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.
Mr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?
Dr. DAVIS. Yes.
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this discussion belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. HUMES. I agree.
Dr. LOQUVAM. We have no business recording this. This is for us to decide between ourselves; I don't think this belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. Well, we have to say something about our feeling as to why we're so interested in that one particular area.
Dr. HUMES. Could I make a comment that I think would be helpful to you, and you can throw out anything I say or whatever? But I feel obligated to make a certain interjection at this point, having heard this theory which I hadn't heard from the committee because I didn't pay that much attention quite frankly. Our attention was obviously directed to what we understood and thought to be clearly a wound of entrance. If such a fragment were to have detached itself from the main mass of the missile, it would have to be a relatively small fragment because the size of the defect in the skull which approximated this point was almost identical with the size of the defect in the skin. Do you follow that line of reasoning?
Dr. PETTY. Yes, that makes sense. I mean, I've seen the same thing.
Dr. DAVIS. I've seen the same thing---bothers me a bit--part of that casing comes off.
Dr. COE. The reason we are so interested in this, Dr. Humes, is because other pathologists have interpreted the---
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this belongs in the damn record.
Dr. HUMES. Well, it probably doesn't.
Dr. LOQUVAM. You guys are nuts. You guys are nuts writing this stuff. It doesn't belong in that damn record.
Dr. BADEN. I think the only purpose of its being in the record is to explain to Dr. Humes what--
Dr. LOQUVAM. Why not turn off the record and explain to him and then go back and talk again.
Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions, but to get his opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles [Dr. Charles Petty] and Joe [Dr. Joe Davis] talking like mad in the damn record, and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry.


Conspiracy books paint that - by quoting selectively - as Dr. Loquvam being party to a coverup and trying to keep Humes testimony out of the record when he says "I don't think this belongs in the damn record". But the truth is quite different. Dr. Loquvam was telling the other members of the panel to shut up and listen to Humes and let's get his opinions on the record. Humes' opinions were the ones they were trying to get on the record and why they invited him to testify.

And then you get Purdy, who supposedly attended that discussion, and heard all the above, repeating not what actually transpired but testifying to the conspiracy spin on it that he read somewhere and now 'recollects' and even testifies to his reconstruction of a false memory of Dr. Petty taking Dr. Humes aside to set him straight.

And you don't quote the actual transcript of the exchange, but Purdy's faulty recollection of the exchange from his testimony to the ARRB, which is about two decades after the exchange.

Moreover, Humes testimony is that the wound is in the hairline at the bottom of the head. As Purdy stated, "He's practically down to the shirt". Yet you claim, somehow, this is evidence "that Dr. Humes was coerced into agreeing with the cowlick placement", which disagrees entirely with what Purdy said and Humes testified to.

And that's why I say "What a joke your argument is."

Hank
Click to expand...

I don't think the transcript is sufficient to understand exactly what's going on in the room considering that they're literally talking about not transcribing what they're saying because it's just a casual conversation.

Perry apparently couldn't make it up, either. According to the online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, in Febuary of 2000 Dr. Michael Baden told researchers that Dr. Petty had indeed berated Dr. Humes at some point in time and called him a "god-damned jackass".

Except we examined Connally's testimony and he testified to the three shots lasting ten to twelve seconds. We know (and he testified) the third shot was at Zapruder film frame 313, and the camera exposed film at 18.3 frames per second.

So we know that Governor Connally is saying the first shot happened at Zapruder film frame 135 or prior, if we accept his eyewitness testimony as accurate.

Don't we?

The rest of your post is equally wrong, but I don't have time to rebut the whole thing. This should do for now.
Click to expand...

I think Connolly most likely early a loud shot at 190, and was hit by something subsonic at z222. Then, the last two loud shots were so close together he thought it was two.

Except we already discussed that. You're wrong.

Besides, you're contradicting yourself.
Click to expand...

If a bullet didn't hit the side of the cement, there's still a lot of information pointing to a bullet being found somewhere in that area, near the manhole cover.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think the transcript is sufficient to understand exactly what's going on in the room considering that they're literally talking about not transcribing what they're saying because it's just a casual conversation.
Click to expand...

What part of this exchange didn't you understand?

Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions, but to get his opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles [Dr. Charles Petty] and Joe [Dr. Joe Davis] talking like mad in the damn record, and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry.

I understand precisely what's going on. Conspiracy buffs take stuff out of context to paint a different picture than the actual. Dr. Loquvam was telling the other doctors to shut up so they could get Dr. Humes (who performed the autopsy) on the record. You really should read the first-person testimony instead of crediting decades later recollections, which is what you're doing with Purdy's testimony to the AARB about what Dr. Loquvam said during the testimony of Dr. Humes in the HSCA investigation. There's nothing in the record that establishes Purdy's decades after the fact recollection is accurate or true.



MicahJava said:
Perry apparently couldn't make it up, either. According to the online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, in Febuary of 2000 Dr. Michael Baden told researchers that Dr. Petty had indeed berated Dr. Humes at some point in time and called him a "god-damned jackass".
Click to expand...

Who is Perry? Do you mean Dr. Perry, who was in the emergency room in Dallas treating the President after the assassination? Do you mean Purdy? What's the source of the claims in that online book? Can you cite the source, and provide a link to the source? How credible is the source? How does Dr. Petty calling Dr. Humes a name, even if true, establish any of what you posted from Purdy is true? It doesn't. You haven't salvaged the Purdy recollection. You've simply posted more unproven assertions.

I looked at that online book, which is by a conspiracy buff by the name of Pat Speer, whom you've cited a lot.

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-LQT...pective On The Kennedy Assassination_djvu.txt

The scanning isn't the greatest, but I see that Speer doesn't provide a citation for the claim you're citing.



MicahJava said:
I think Connolly most likely early a loud shot at 190, and was hit by something subsonic at z222. Then, the last two loud shots were so close together he thought it was two.
Click to expand...

Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not asking you to repeat your claims ad infinitum. I'm asking you to address the points I made. I understand your claim. Repeating it doesn't make it more true. You claimed that Gov. Connally said this and that, but when we examined his testimony, we find evidence that the shooting lasted longer than you're allowing, and you're not explaining whatsoever why you believe Connally on some points, and not on others. I'm awaiting your explanation of how you know when Connally is right, and how you know when Connally is wrong, among other things. You can click on these links to see what points I'm making:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510703&postcount=1743
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510558&postcount=1733



MicahJava said:
If a bullet didn't hit the side of the cement, there's still a lot of information pointing to a bullet being found somewhere in that area, near the manhole cover.
Click to expand...

No, there's not. If you dispute this, provide the evidence. Not the rumors or the hearsay. The evidence. Got any?

And you're ignoring the fact that I documented you called this a deep indentation then a shallow mark within the period of about three weeks.

But regardless of what kind of mark it is and whether it's feasible for a bullet to make that kind of mark, you're certain it's a bullet strike. Without ever examining the mark itself.

And I pointed out previously what this "bullet strike evidence" consists of:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11475648&postcount=1323
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowlick

A cowlick can be anywhere on the head.

Even at the external occipital protuberance.

A cowlick is a section of hair that stands straight up or lies at an angle at odds with the style in which the rest of an individual's hair is worn. Cowlicks appear when the growth direction of the hair forms a spiral pattern. The term "cowlick" originates from the domestic bovine's habit of licking its young, which results in a swirling pattern in the hair. The most common site of a human cowlick is in the crown, but they can show up anywhere. They also sometimes appear in the front and back of the head.

Hank
Click to expand...

I know, I have one in the back of my head. It's just that in 53 years of assassination lore I've never heard Kennedy's entry wound called anytihng else but "Entry Wound".
 
Axxman300 said:
I know, I have one in the back of my head. It's just that in 53 years of assassination lore I've never heard Kennedy's entry wound called anytihng else but "Entry Wound".
Click to expand...

It's sleight of hand by conspiracy theorists. By calling it the 'cowlick wound' they are assuming what they need to prove... that the 'red spot' is at the natural part in the hair and isn't the real wound, and that the real wound is lower in the photograph.

By calling it the 'cowlick wound', they also eliminate from consideration entirely the most reasonable explanation, that it's not a natural part in the hair we're looking at, but rather, the autopsy doctors simply combed the hair out of the way to expose the bullet entry wound in the rear of the head.

Pretty slick, right?

They also pretend "south" of the limo is behind the limo, but it's actually forward and to the left of the limo. This is pertinent because the Harper head fragment was found south of where the limo was at the time of the head shot, but some conspiracy authors claim the Harper fragment was found behind the limo -- implying a shooter to the front. But the actual site of the shooter, considering the curve of Elm Street, would be behind the limo. And we can see that Harper fragment in Zapruder film frame 313, spiraling up and outwards at approximately the one o'clock position.

And you already cited this, but it's worth repeating because it shows the material exiting forward from a shot from behind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

This is typical for how claims are made in the conspiracy literature. Cite the actual document, but take the claim out of context or twist it beyond recognition. After all, most readers aren't going to check, and by then, you've already got their money.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Read the 1978 HSCA testimony by Pierre Finck and tell me with a straight face you know the red spot is a bullet entry wound.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm
Click to expand...

Finck says the phrase "I don't recall" 14 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't remember" 22 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't know" 36 times during this interview.

When shown the back of the head photographs, his comments include:

"It is probably this wound. can't, I don't --"

and...

"This is not too clear so I can't tell if it is this or that, honestly"

and...

"Is it that and that or is it something else?. I don't know."

and...

"It is more accurate to determine an anatomic location when you have the wound itself on the dead body. On the photographs it is embarrassing, it is distorted as far as the angle of shooting is concerned, so you feel much more at ease when you have the dead body and the wounds to establish a location than when you have photographs."

When asked to indicate where the external occipital protuberance is located in the photos, Finck responds with:

"I really don't know."


So, tell me again how this testimony is proof of something.
 
MicahJava said:
While it was initially reported to be a "rifle bullet", one rumor circulated that it was a .45 caliber bullet recovered. This opens up the possibility that something like the .45 De Lisle silenced carbine was used.
Click to expand...
Well it would be foolish to use a rifle shooting a 45 acp pistol cartridge (230 grain round nose bullet) and plant a 6.5mm rifle for the patsy. I don't think I'd trust one of those carbines to hit a moving target at 260 feet either. The bullet is moving only about 900 fps so the lead required would be greater. The De Lisle is known for its low noise level, not accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine

As for the video, it is misleading. It is not and has never been "one of the most silent rifles ever made". That distinction belongs to any suppressed 22lr rifle due to the much smaller powder charge and small silencer bore. it is impossible to make any 45 acp rifle with a dry silencer less noisy than a suppressed 22lr. I know as I own and shoot both.

Another problem with the video is that it compares the measured (probably with old meters)85 decibel De Lisle to the ">100 decibel" modern rifles which were measured with the proper noise meters with <20 micro second response time.

Using a De Lisle in Dealey Plaza would be a stupid idea.
 
Last edited:
Ranb said:
Using a De Lisle in Dealey Plaza would be a stupid idea.
Click to expand...

That's what I keep telling him.

I keep telling him that guns don't lie, and while the ballistics wasn't autographed by Oswald, it is exclusive to the Carcano, and there was only one in Dealey Plaza, and it was owned by LHO, and had his fingerprints on it.

I can't believe I wasted so many years thinking a second gunman was possible. It would have been obvious, and would have been discovered quickly.

More to the point, if I'm hired to shoot JFK, and they tell me it has to be in Dallas I'm going to shoot him on Main Street, not Elm Street because I'm closer, and have better avenues for escape. If they order me to kill in Dealey Plaza then I'm taking the School Book Depository, either the 6th floor or roof. The TSBD has a great angle on Elm Street which gives you a dream visual when you sight your shot with the sides of the street converging to the overpass, and the center painted line guiding your front site.

Any idiot can land at least one kill shot from there, and Oswald landed two.

What I am not going to do is work with a second shooter, even if I know him. The more guys with guns the greater chance something goes wrong. If the second shooter suggests he's going to use a silenced weapon I don't take the job because he's a dangerous idiot.

We've had FOUR mass shootings in the past few days, I doubt they did much planning in advance. Sometimes all you need is a gun, and the will to use it, and people die. Like I said, guns never lie.:thumbsup:
 
delete. I grow too weary of it all.

still waiting for you to make it interesting, michah
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
bobtaftfan repeats the old, old canard that Roosevelt wanted to “drag the U.S. into the war.”

There’s something particularly offensive about that. FDR could only hope to coax Americans into providing more aid for the British, such was the bullet-headed isolationist mood in the country at that time – in spite of the widespread knowledge of just how appalling world fascism, and especially Nazism, really was.

FDR should have pushed, hustled, bullied, and shamed the U.S. into declaring war on those scum. If he engineered PH as a way of getting the country into the fight, then good for him.

But I wonder if bobtaftfan really feels the same way about fascism as I do. A guy who’d dedicate his screen name to the likes of Robert Alphonso Taft really ought to clarify that point.

I didn’t make up the Alphonso part.
Click to expand...

So FDR AND Oswald! It's insidious!*




* Sorry, couldn't resist.

ETA: hah, in before the delete!
 
damn, you're quick

or I'm slow

anyways, this thread is otiose, because I shot jfk. confessed years ago. for some reason, these hobbyists just won't believe me.
 
On the other hand if someone used a Remington Model 552 Speedmaster with a scope, silencer (even a rudimentary one) it would have been simple to empty the ten round tubular magazine into the car occupants from the sixth floor of the TSBD. The 40 grain bullets moving 1000 fps are lethal and with multiple wounds chances are any assassin would be successful.

Even witnesses as close as Harold Norman and James Jarman on the fifth floor might not have realized anyone was shooting until it was all over.
 
Last edited:
Speedmaster? Hell I own one! It's over there in the closet.

See? Evidence. Toldja I shot JFK.
 
traxy said:
Finck says the phrase "I don't recall" 14 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't remember" 22 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't know" 36 times during this interview.

When shown the back of the head photographs, his comments include:

"It is probably this wound. can't, I don't --"

and...

"This is not too clear so I can't tell if it is this or that, honestly"

and...

"Is it that and that or is it something else?. I don't know."

and...

"It is more accurate to determine an anatomic location when you have the wound itself on the dead body. On the photographs it is embarrassing, it is distorted as far as the angle of shooting is concerned, so you feel much more at ease when you have the dead body and the wounds to establish a location than when you have photographs."

When asked to indicate where the external occipital protuberance is located in the photos, Finck responds with:

"I really don't know."


So, tell me again how this testimony is proof of something.
Click to expand...

Finck is an expert witness. Part of being an expert witness is understanding the limits of human memory and admitting when you don't remember something whenever applicable. He remembered the small head wound. He'd probably slap you upside the head if you hold him the red spot was the entry wound and he didn't double-check his records for the shooting of the President.

You have an astounding zero witnesses who both saw the body and identified the red spot as the small head wound.

Dr. Humes testified to the HSCA that he thought the red spot was the entry wound, but only because he was coerced. Purdy casually mentioned in a ARRB interview that he remembers that some time during or after that HSCA meeting where Humes said the red spot looked like a drop of blood, he was berated by Dr. Petty. This story was backed up by Dr. Baden in Feburay of 2000, who remembered Dr. Petty calling Humes a "god-damned jackass".

Apparently Humes wasn't coerced enough on the issue, because years later he told author Harry Livingstone that he knew the cowlick theory was BS and the real wound was lower. As Livingstone put it, "he was very strong on this issue". Dr. Humes also appeared in the May 27, 1996 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association. In the article entitled "JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy", we read:

"The fatal wound was blatantly obvious," Humes recalls. "The entrance wound was elliptical, 15 millimeters long and 6 millimeters wide, and located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. The inside of the skull displayed the characteristic beveled appearance."

Finally, Dr. Humes sealed the issue in 1996 and stood by the original EOP location in his ARRB deposition.

Remember, this is coming from the guy who was coerced into raising the back wound for public consumption. I bet he got tired of that kind of BS and decided to set the record straight. Only a fool knows in his heart that the red spot was the entry wound.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Finck is an expert witness.
Click to expand...

You're right, he is an expert witness who fully admits that there is a lot he doesn't remember about the autopsy.

He also says no less than 3 times in this interview that attempting to locate wounds using a photograph is impossible and a complete waste of time. I believe the word he uses is "embarrassing". He can't even locate the EOP on the photo, and this is a trained forensic pathologist!


If he sees the futility in using that photo, why don't you believe him?
 
traxy said:
You're right, he is an expert witness who fully admits that there is a lot he doesn't remember about the autopsy.

He also says no less than 3 times in this interview that attempting to locate wounds using a photograph is impossible and a complete waste of time. I believe the word he uses is "embarrassing". He can't even locate the EOP on the photo, and this is a trained forensic pathologist!


If he sees the futility in using that photo, why don't you believe him?
Click to expand...

The scalp is being pulled back in the BOH photos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom