JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ what a gruesome infatuation.

Come on, Micah J., tell us who REALLY shot Kennedy? You consider yourself a researcher, right? What oh what does your research FINALLY reveal?

Ignore me if you like. All you're doing is getting older.
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
Christ what a gruesome infatuation.

Come on, Micah J., tell us who REALLY shot Kennedy? You considernyourself a researcher, right? What oh what does your research FINALLY reveal?

Ignore me if you like. All you're doing is getting older.
Click to expand...

1. Shooter hiding in truck shoots Kennedy in the back. Bullet does not exit.

2. Kennedy, wounded, pulls out the presidential pistol in self-defense. The man in the trunk shoots again and creates the small wound low in the head.

3. In reaction to being shot low in the head, Kennedy accidentally pulls the trigger on his pistol and shoots Connally in the back.

4. Connally, now angry at himself being wounded sitting turned to the side to avoid getting hit, pulls out his own pistol, hides it under his Stetson hat, and turns around with the intention of shooting the President in the face.

5. Secret Service agent George Hickey Jr., confused, begins to withdraw his AR-15 in reaction to the commotion.

6. Bill Greer points his pistol at the President's head.

7. Meanwhile, Jackie Kennedy is pointing her own pistol at her husband's throat.

8. The driver, Bill Greer, pulls out his own gun and shoots Connally in the wrist before he can have the honors. Connally drops his pistol and his Stetson hat.

At this moment, three things happen.

9. Connally, flinching and reacting to his wrist shot, pulls the trigger on his pistol, creating a tiny tangential wound above Kennedy's right eye.

10. Jackie pulls the trigger on her pistol, sending a bullet into her husband's throat and creating an exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

11. George Hickey Jr. accidentally shoots his AR-15, which entered the President's cowlick and exited out of the top-right side of his head.

12. Just as Kennedy is beginning to be thrown backwards, the Driver takes his shot, creating an entrance wound in his right temple and enlarging the exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

13. Hickey accidentally fires yet another time; this bullet hit near a manhole cover a some distance away, ricocheting a shard of lead further away near James Tague's feet, sending a fragment of cement upwards and hitting Tague's cheek.

14. As the limousine is driving away, Jackie turns around and taps on the trunk of the limousine three times, indicating to the shooter hiding there that the hit was successful.

Watch the Zapruder Film with this in mind and tell me this doesn't explain everything.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
1. Shooter hiding in truck shoots Kennedy in the back. Bullet does not exit.

2. Kennedy, wounded, pulls out the presidential pistol in self-defense. The man in the trunk shoots again and creates the small wound low in the head.

3. In reaction to being shot low in the head, Kennedy accidentally pulls the trigger on his pistol and shoots Connally in the back.

4. Connally, now angry at himself being wounded sitting turned to the side to avoid getting hit, pulls out his own pistol, hides it under his Stetson hat, and turns around with the intention of shooting the President in the face.

5. Secret Service agent George Hickey Jr., confused, begins to withdraw his AR-15 in reaction to the commotion.

6. Bill Greer points his pistol at the President's head.

7. Meanwhile, Jackie Kennedy is pointing her own pistol at her husband's throat.

8. The driver, Bill Greer, pulls out his own gun and shoots Connally in the wrist before he can have the honors. Connally drops his pistol and his Stetson hat.

At this moment, three things happen.

9. Connally, flinching and reacting to his wrist shot, pulls the trigger on his pistol, creating a tiny tangential wound above Kennedy's right eye.

10. Jackie pulls the trigger on her pistol, sending a bullet into her husband's throat and creating an exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

11. George Hickey Jr. accidentally shoots his AR-15, which entered the President's cowlick and exited out of the top-right side of his head.

12. Just as Kennedy is beginning to be thrown backwards, the Driver takes his shot, creating an entrance wound in his right temple and enlarging the exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

13. Hickey accidentally fires yet another time; this bullet hit near a manhole cover a some distance away, ricocheting a shard of lead further away near James Tague's feet, sending a fragment of cement upwards and hitting Tague's cheek.

14. As the limousine is driving away, Jackie turns around and taps on the trunk of the limousine three times, indicating to the shooter hiding there that the hit was successful.

Watch the Zapruder Film with this in mind and tell me this doesn't explain everything.
Click to expand...

You can't be serious

So you've just been kidding all along?
 
Let's start over.

Can anybody use medical evidence to show that the small wound near the EOP can have any relation to a large wound on the top-right side of the head?

Your first problem is going to be why the wound was so elliptical.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Other researchers have shown that the autopsy professionals were not as sure of the official conclusions as you're implying, and it is known that they were susceptible to some coercion.
Click to expand...

You seem to have mistaken "claimed" for "shown". They have demonstrated no such thing. They have supported no such claims with viable evidence. Just the usual misinterpretation, too much weight on decades old memories, and misinterpretations.

MicahJava said:
Since we have established that the small, elliptical wound near the EOP existed, can you use medical evidence to explain how all of the head damage is consistent with anything Oswald could have done?
Click to expand...

You have established no such thing. You may believe it, but you have not established it as a matter of fact, or evidence. You have in fact, been posted pretty convincing evidence that the wound is where the autopsy concluded. Photographs of the wound for example.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MicahJava said:
Let's start over.

Can anybody use medical evidence to show that the small wound near the EOP can have any relation to a large wound on the top-right side of the head?

Your first problem is going to be why the wound was so elliptical.
Click to expand...

The wound near the EOP, above it, near what you keep calling the "cowlick" is not elliptical.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You seem to have mistaken "claimed" for "shown". They have demonstrated no such thing. They have supported no such claims with viable evidence. Just the usual misinterpretation, too much weight on decades old memories, and misinterpretations.
Click to expand...

Not only were the autopsy professionals not sure about the official story, Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. Burkey, who inspected the body, expressed that he was totally sure multiple shooters were involved. The president's personal physician! You're damn right I'll listen to what he says.

You have established no such thing. You may believe it, but you have not established it as a matter of fact, or evidence. You have in fact, been posted pretty convincing evidence that the wound is where the autopsy concluded. Photographs of the wound for example.
Click to expand...

To any lurkers who are casually viewing this spat, I am the one saying that the autopsy report was correct in the placement of the small head wound. Tomtomkent here is the one trying to convince us that all of the professionals in charge of investigating the damage to Mr. Kennedy were literally wrong by a factor of four inches. I think they know how to use a ruler.

I have posted a photograph of the EOP wound, but not the one you're thinking of (the one everybody who saw the body thinks is a drop of blood or a minor scalp defect). I do not have a copy of Doug Hornes Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, but somewhere in there is information that a there was once indeed a photograph (since vanished) that unambiguously showed the EOP wound in it's proper place, low in the head. The two open-cranium photos are enough, IMO, albeit somewhat confusing at first.

The wound near the EOP, above it, near what you keep calling the "cowlick" is not elliptical.
Click to expand...

Your logic is backwards. The red spot on the BOH photos is not elliptical, therefore it can not be the wound described in the autopsy report. The autopsy report says that the head wound was no higher than the level of the ears, was elliptical (15x6mm), had ragged edges, and was somewhat slanted. This perfectly matches the hole in the skull seen on the open-cranium photographs.

Is this really the only thing holding together the Oswald facade? Well allow me to pull the thread until it unravels. Only a fool knows in his heart that the red dot on the BOH photos is the entry wound.
 
Last edited:
I find it very odd you think the autopsy was correct in the placement of the head wounds, and yet also claim the wound visible in that position, on the photographs is wrong.
 
MicahJava said:
John T. Stringer, the photographer, in his testimony to the ARRB, 1996:

Q: And you're certain that that's where the doctors identified the entrance wound as being; is that correct?

A: Yeah. Yeah, I would think so. That's what I remember.

Q: I'd like to point out the spot that appears somewhat red that is near the end of the ruler, and ask you whether that was an entrance wound, or whether the doctors during the night of the autopsy identified that as an entrance wound?

A: I don't think so, no.

Q: Do you know what that red spot is that appears to be, in layman's terms, near the cowlick?

A: It looks like blood. I would say it was. There was blood all over the place. But I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. I don't think there was a hole there for the bullet wound. You would have seen the hole.
Click to expand...

But curiously, Stringer, in 1972, had a totally different recollection. From a tape made by David Lifton which the ARRB played for Stringer during his testimony:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

[1972 Lifton/Stringer interview tape playing]
[17]LIFTON: I see. I see. Let me ask you
[18] another way of stating that. And this is a good
[19] way of stating what I asked you before.
[20] If you lie back in a bathtub - you know,
[21] just in a totally prone position and you...and your
[22] head rests against the bathtub, is that the part of

Page 80
[1] the head - you know, is that the part of the head
[2] that was damaged?
[3] STRINGER: Yeah.
[4] LIFTON: That part?
[5] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[6] LIFTON: Back in the part that would be
[7] against the tile of the bathtub?
[8] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[9] LIFTON: I see. Whereas, the part that
[10] would be straight up ahead - you know, vertically
[11] in that position - was...was undamaged?
[12] STRINGER: Oh, no. I probably wouldn't
[13] say undamaged", no. I mean, it was - Some of it
[14] was gone. I mean, out of the - some of the bone.
[15] LIFTON: Yeah. I see.
[16] [End of audio tape portion.]
[17] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[18] BY MR. GUNN:
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you recall having had the
[20] conversation that we just listened to with Mr.
[21] Lifton?
[22] A: I don't recall it, but from the tape.

Page 81
[1] Somebody else played it for me.
[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.
[11] Q: The question that I'd be interested in is
[12] not what the trajectory of the bullet was, which
[13] wasn't discussed there -
[14] A: Yeah.
[15] Q: - but just where the wound was on
[16] President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that
[17] the wound was in the occiput or the occipital
[18] region?
[19] A: I don't remember telling him that, no.
[20] Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region
[21] of the President -
[22] A: Yes, the entry.

Page 82
[1] Q: By "the entry", you mean what?
[2] A: Where the bullet went.
[3] Q: And how big was the entry wound?
[4] A: About the size of a bullet, from what you
[5] could see. On the inside where the bone was, I
[6] guess it was different.



So do we give his 1993 testimony more credence, his 1972 recorded statements to Lifton more credence, or do we understand and accept the limits and fallibility of human recollection, and give the x-rays and autopsy photos - as interpreted by expert pathologists to the HSCA - more credence?

Do you understand the issue here?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Isn't it amazing how the "most accurate" recollections are always the ones that match an appealing story. If only there were some objective evidence to analyse and clear up any ambiguity or confusion.

Like the autopsy records, that match the photos, that match the x ray, that match the ballistics...
 
MicahJava said:
1. Shooter hiding in truck shoots Kennedy in the back. Bullet does not exit.

2. Kennedy, wounded, pulls out the presidential pistol in self-defense. The man in the trunk shoots again and creates the small wound low in the head.

3. In reaction to being shot low in the head, Kennedy accidentally pulls the trigger on his pistol and shoots Connally in the back.

4. Connally, now angry at himself being wounded sitting turned to the side to avoid getting hit, pulls out his own pistol, hides it under his Stetson hat, and turns around with the intention of shooting the President in the face.

5. Secret Service agent George Hickey Jr., confused, begins to withdraw his AR-15 in reaction to the commotion.

6. Bill Greer points his pistol at the President's head.

7. Meanwhile, Jackie Kennedy is pointing her own pistol at her husband's throat.

8. The driver, Bill Greer, pulls out his own gun and shoots Connally in the wrist before he can have the honors. Connally drops his pistol and his Stetson hat.

At this moment, three things happen.

9. Connally, flinching and reacting to his wrist shot, pulls the trigger on his pistol, creating a tiny tangential wound above Kennedy's right eye.

10. Jackie pulls the trigger on her pistol, sending a bullet into her husband's throat and creating an exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

11. George Hickey Jr. accidentally shoots his AR-15, which entered the President's cowlick and exited out of the top-right side of his head.

12. Just as Kennedy is beginning to be thrown backwards, the Driver takes his shot, creating an entrance wound in his right temple and enlarging the exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

13. Hickey accidentally fires yet another time; this bullet hit near a manhole cover a some distance away, ricocheting a shard of lead further away near James Tague's feet, sending a fragment of cement upwards and hitting Tague's cheek.

14. As the limousine is driving away, Jackie turns around and taps on the trunk of the limousine three times, indicating to the shooter hiding there that the hit was successful.

Watch the Zapruder Film with this in mind and tell me this doesn't explain everything.
Click to expand...

I see none of that in the Zapruder film. And neither do you. Why don't you tell us your real theory, if indeed you even have one.

For starters, you say the entry wound in the back of the head was too low to have caused the exit wound in the top of the head AND to have been inflicted by Oswald.

Correct?

So according to you then, either one of two things is true:

(a) the wound in the back of the head had to be higher, or
(b) the shooter behind the limo had to be lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Since you appear to have been strenuously arguing against (a), I'm thinking your actual scenario is (b). But where is this supposedly lower shooter?

Why don't you lay out the evidence for this lower shooter?

Did any witnesses see this shooter? Was a weapon found? Ammo traceable to that weapon? The weapon traced?

What do you have to support your argument for a shooter lower than [other than] the sixth floor of the TSBD?

Can you flesh out the other half of the argument?

You argue for a lower wound. Now you have to argue for a lower shooter. The two go together, according to you. Show us the evidence for this lower shooter.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Not only were the autopsy professionals not sure about the official story, Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. Burkey, who inspected the body, expressed that he was totally sure multiple shooters were involved. The president's personal physician! You're damn right I'll listen to what he says.
Click to expand...

What is his conclusion based on? Did he perform a separate autopsy? Did he make a detailed examination of the body of JFK at any time? Is he an expert qualified to make such a judgment? Did he acquire his forensic pathology skills on the sly? This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to illegitimate authority.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Please read the link in detail and understand why Dr. Burkley is not an authority on this matter. And why citing his opinion isn't valid argument from authority. And why your judgment to trust his opinion is misplaced.


MicahJava said:
To any lurkers who are casually viewing this spat, I am the one saying that the autopsy report was correct in the placement of the small head wound. Tomtomkent here is the one trying to convince us that all of the professionals in charge of investigating the damage to Mr. Kennedy were literally wrong by a factor of four inches. I think they know how to use a ruler.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old "They know how to use a ruler" argument. Except, please note, the autopsy doctors never gave a measurement for how much above the EOP the wound was. The "Four Inches" below the cowlick is your argument, not their measurement.


MicahJava said:
I have posted a photograph of the EOP wound, but not the one you're thinking of (the one everybody who saw the body thinks is a drop of blood or a minor scalp defect). I do not have a copy of Doug Hornes Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, but somewhere in there is information that a there was once indeed a photograph (since vanished) that unambiguously showed the EOP wound in it's proper place, low in the head. The two open-cranium photos are enough, IMO, albeit somewhat confusing at first.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, "IMO" isn't recognized as an authoritative source here. And you're appealing to the conspiracy theorist who is claiming the "missing evidence" confirms his beliefs. We've never heard that argument before.


MicahJava said:
Your logic is backwards. The red spot on the BOH photos is not elliptical, therefore it can not be the wound described in the autopsy report.
Click to expand...

Looks relatively elliptical to me. But I'm not a authority here. What did the experts on the HSCA panel conclude?


MicahJava said:
The autopsy report says that the head wound was no higher than the level of the ears, was elliptical (15x6mm), had ragged edges, and was somewhat slanted. This perfectly matches the hole in the skull seen on the open-cranium photographs.
Click to expand...

I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it

That one, the one that couldn't possibly be a wound entry location (according to you).


MicahJava said:
Is this really the only thing holding together the Oswald facade?
Click to expand...

No, there's also his weapon found on the sixth floor, a bullet found in Parkland traceable to his weapon, two large bullet fragments traceable to that weapon, three shells at the sniper's nest traceable to that weapon, numerous witnesses who saw a rifle or gunman in that sniper's nest, his fingerprints on the weapon, the paper trail linking him to the rifle, the two witnesses who saw him with a long sack that morning, the fact that his weapon was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage, the fact that Oswald was the only person who was inside the building before the shooting to depart the building after the shooting before the building was sealed off, the fact that Oswald went back to his rented room and obtained a pistol and used it to kill a police officer, the fact that Oswald has a history involving political assassination, as he was involved in another assassination attempt back in April of 1963... stuff like that also holds together what you call the "Oswald facade".


MicahJava said:
Well allow me to pull the thread until it unravels. Only a fool knows in his heart that the red dot on the BOH photos is the entry wound.
Click to expand...

Only the fools on the HSCA pathology panel. And fools who like to follow the actual evidence and real experts, instead of 'missing evidence' and non-experts like Dr. Burkley. Fools like that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Let's start over.
Click to expand...

No, let's not. Let's have you explain your actual theory in detail, and show the evidence for it, including not only the supposed low entry wound, but the supposed lower shooter, who represents the other half of your argument.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
But curiously, Stringer, in 1972, had a totally different recollection. From a tape made by David Lifton which the ARRB played for Stringer during his testimony:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

[1972 Lifton/Stringer interview tape playing]
[17]LIFTON: I see. I see. Let me ask you
[18] another way of stating that. And this is a good
[19] way of stating what I asked you before.
[20] If you lie back in a bathtub - you know,
[21] just in a totally prone position and you...and your
[22] head rests against the bathtub, is that the part of

Page 80
[1] the head - you know, is that the part of the head
[2] that was damaged?
[3] STRINGER: Yeah.
[4] LIFTON: That part?
[5] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[6] LIFTON: Back in the part that would be
[7] against the tile of the bathtub?
[8] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[9] LIFTON: I see. Whereas, the part that
[10] would be straight up ahead - you know, vertically
[11] in that position - was...was undamaged?
[12] STRINGER: Oh, no. I probably wouldn't
[13] say undamaged", no. I mean, it was - Some of it
[14] was gone. I mean, out of the - some of the bone.
[15] LIFTON: Yeah. I see.
[16] [End of audio tape portion.]
[17] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[18] BY MR. GUNN:
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you recall having had the
[20] conversation that we just listened to with Mr.
[21] Lifton?
[22] A: I don't recall it, but from the tape.

Page 81
[1] Somebody else played it for me.
[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.
[11] Q: The question that I'd be interested in is
[12] not what the trajectory of the bullet was, which
[13] wasn't discussed there -
[14] A: Yeah.
[15] Q: - but just where the wound was on
[16] President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that
[17] the wound was in the occiput or the occipital
[18] region?
[19] A: I don't remember telling him that, no.
[20] Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region
[21] of the President -
[22] A: Yes, the entry.

Page 82
[1] Q: By "the entry", you mean what?
[2] A: Where the bullet went.
[3] Q: And how big was the entry wound?
[4] A: About the size of a bullet, from what you
[5] could see. On the inside where the bone was, I
[6] guess it was different.



So do we give his 1993 testimony more credence, his 1972 recorded statements to Lifton more credence, or do we understand and accept the limits and fallibility of human recollection, and give the x-rays and autopsy photos - as interpreted by expert pathologists to the HSCA - more credence?

Do you understand the issue here?

Hank
Click to expand...

I tend to think that the actual witnessing of the President's naked corpse is more compelling to the human memory than a short conversation with David Lifton.
 
HSienzant said:
I see none of that in the Zapruder film. And neither do you. Why don't you tell us your real theory, if indeed you even have one.

For starters, you say the entry wound in the back of the head was too low to have caused the exit wound in the top of the head AND to have been inflicted by Oswald.

Correct?

So according to you then, either one of two things is true:

(a) the wound in the back of the head had to be higher, or
(b) the shooter behind the limo had to be lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Since you appear to have been strenuously arguing against (a), I'm thinking your actual scenario is (b). But where is this supposedly lower shooter?

Why don't you lay out the evidence for this lower shooter?

Did any witnesses see this shooter? Was a weapon found? Ammo traceable to that weapon? The weapon traced?

What do you have to support your argument for a shooter lower than [other than] the sixth floor of the TSBD?

Can you flesh out the other half of the argument?

You argue for a lower wound. Now you have to argue for a lower shooter. The two go together, according to you. Show us the evidence for this lower shooter.

Hank
Click to expand...

I am arguing for the small and large head wounds being created by separate bullets. A few people who saw the body were suspicious of exactly that.

The elliptical shape and relatively minor damage around the EOP wound indicates that this was an entry wound created by subsonic ammunition.

Robert Harris was on here discussing the coincidences relating to Jim Braden in the Dal-Tex building.

For what it's worth, there is an FBI document claiming that a bullet was found "lodged behind the president's ear".

There is more compiled evidence of at least one bullet recovered from the body in this book, starting on page 361 of the pdf.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I am arguing for the small and large head wounds being created by separate bullets. A few people who saw the body were suspicious of exactly that.

The elliptical shape and relatively minor damage around the EOP wound indicates that this was an entry wound created by subsonic ammunition.

Robert Harris was on here discussing the coincidences relating to Jim Braden in the Dal-Tex building.

For what it's worth, there is an FBI document claiming that a bullet was found "lodged behind the president's ear".

There is more compiled evidence of at least one bullet recovered from the body in this book, starting on page 361 of the pdf.
Click to expand...

That memo was written the day of assassination and the 'bullet behind the ears' was probably based on fragments that were recovered, ie no full bullet and certainly written before the autopsy was completed on the 23rd
 
Hans said:
That memo was written the day of assassination and the 'bullet behind the ears' was probably based on fragments that were recovered, ie no full bullet and certainly written before the autopsy was completed on the 23rd
Click to expand...

In a world where everything in the JFK case makes total sense, we could perhaps write that memo off as someone overhearing something about a fragment or some kind of false information, but I don't think something like that can be discounted with the way things are.
 
MicahJava said:
I tend to think that the actual witnessing of the President's naked corpse is more compelling to the human memory than a short conversation with David Lifton.
Click to expand...

You're misstating the premise of my argument.

In both cases, 1972 to Lifton, and in 1993 to the ARRB, Stringer was relating his recollections of the autopsy, and what the wounds to JFK looked like.

One was nine years after the assassination, the other was 30 years after the assassination.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

In his 1972 recollection, he says the massive exit wound was in the back of the head. In the 1993 ARRB recollection, he says the small entry wound was in the back of the head.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

Why should we trust the latter one, the one you cite?

Why should we trust either?

Don't misstate my point again.

That's a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Please read and familiarize yourself with this logical fallacy, not so you can use it more frequently and more facilely, but to avoid it altogether.

Thanks so much.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I am arguing for the small and large head wounds being created by separate bullets. A few people who saw the body were suspicious of exactly that.
Click to expand...

Great, then show us the evidence of exactly that - including the evidence of two shooters. And two bullets. From what I'm aware of, all the pathologists who examined the body or the extant autopsy materials believe there is evidence of one entry and one exit.


MicahJava said:
The elliptical shape and relatively minor damage around the EOP wound indicates that this was an entry wound created by subsonic ammunition.
Click to expand...

Can you quote where the forensic pathology panel reached that conclusion? Or the three autopsy doctors? I'm unfamiliar with either of those groups reaching that conclusion.


MicahJava said:
Robert Harris was on here discussing the coincidences relating to Jim Braden in the Dal-Tex building.
Click to expand...

And he could provide no evidence Braden had a weapon, used a weapon, left with a weapon, or left one behind. Where's the evidence Braden was an assassin? There is none, right? That's exactly what Robert Harris found when he was on here discussing Jim Braden. Perhaps you have evidence unknown to Robert Harris you would like to share?


MicahJava said:
For what it's worth, there is an FBI document claiming that a bullet was found "lodged behind the president's ear".
Click to expand...

Hearsay. Produce this bullet. You understand that the writer of that memo [Belmont] was NOT at the autopsy and the writer was at least once removed from anyone at the autopsy, if not more so? Who is the original source of this claim, and if you can't link this claim to someone at the autopsy, why do you think it's anything more than a misunderstanding?



MicahJava said:
There is more compiled evidence of at least one bullet recovered from the body in this book, starting on page 361 of the pdf.
Click to expand...

List that supposed 'evidence' here. Let's discuss.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
You're misstating the premise of my argument.

In both cases, 1972 to Lifton, and in 1993 to the ARRB, Stringer was relating his recollections of the autopsy, and what the wounds to JFK looked like.

One was nine years after the assassination, the other was 30 years after the assassination.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

In his 1972 recollection, he says the massive exit wound was in the back of the head. In the 1993 ARRB recollection, he says the small entry wound was in the back of the head.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

Why should we trust the latter one, the one you cite?

Why should we trust either?

Don't misstate my point again.

That's a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Please read and familiarize yourself with this logical fallacy, not so you can use it more frequently and more facilely, but to avoid it altogether.

Thanks so much.

Hank
Click to expand...

From what I understand, most witnesses who saw the big something on the back of the head placed it somewhere above the ears. As Doug Horne has theorized, the small EOP wound can co-exist with the hypothetical exit wound on the BOH. The open-cranium photos show a lot of bone missing from the BOH as well as the EOP wound.
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
That memo was written the day of assassination and the 'bullet behind the ears' was probably based on fragments that were recovered, ie no full bullet and certainly written before the autopsy was completed on the 23rd
Click to expand...

Good point. That escaped me. The autopsy concluded about midnight, so unless the FBI agents in Bethesda were calling in updates during the autopsy, the source of this appears to be someone external to the autopsy proper.

Which makes it really questionable.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
In a world where everything in the JFK case makes total sense, we could perhaps write that memo off as someone overhearing something about a fragment or some kind of false information, but I don't think something like that can be discounted with the way things are.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it can. Where do you propose we go from here?

I think the next step is for you to provide some more evidence showing the source of Belmont's claim (Belmont wasn't at the autopsy) was someone actually at the autopsy and that this someone actually provided said details about said bullet external to Belmont's mention.

Otherwise, it's simply hunting for an anomaly in a mountain of FBI documents - AKA cherry-picking.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
From what I understand, most witnesses who saw the big something on the back of the head placed it somewhere above the ears. As Doug Horne has theorized, the small EOP wound can co-exist with the hypothetical exit wound on the BOH. The open-cranium photos show a lot of bone missing from the BOH as well as the EOP wound.
Click to expand...

A conspiracy theorist has theorized a theory? I'm stunned at this turn of events. Absolutely stunned.

Can you tell us what autopsy surgeons or forensic pathologists agree with the theory that there is evidence of two separate impacts to the President's head, as I asked above?

And you are avoiding explaining why you're not explaining the conflict in Stringer's recollections between 1972 and 1993, and why we should put any trust in the 1993 one you cited.

Stringer denied in 1993 there was a large hole in the back of the President's head. So if you're arguing for both wounds in the back of the head, you're arguing Stringer's 1993 recollection is wrong.

[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.


So when Stringer said it came in the back, he was right, but when he said it came out the side, he was wrong?

Isn't "in the back, out the right top side" exactly what the autopsy photos show?

And where is the evidence of a shooter lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD?

We're still awaiting that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Micah Java, all you ever do is start over again. So do the other (fewer all the time) JFK conspiracists.

Once again: Who shot Kennedy?
 
MicahJava said:
In a world where everything in the JFK case makes total sense, we could perhaps write that memo off as someone overhearing something about a fragment or some kind of false information, but I don't think something like that can be discounted with the way things are.
Click to expand...

And a few pages later, we get a early precursor to the junk-food diet defense:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268&search="lodged_behind"#relPageId=120&tab=page

"In the future people will be just shot down in the street, for no reason at all, by some overly sugar-crazed individuals".

Tell us why everything noted in an FBI memo is worthy of credence or why something like that can't be discounted with the way things are.

I missed that memo. Maybe it's later in the cited document?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
A conspiracy theorist has theorized a theory? I'm stunned at this turn of events. Absolutely stunned.

Can you tell us what autopsy surgeons or forensic pathologists agree with the theory that there is evidence of two separate impacts to the President's head, as I asked above?
Click to expand...

I'm getting pretty overwhelmed at this point, so for today I will just say that I've seen those references buried throughout Speer's book and Horne's book.

And you are avoiding explaining why you're not explaining the conflict in Stringer's recollections between 1972 and 1993, and why we should put any trust in the 1993 one you cited.

Stringer denied in 1993 there was a large hole in the back of the President's head. So if you're arguing for both wounds in the back of the head, you're arguing Stringer's 1993 recollection is wrong.

[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.


So when Stringer said it came in the back, he was right, but when he said it came out the side, he was wrong?

Isn't "in the back, out the right top side" exactly what the autopsy photos show?

And where is the evidence of a shooter lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD?

We're still awaiting that.

Hank
Click to expand...

I think Lifton's interview is kind of confusing. Instead of asking questions about specific parts of the anatomy, Lifton said something about what side of your head is touching the tile of a bathtub when you're laying down. So what? The point stands that Stringer specifically denied that the red spot is the entry wound.
 
MicahJava said:
I'm getting pretty overwhelmed at this point, so for today I will just say that I've seen those references buried throughout Speer's book and Horne's book.
Click to expand...

I'm stunned, absolutely stunned, that you tell me you saw it someplace but can't cite for it at this time.


MicahJava said:
I think Lifton's interview is kind of confusing. Instead of asking questions about specific parts of the anatomy, Lifton said something about what side of your head is touching the tile of a bathtub when you're laying down. So what?
Click to expand...

He asked about it a number of different ways. That was a way of localizing the large exit wound. And you know where that description puts it: In the occiput. Which is where Stringer later put the entry wound.

So what? So this - Stringer's 1972 recollection conflicts with Stringer's 1993 recollection, and you choose the 1993 recollection over the 1972 recollection or the HSCA forensic panel's determination.

I find that curious. I find it particularly curious that you would think his memory improved between 1972 and 1993.



MicahJava said:
The point stands that Stringer specifically denied that the red spot is the entry wound.
Click to expand...

Yes, we understand that. But there's more to this story, isn't there? In 1993 he denied that. In 1972, he said that was where the exit wound was located.

We have a conflict in his recollection, which calls into question his recollections. Doesn't it?

And if so, why do you cherry-pick the recollections you like, and discard the rest?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
In a world where everything in the JFK case makes total sense, we could perhaps write that memo off as someone overhearing something about a fragment or some kind of false information, but I don't think something like that can be discounted with the way things are.
Click to expand...

Sure it can it was written the same day as the assassination - or you saying that you know that everything was known perfectly and no false ideas or leads were followed on the same day?

What would be very strange would be there being no false steps or ideas being give out on first day.

Perhaps you could tell us how many hours did it take the FBI to fully understand all aspects of the assassination attempt? To have so done within the 22nd of November you have less than 12 hours - did they do so in less than 12 hours?
 
MicahJava said:
I am arguing for the small and large head wounds being created by separate bullets. A few people who saw the body were suspicious of exactly that.

The elliptical shape and relatively minor damage around the EOP wound indicates that this was an entry wound created by subsonic ammunition.

Robert Harris was on here discussing the coincidences relating to Jim Braden in the Dal-Tex building.

For what it's worth, there is an FBI document claiming that a bullet was found "lodged behind the president's ear".

There is more compiled evidence of at least one bullet recovered from the body in this book, starting on page 361 of the pdf.
Click to expand...

The memo was written on the day of the assassination while the President's body was in transit on Air Force One. There had been no examination of the body beyond emergency room procedures, and nobody had probed the skull yet.

So this is a misstatement written in haste by a guy who just had the weight of the free world land on his field office. There was no second bullet found. Only on bullet struck JFK's head.

It's on film, and there is no confusion. 1 round to the head from behind.
 
What's the point of even arguing further?

HSienzant is here trying to say that Stringer's recollection and retraction of an exit wound in the back of the head somehow benefits the official story.

Axxman300 for some reason thinks that the Belmont memo was made before Air Force One landed.

Gah! Forget about it! What's the point of even going further than page 1 of the official autopsy report? The location and shape of the small head wound is certainly a giant problem with the official story. The very elliptical shape of the wound (about 3x1) is what you would get from subsonic ammunition, not 6.5 Carcano rounds which always create circular bullet holes. The lack of major brain damage acknowledged in that area, and the ridiculous deflection required is also a simple indicator that Kennedy was shot in the head more than once.

dpo8Wjl.png


Whoever is still stretching out the argument that a blemish on the scalp and a small fracture on an x-ray represents the true entry wound is starting to resemble Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force only being able to transform into the shape of a hot dog or an igloo.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Let's say for a moment that the damage to John Kennedy is consistent with anything Oswald could have done. Can you propose a shooting sequence?
Click to expand...

Yes.

But it is only compatible with actual evidence, like the z flm, autopsy records, autopsy photographs, etc. So I expect you will discount it in favour of silenced weapons and unevidenced wounds you want to believe were there.
 
MicahJava said:
What's the point of even arguing further?

HSienzant is here trying to say that Stringer's recollection and retraction of an exit wound in the back of the head somehow benefits the official story.

Axxman300 for some reason thinks that the Belmont memo was made before Air Force One landed.

Gah! Forget about it! What's the point of even going further than page 1 of the official autopsy report? The location and shape of the small head wound is certainly a giant problem with the official story. The very elliptical shape of the wound (about 3x1) is what you would get from subsonic ammunition, not 6.5 Carcano rounds which always create circular bullet holes.The lack of major brain damage acknowledged in that area, and the ridiculous deflection required is also a simple indicator that Kennedy was shot in the head more than once.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/dpo8Wjl.png[/qimg]

Whoever is still stretching out the argument that a blemish on the scalp and a small fracture on an x-ray represents the true entry wound is starting to resemble Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force only being able to transform into the shape of a hot dog or an igloo.
Click to expand...

Did you learn the bolded from "the worlds best snipers?"

The primary difference between a wound caused by a subsonic projectile and a supersonic projectile is depth of penetration, not the shape of the entry/exit wound.

If you have evidence that any small arms projectile "always create circular bullet holes" I'd be very interested in seeing it.
 
BStrong said:
Did you learn the bolded from "the worlds best snipers?"

The primary difference between a wound caused by a subsonic projectile and a supersonic projectile is depth of penetration, not the shape of the entry/exit wound.

If you have evidence that any small arms projectile "always create circular bullet holes" I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Click to expand...

I mean, just imagine if the projectile hit a curved object like a skull, at a tangentile angle because the person was leaning forwards slightly...
 
BStrong said:
Did you learn the bolded from "the worlds best snipers?"

The primary difference between a wound caused by a subsonic projectile and a supersonic projectile is depth of penetration, not the shape of the entry/exit wound.

If you have evidence that any small arms projectile "always create circular bullet holes" I'd be very interested in seeing it.
Click to expand...

He is working from the Hollywood version of reality, so good luck with that request.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom