JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
If they bothered to measure out "two centimeters to the right", I tend to think that by "slightly above", they mean "less than one centimeter above".
Click to expand...

Yeah, your opinion is unconvincing. Read the autopsy, try to understand it, and you might understand why your opinion is unconvincing. It's in the appendix of the WCR.
 
Just on the off chance we have any lurkers reading this, yawn.

You're making things up. Also, you can not "read the autopsy". The autopsy is an event that happened. You can't read it like a book. You can read the third draft of the autopsy report all you want, but you can not "read the autopsy".
 
MicahJava said:
Just on the off chance we have any lurkers reading this, yawn.

You're making things up. Also, you can not "read the autopsy". The autopsy is an event that happened. You can't read it like a book. You can read the third draft of the autopsy report all you want, but you can not "read the autopsy".
Click to expand...

The autopsy records are freely available in the appendix of the WCR. You are the one making up a story about the entry wound being where you claim. I am telling you how to prove me wrong, and convince me you have an idea worth consideration. You are ignoring me. None of the reasons for doing that pay off in your benefit.

You are also the one who admitted being woefully uninformed from poor sources. There are no good reasons not to take the minimal effort to check them.
 
MicahJava said:
Just on the off chance we have any lurkers reading this, yawn.
Click to expand...

Just on the off-chance you post your opinion again - yawn.


MicahJava said:
You're making things up. Also, you can not "read the autopsy". The autopsy is an event that happened. You can't read it like a book. You can read the third draft of the autopsy report all you want, but you can not "read the autopsy".
Click to expand...

You have a problem with an official document being rewritten to make it more precise and clear?

I sometimes go back in the allotted two hours and revise my posts (you may have noticed), adding additional info or an additional point or two and even correcting typos or grammar errors.

Do those revisions make them wrong in any fashion? What - exactly - is your problem with the published document? Is it simply that it was revised a few times?

Question for you - if there was anything nefarious about the revisions, do you think Humes would have admitted to them in his Warren Commission testimony?

Hank
 
We could always check the autopsy, with the photographs and x-rays. Oh look. They support the autopsy records too...
 
MicahJava said:
Just on the off chance we have any lurkers reading this, yawn.

You're making things up. Also, you can not "read the autopsy". The autopsy is an event that happened. You can't read it like a book. You can read the third draft of the autopsy report all you want, but you can not "read the autopsy".
Click to expand...

Any lurkers interested in the subject matter will be capable of reading the thread and will see who is "making things up" and they'll be able to suss out who the fantasist posters are.

In particular one happy fantasist that asserted "the best snipers in the world" said LHO couldn't have fired the shots, and the one that asserted a suppressed weapon using a subsonic projectile had to be in the mix because...well evidently, just because.
 
BStrong said:
Any lurkers interested in the subject matter will be capable of reading the thread and will see who is "making things up" and they'll be able to suss out who the fantasist posters are.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And as Hank notes, it's not as if this is anything new. This thread was in full swing with the present regulars years before MicahJava even began his research, debunking the same questions he's bringing up de novo. And this is only one of many forums in which the same questions are discussed ad nauseam de novo year in and year out. The question of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK gathers no momentum because it simply breaks down too easily upon examination.
 
TO ANY LURKERS READING THIS I HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND EVERYBODY ELSE ONLY HAS BS
 
Hans said:
Welllll this lurker thinks you're peddling BS and the others are wise and know the subject....
Click to expand...

I think everybody here understands the problems I'm bringing up, and they can't refute anything, so they've resorting to arguing with the audience rather than arguing with me.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I think everybody here understands the problems I'm bringing up, and they can't refute anything, so they've resorting to arguing with the audience rather than arguing with me.
Click to expand...

You seem to have no problem arguing with the audience, if any -- nay, even boldly begging that they believe you over your critics.

I see two problems with your approach. There may be others, but in the ten minutes I have to write this post I'll mention the two.

First, you don't seem to know the difference between evidence and assertion. I see your critics asking you left and right to substantiate the expectations against which you're measuring the facts of the case. It may sound trite, but you really do come across as simply making stuff up as "the way things ought to have been" and then using that as a means of deflecting evidence that doesn't fit your theory. Your "the best snipers in the world" gaffe seems to be the most salient.

Second, you seem to be avoiding questions and rebuttals. While this does achieve an obstructionist end -- making your critics ask questions and make points over and over again, then they lose interest when it's clear you won't engage -- it's not a rational basis from which you can defensibly say "they can't refute anything." You may believe that, but only if your evasion is unintentional. Your critics will continue to make points, regardless of whether you address them. Accusing them of playing to the audience, when you won't play, is rather disingenuous.
 
MicahJava said:
I think everybody here understands the problems I'm bringing up, and they can't refute anything, so they've resorting to arguing with the audience rather than arguing with me.
Click to expand...


They've refuted everything you've come up with because it's old stuff.

Your personal incredulity is not evidence.

I suggest you try the chauffeur shot the president or 'JFK' was a stand in....lol
 
Last edited:
Hans said:
They've refuted everything you've come up with because it's old stuff.

Your personal incredulity is not evidence.

I suggest you try the chauffeur shot the president or 'JFK' was a stand in....lol
Click to expand...

Tippit shot from the Depository and Ruby shot from the overpass - according to Thomas Buchanan anyway.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-killed-Kennedy-Thomas-Buchanan/dp/B00005X6M4?ref_=pe_623860_70668520

Coincidentally, of course, Tippit was shot while riding in the Presidential limo as the stand-in for JFK... according to another conspiracy theorist, George Thomson.
https://whoshotjfk.wikispaces.com/The+Mother+of+All+Conspiracy+Theories

And of course his body was substituted for JFK's at the autopsy, according to Robert Morningstar.
https://redice.tv/news/the-ultimate-jfk-secret-who-is-really-buried-in-arlington

You read enough conspiracy nonsense, your head will spin.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Nobody here can refute the problems surrounding the EOP wound. Games aren't evidence. Trolling isn't evidence. Years ago a room full of people like you guys came up with the brilliant idea that everybody who saw the body was wrong.

tU2ZuMV.jpg


You see those orange splotches? That's the president's blood. This face sheet is literally verified by the President's blood on the paper.

Look at the placement of the small head wound in relation to the ears. NOBODY who attended the autopsy placed the small head wound above the level of the ears. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was LOW in the head, and elliptical. Near the external occipital protuberance.

You can't beat that.

It's also verified by the signature of Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. George Burkley, seen on the lower left of the page. He always thought it was a conspiracy.

So even if you want to deny that the open-cranium photographs show the EOP wound, one can not play dumb games on forums to deny that the evidence points to the small head wound being low in the head. What's on the X-ray? Whatever that fracture is, that's not what the evidence says is the real wound. What's on the photograph? Maybe a dried drop of blood, maybe a mild blemish on the scalp. That's not what the evidence says is the real wound.

The cowlick theory is almost certainly a hoax. This is a dumb debate. Wounds don't move around in real life serious murder cases.

Back to one of my basic questions: If the small bullet wound of the head had any connection to the large bullet wound on the top-right side of the head, why wasn't there more damage to the cerebellum?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
This is a dumb debate.
Click to expand...

Then why are you wasting your time here? Go make your millions, because you're the first person in several decades to solve this hotly debated case and have the evidence to prove it. Or does your confidence evaporate the moment you step outside the safety of this forum and the obscurity and anonymity it provides?

Wounds don't move around in real life serious murder cases.
Click to expand...

How many murder cases have you investigated from start to finish?

Back to one of my basic questions...
Click to expand...

Fringe reset.
 
JayUtah said:
Then why are you wasting your time here? Go make your millions, because you're the first person in several decades to solve this hotly debated case and have the evidence to prove it. Or does your confidence evaporate the moment you step outside the safety of this forum and the obscurity and anonymity it provides?
Click to expand...
Because 9 months/years/days/nanoseconds provides all you need.

Especially if one exclusively reads, as claimed, conspiracy authors.

JayUtah said:
How many murder cases have you investigated from start to finish?
Click to expand...
The answer is none at all. He/she has no clue

JayUtah said:
Fringe reset.
Click to expand...
Yup.
 
MicahJava said:
TO ANY LURKERS READING THIS I HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND EVERYBODY ELSE ONLY HAS BS
Click to expand...


That's great new! Finally, the evil forces of THEY will be thwarted! Would you mind posting some of your evidence? All I've see so far has been personal incredulity and some truly awful stuff recycled from Pat Speer who, as I recall, recycled most of his stuff from Weisberg. Weisburg's stuff was all debunked 40 years ago by the HSCA.
 
MicahJava said:
Back to one of my basic questions: If the small bullet wound of the head had any connection to the large bullet wound on the top-right side of the head, why wasn't there more damage to the cerebellum?
Click to expand...

There's only one bullet wound to the head.

Your alleged entry point is too low, and you're assuming Kennedy's brain is identical to generic illustrations. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that there are individual variations from brain to brain.

A while back I posted the video from the 6th Floor Museum folks featuring the two surviving Parkland doctors who worked on JFK when they brought him...you never bothered to watch it...the doctors disagreed about what they saw. One swears the President was hit from the front, the other (who is a gunshot wound expert) says he was struck from the back, and neither opinion has changed since 1963.

I also posted 6th Floor Museum video of the surviving Secret Service detail, and they have different opinions on if two or three bullets struck the limo.

You can bring up all the CT "experts" you want, but if the best eye witnesses can't agree about what they saw, then you have to go with the physical evidence, and that points to Oswald.
 
MicahJava said:
Look at the placement of the small head wound in relation to the ears. NOBODY who attended the autopsy placed the small head wound above the level of the ears. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was LOW in the head, and elliptical. Near the external occipital protuberance.

You can't beat that.
Click to expand...

So instead of looking for accurate measurements, you are basing your conspiracy theory on a sketch location, not drawn or measured to scale?
 
MicahJava said:
Back to one of my basic questions: If the small bullet wound of the head had any connection to the large bullet wound on the top-right side of the head, why wasn't there more damage to the cerebellum?
Click to expand...

Because, despite your complaints, the autopsy record placed the bullet hole four inches higher.

We have photographs of it.
We have x-rays of it.
We have accurate records of it.
 
MicahJava said:
The cowlick theory is almost certainly a hoax. This is a dumb debate. Wounds don't move around in real life serious murder cases.
Click to expand...

And yet that is what YOU are suggesting.

It was photographed. It was in the x-rays. And nobody is "denying" your open cranium photographs, only your interpretation.

So, let's look at the autopsy photographs you call "the cowlick".

Either: The autopsy team folded back the hair, to reveal "a red splotch" that you consider inconsequential, that, by pure coincidence meets the actual measurements for the autopsy, and the x-rays. Meanwhile there are not only no photographs of your proposed entry wound, it was deliberately obscured. Which seems a lot of effort to record an inconsequential blot.

Or: The "splotch" that looks like an entry wound, is an entry wound. That is why it matches the measurements. That is why it matches the x-rays (and lets not ask how you thought those were faked) and why it satisfies every qualified expert who looks at them. That explains why it looks like a wound, the right size, right shape, and... matches the reported damage to cerebellum.

You want to believe the bullet wound was lower, then somehow strayed up the skull, because you won't go and find the actual measurement?

Seems pretty weak to me.
 
Just who are these mythical lurkers that agree with MicahJava? I would imagine there must be some. Why wouldn't they step up and support his....evidences?
 
Tomtomkent said:
So instead of looking for accurate measurements, you are basing your conspiracy theory on a sketch location, not drawn or measured to scale?
Click to expand...

MJ has a theory? I haven't seen one; all I've seen (so far) is a conspiracy which amounts to a deity, and a "theory" about it which is no more than a belief which results from having read nothing but CT books as bibles. The conspiracy/deity isn't any better defined than whatever justifies asking uninformed questions totally disconnected from a consilient (and opposed) reality; the "theory" is a theology of self-referential assertion. Paul Bethke, in his "End Times" thread, follows the same methodology- there is no objective reality outside his Scripture, anything which doesn't measure up to that or support his theology is to be ignored. (Shrug) It's what happens when your entire context is a completely closed, self-referential system.
 
MicahJava said:
Nobody here can refute the problems surrounding the EOP wound. Games aren't evidence. Trolling isn't evidence. Years ago a room full of people like you guys came up with the brilliant idea that everybody who saw the body was wrong. ...snipped...
Click to expand...

You refuse to acknowledge that humans are fallible, and that human frailty is a far better explanation for any discrepancy in the evidence than grand conspiracy.

If you'd been alive and cognizant at the time of the assassination you'd be old enough to have come to that realization through simple experience with the human race.
 
Wolrab said:
Just who are these mythical lurkers that agree with MicahJava? I would imagine there must be some. Why wouldn't they step up and support his....evidences?
Click to expand...

My cat does but she's an Arab cat and a bit of a fascist plus she thinks the fish are plotting against her.
 
Let's not suggest, however obliquely, that other posters are idiots. It's not civil, it's not polite, and it makes the mod team cry*.

This last may be overstated.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited breach of rule 12


I have not spent time arguing that the x-rays are altered, I might've only mentioned it as a possibility. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.

You lie that the autopsy report supports anything you say. The autopsy report says, with plain English and a diagram, that the real hole was low in the head. The red splotch on the photograph is circular and 20 mm in diameter, while the autopsy report says the real hole was 15 x 6mm. Nobody who was actually there thinks the red spot is the real wound. Maybe only a minor scalp defect. If you think it looks like anything other than that, it's probably a coincidence.

Worst of all, a lot of you are lying that the evidence for the EOP wound relies on "human recollection".

And for some reason, the more desperate the denials get, the more users join this thread. I was joking about the lurkers. Probably nobody is viewing this thread out of curiosity. You are impressing nobody. You are merely trying (poorly) to manufacture the illusion of ambiguity on some very simple issues.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MicahJava said:
. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.
Click to expand...

You wish to argue the x-rays corroborate your story while showing, clearly, a wound 100mm higher on the skull than you claim?
No.

MicahJava said:
. You lie that the autopsy report supports anything you say.
Click to expand...

It is also not in the sources you listed as having read. You offer no reason to believe you have read the autopsy, let alone have the ability to understand it.

MicahJava said:
. The autopsy report says, with plain English and a diagram, that the real hole was low in the head.
Click to expand...

The diagram is not to scale, and is an aid-memoire.

MicahJava said:
. The red splotch on the photograph is circular and 20 mm in diameter, while the autopsy report says the real hole was 15 x 6mm.
Click to expand...
Can you tell me on which page of the autopsy they describe the location, and diameter of the "splotch"?

MicahJava said:
. Worst of all, a lot of you are lying that the existence of the EOP wound relies on "human recollection".
Click to expand...

It is all you have offered. Whereas, the known entry wound, confirmed by every expert who reviewed the records, can be proven by photographs and x-rays. Those same photographs, in which you have failed to identify a wound where you claim, and indeed offered several possible locations.

MicahJava said:
. And for some reason, the more desperate the denials get, the more users join this thread. I was joking about the lurkers. Probably nobody is viewing this thread out of curiosity. You are impressing nobody. You are merely trying (poorly) to manufacture the illusion of ambiguity on some very simple issues.
Click to expand...

On the contrary. I am showing there is no ambiguity. You are plain, and simply wrong in your claims. What you call a "splotch" is clearly an entry wound, consistent with all other evidence. No ambiguity at all.

By the way... Why is the cerebellum visible in those open cranium photographs, and not damaged as you claimed? (Hint... The answers are posted up thread...)
 
MicahJava said:
I have not spent time arguing that the x-rays are altered, I might've only mentioned it as a possibility. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.
Click to expand...

Actually they would all have to be fakes to show a second head wound.

And at least three times you have stated that the autopsy evidence had been tampered with, and this is a lie that has been debunked for decades now.

I was a JFK-CTist for 30 years, I bought into all of that crap because I thought the people spreading these lies were "experts", and "eye witnesses". Turns out that the "experts" were delusional at best, and every one of them had an agenda that embraced lies (many just to make money of the soft-headed). AS for the eye witnesses - guess what? Many are just wrong. Your autopsy witnesses are all wrong about seeing the cerebellum and most admit that they were mistaken now - something you ignore.

There is NO evidence of more than one gunshot wound to the head. There is no ambiguity about this. No sane person would advance this theory. Think about it: Nobody saw him get hit in the head prior to the kill-shot, and the majority of the people were behind the limo giving them ALL a perfect view.

Not one person saw it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Yet 52 years later you want us to believe that the hundred or so people with a clear line of sight to the back of JFK's head all missed it...and the Secret Service agents missed it...and the autopsy pathologists missed it (or as you have already implied: they were silenced)...and you wonder why we can't take your "research" seriously?
 
MicahJava said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited breach of rule 12 in quote


I have not spent time arguing that the x-rays are altered, I might've only mentioned it as a possibility. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.

You lie that the autopsy report supports anything you say. The autopsy report says, with plain English and a diagram, that the real hole was low in the head. The red splotch on the photograph is circular and 20 mm in diameter, while the autopsy report says the real hole was 15 x 6mm. Nobody who was actually there thinks the red spot is the real wound. Maybe only a minor scalp defect. If you think it looks like anything other than that, it's probably a coincidence.

Worst of all, a lot of you are lying that the evidence for the EOP wound relies on "human recollection".

And for some reason, the more desperate the denials get, the more users join this thread. I was joking about the lurkers. Probably nobody is viewing this thread out of curiosity. You are impressing nobody. You are merely trying (poorly) to manufacture the illusion of ambiguity on some very simple issues.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Black Knight syndrome to me, but have at it.

Pointing your finger at bad information and exclaiming See! See! does not a cognizant argument make - and asserting that those who disagree with you are liars is pretty much a bush league move here or anywhere else.

I and other posters in this thread have repeatedly pointed out that your interpretation of evidence - both bonafide and questionable is simply mistaken - no one I can recall has accused you of lying (well, I think when you said you burned a copy of the WCR because it was trash was flat out ********) because, and I hate to bring it up again, humans make mistakes every day of the week in all sorts of endeavors and if someone doesn't have the experience or training to suss out the facts from background noise it doesn't make them a liar.

You're communicating with a wide range of personalities on this website. I have my own little corner of the universe that I know like I know what a banana is, and other posters in this particular thread have their own areas of expertise and many of these posters have been following this story since the day the assassination occurred. If you are to be believed, you're in on 11 months of interest in this case. Do you believe that you have brought evidence to the discussion that I and other posters haven't already weighed?

I'd advise you to go back to the Language Award thread and read TomTomKent's explanation of how to convince others that their conspiracy theory is correct, and form an argument for your conclusion using that advice as a basis for discussion.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just peeking my head in to post a couple of gems for safekeeping. No big deal.

Journal of American Medical Association article from January 4, 1964:

"Kennedy Shot Twice in Back. - President Kennedy was shot twice from the rear by the assassin who struck him down in Dallas. This unofficial finding by a team of pathologists who performed an autopsy on the President's body cleared up confusion over whether Kennedy was shot once or twice and whether both bullets came from the same direction. The autopsy was performed at Bathesda Naval Hospital on the night of Nov 22 after Kennedy's body was brought back to Washington from Dallas.

The first bullet reportedly hit Kennedy in the upper part of the right back shoulder. The bullet did not go through his body and was recovered during the autopsy. The second bullet hit Texas Gov. John B. Connally who was riding in the President's car. The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat. Kennedy might have survived the first bullet, which may have ricocheted off the limousine before striking him, according to reports."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1161559

Warren Commission executive session, January 27, 1964:

(Chief Counsel Lee) Rankin: "Then there is a great range of material in regards to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite appare now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/pdf/WcEx0127.pdf

What the hell autopsy report were these guys reading? Was that version destroyed for national security purposes? I thought the doctors were supposed to think the throat hole was a bad tracheotomy until after the autopsy. Why was the throat wound so big in the autopsy materials anyhow? The throat wound at Parkland was tiny, and his tracheotomy was nice and neat. If you say it was from a probe-rod, that doesn't really sound like they thought it was just a tracheotomy the whole time. Why lie? Again, what comes to mind is Richard Lipsey's HSCA interview in which he describes the doctors literally debating over what the throat hole represented, and from what he understood they concluded a bullet entered low in the head and exited the throat, a trajectory they tested with a probe-rod. The same thing the 11/23/1963 Boston Globe article said, vaguely referring to "it is now believed" that a bullet entered the head and exited the throat, with this diagram:

7FEcdbi.jpg


As pointed out before, Parkland Doctor Robert McClelland had an early report that said "The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." (link). But the JAMA report and Lee Rankin at the Warren Commission meeting are talking about the autopsy professionals themselves thinking the throat wound was caused by a fragment of a bullet, and from a bullet that hit the head. That's pretty darn specific for a simple misinterpretation. Just some food for thought.
 
Last edited:
And where did the journal get this information? Why should we consider it more accurate than the autopsy, photographs and x-rays?
 
Of course, you are just playing silly games when you say the autopsy report, photographs and x-rays don't support the EOP wound.

There were early news reports repeating a lot of nonsense theories, like Kennedy turning around and having a bullet enter his throat and exit the back of his head. But when you have credible sources saying that the autopsy doctors thought a bullet entered the head and a piece of shrapnel exited the throat, that's a different story. It matches exactly what Lipsey said in his HSCA interview.

So, who here still thinks the autopsy professionals considered the throat hole a tracheotomy until afterwards?
 
MicahJava said:
What the hell autopsy report were these guys reading? Was that version destroyed for national security purposes?
Click to expand...

They weren't reading anything, it's all speculation. The investigation was ongoing at the time, and the author had little accurate information to go on.

And this is the fifth time you allege that information was destroyed or altered while you insist you make no such statements.

The Warren Commission excerpt is just a discussion of possibilities, not a final medical assessment. This shows that the Warren Commission DID have an open collective minds while investigating the assassination.

You're lack of research on the throat wound is glaringly obvious.
 
Axxman300 said:
They weren't reading anything, it's all speculation. The investigation was ongoing at the time, and the author had little accurate information to go on.

And this is the fifth time you allege that information was destroyed or altered while you insist you make no such statements.

The Warren Commission excerpt is just a discussion of possibilities, not a final medical assessment. This shows that the Warren Commission DID have an open collective minds while investigating the assassination.

You're lack of research on the throat wound is glaringly obvious.
Click to expand...

Um, I'm pretty sure I know how to read, so your attempts at lying are just to soften the impact of this information. Also, destroying evidence and lying isn't the same as saying that films have been altered.

From my understanding, the official story is that the doctors thought the throat wound was a bad tracheotomy during the entire autopsy. No?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom