JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Axxman300 said:

You ignore the part where the fibers of JFK's tie and shirt indicate the bullet exited through the front of the throat. The shirt and jacket indicate ONE bullet entered through the back.

So if the clothing indicates one bullet entered through the back and exited out of the front of the body then the math looks something like this:

1 = 1

You're making it 1 = 2.

When you look at the COMBINATION of physical evidence; the pathology, forensics, and ballistics a reasonable person must conclude the shot was a 6.5x52mm Carcano round. There is ZERO evidence of more than 2 rounds striking the President.

Period.

Click to expand...

Did I ever argue the throat was an entry? No. And of course, you're jumping to conclusions by saying the clothing evidence can only mean a back-to-throat track.

BStrong said:

As far as heat goes, pain is unfortunately the best teacher, and not just the piece itself. When a crew served weapon, like an M2 .50 or any of the 7.62 types is fired that brass being ejected is best avoided, and if you have the misfortune of getting one up your sleeve or down the uniform you can get some interesting beauty marks. The Browning .50 at least ejects out the bottom, but 60's eject out the right side and can make things unpleasant. The HK 21 not only ejects from the right but throws the case into the next county. Until you get rained on by one it's hard to imagine damn near red hot brass rain.

Click to expand...

True. My good friend began his Army career as an AG to a M-60 gunner with C Co. 2-75, and he showed me the scars he still has on the back of his neck from taking a bad position next to the weapon (the gunner was more than happy to let him learn the hard way too).

This makes me wonder why Oswald didn't think to cover his tracks by starting a fire on the 6th floor on his way out. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

MicahJava said:

Did I ever argue the throat was an entry? No. And of course, you're jumping to conclusions by saying the clothing evidence can only mean a back-to-throat track.

Click to expand...

Not jumping to conclusions, those are the conclusions. The fibers clearly indicate the direction of the bullet (people have been getting shot for a long time, and the FBI caught on early and bought microscopes).

MicahJava said:

Just to establish that, since the throat wound was most likely probed during the autopsy, there is no evidence they seriously considered a back-to-throat track. The only thing approaching evidence is that CBS memo talking about the zig-zagging probe.

Click to expand...

So what are you arguing, because the evidence indicates one round striking the President in the back and exiting the throat. The internal probe doesn't matter because the fiber evidence backs this scenario up 100%.

The internal probe is nothing but a side-show.

MicahJava said:

Just to establish that, since the throat wound was most likely probed during the autopsy, there is no evidence they seriously considered a back-to-throat track. The only thing approaching evidence is that CBS memo talking about the zig-zagging probe.

Click to expand...

No, that's not evidence of anything. I already told you that.

"The only thing approaching evidence" is the autopsy report.
And the testimony of Humes, Finck, and Boswell.
And the consensus of all the forensic pathologists that the original autopsists got it right.

That's evidence. Something you appear to not understand. And confuse with hearsay memos and 33-year after the fact recollections.

Good luck with that.

Hank

MicahJava said:

Did I ever argue the throat was an entry? No. And of course, you're jumping to conclusions by saying the clothing evidence can only mean a back-to-throat track.

Click to expand...

Where's the bullet that struck JFK in the back?

Where's the evidence that a fragment of bone or bullet from the head strike exited JFK's throat?

And since JFK wasn't struck in the head until frame Z313, perhaps you can tell us why he points at his throat with the index finger of his left hand in the Zframes in the late Z250s?

Like here: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z258.jpg

It sure looks to me like he's trying to indicate he suffered a wound there. Or do you seriously entertain the idea he was indicating "We're Number One!"

Hank

MicahJava said:

Axxman300, I accidentally typed subsonic when I meant supersonic. A supersonic bullet will be louder than it's suppressed muzzle blast, ergo knoll witnesses.

Click to expand...

No, it won't:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/634649.pdf

"For supersonic velocities, the air in the gun barrel ahead of the projectile is compressed and accelerated and its muzzle exit causes a weak shock wave to form. Following muzzle exit of the projectile, the high pressure gun gases begin a rapid expansion to the atmosphere, causing a strong wave propagating at supersonic velocities for a short distance.

This shock or overpressure condition decays rapidly and then continues to travel at sonic velocity as an impulse wave or sound wave. A schlieren photograph of this expanding shock wave is shown in Figure 1. A second important sound source is the shock wave created by a supersonic projectile. However, recent studies (2) indicate that it will not reveal weapon location; therefore, this study is concerned with muzzle gas sound only."

MicahJava said:

No, that's basically what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying the muzzle blast would be that silent of suppressors were used in Dealey Plaza. It depends on the witness. With the motorcycle backfire and crowd noises, that especially factors in confusion. Nobody's saying that 1960's noise-suppressors would cover up the muzzle blast that much in a situation like this.

Click to expand...

In that case the only sensible thing to do is disregard all of the earwitness testimony as unreliable...which means we have to go with whatever other evidence we have for specific firing locations, including witnesses who actually saw a shooter, recovered spent rifle casings or weapons recovered from the scene.

Oh look, we're back at the depository again...

MicahJava said:

Dr. Humes' version of events is witness evidence. The other people there tell a different story. Everybody else tells the story of how the autopsy physicians figured out the throat wound wasn't just a trach incision, so they stuck probes in and out of it. I don't think Dr. Humes ever even mentioned the second phone call that Dr. Perry did.

Click to expand...

You're relying on witness memory again.

Told ya you'd come up empty handed.

BStrong said:

No, it won't:

Click to expand...

I enthusiastically concur. There is no way a crack or zing from a supersonic bullet will obscure the sound of a suppressed muzzle blast from a weapon at close range. The crack or zing is simple not that loud. There would have been reports of a muffled sound if a suppressed weapon had been used. They are very distinctly different sounds.

At long ranges where the muffled sound of a suppressed muzzle blast might not be audible that is possible, but in Dealey Plaza that is simply not possible. The muffled sound of a suppressed weapon would have been heard. It is simply hogwash to contend otherwise.

traxy said:

In that case the only sensible thing to do is disregard all of the earwitness testimony as unreliable...which means we have to go with whatever other evidence we have for specific firing locations, including witnesses who actually saw a shooter, recovered spent rifle casings or weapons recovered from the scene.

Oh look, we're back at the depository again...

Click to expand...

You're forgetting conspiracy theorists' #1 rule.

Anybody But Oswald.

With the appropriate application of this rule, all the hard evidence can be discarded, all the eyewitnesses who saw a Depository shooter are questionable, the rifle was planted or just a prop, or both, and any earwitnesses who said anywhere but the knoll are likewise unworthy of consideration. You can also question the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays and photos, the veracity of the autopsists and all the forensic pathologists who confirm the autopsists conclusions.

With this rule, the conspiracy evidence is the only thing left standing.

I mean, the conspiracy is just so ... obvious.

Hank

Fun field trip for interested parties.

Go to a NRA sanctioned High Power Rifle match and volunteer to mark targets in the target pits downrange.

You'll be safe behind cover and will be able to experience first hand what supersonic projectiles sound like passing by your position.

BStrong said:

Fun field trip for interested parties.

Go to a NRA sanctioned High Power Rifle match and volunteer to mark targets in the target pits downrange.

You'll be safe behind cover and will be able to experience first hand what supersonic projectiles sound like passing by your position.

Click to expand...

I guy I know fell asleep out on one of Fort Ord's beach ranges (sleep/passed out/whatever). He woke to the sound of what he thought were bees swarming over his head, but soon discovered he was pinned down by a platoon of bootcamp recruits with their new M-16s.

Plus, Reheat has actually flown supersonic.

At a Beale AFB airshow in 1985 an F-4 from the Nevada ANG buzzed the runway at near Mach 1. I didn't hear the announcer, and suddenly there's this big green and black machine in the sky, which the sound of the engines a good two seconds behind.

Silence that.

Axxman300 said:

Plus, Reheat has actually flown supersonic.

At a Beale AFB airshow in 1985 an F-4 from the Nevada ANG buzzed the runway at near Mach 1. I didn't hear the announcer, and suddenly there's this big green and black machine in the sky, which the sound of the engines a good two seconds behind.

Silence that.

Click to expand...

Comparing a bullet's supersonic shock wave to a supersonic aircraft at low level is like comparing the sound of a #500 bomb blast with a dog fart.

I once inadvertently flew over one of the manned sites in the Nevada Red Flag area at low level (~ 200') well above supersonic. The people there were still yelling over the phone when I landed about 1.5 hours later. Supersonic shock waves caused by aircraft at low level usually results in damage to windows and even structures. Bullets don't.

This discussion of supersonic bullets, muzzle blasts, echos, and silencers (with or without noise projection) is all very interesting, but what does it mean?

If we think about the evidence, what we have is that some people heard shots from the grassy knoll. Some heard shots from the book depository. Some heard shots from elsewhere. What should we conclude from that?

It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from that evidence is that some of the witnesses were wrong about the source of the shots. Indeed, it is more than an "it seems", it's indisputable. Some people were wrong.

So the talk about sonic booms and silencers is kind of cool, but in terms of telling us anything about who killed John F. Kennedy, it's fairly useless. Lots of people reported lots of different things. They can't all be right. They can't all have fallen prey to the same acoustic tricks of bullets, guns, and echos. Some of them were just wrong, and enough of them were just wrong that we can say the earwitness testimony is nothing more than a little bit of a hint at the source of the gunfire. Without other, physical, evidence to back it up, it has no significant value as evidence.

Reheat said:

Comparing a bullet's supersonic shock wave to a supersonic aircraft at low level is like comparing the sound of a #500 bomb blast with a dog fart.

I once inadvertently flew over one of the manned sites in the Nevada Red Flag area at low level (~ 200') well above supersonic. The people there were still yelling over the phone when I landed about 1.5 hours later. Supersonic shock waves caused by aircraft at low level usually results in damage to windows and even structures. Bullets don't.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the point was your plane was there before the shockwave.

I should also add: Buwahahahahahahahahaha! (I miss the 111)

Meadmaker said:

This discussion of supersonic bullets, muzzle blasts, echos, and silencers (with or without noise projection) is all very interesting, but what does it mean?

If we think about the evidence, what we have is that some people heard shots from the grassy knoll. Some heard shots from the book depository. Some heard shots from elsewhere. What should we conclude from that?

It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from that evidence is that some of the witnesses were wrong about the source of the shots. Indeed, it is more than an "it seems", it's indisputable. Some people were wrong.

So the talk about sonic booms and silencers is kind of cool, but in terms of telling us anything about who killed John F. Kennedy, it's fairly useless. Lots of people reported lots of different things. They can't all be right. They can't all have fallen prey to the same acoustic tricks of bullets, guns, and echos. Some of them were just wrong, and enough of them were just wrong that we can say the earwitness testimony is nothing more than a little bit of a hint at the source of the gunfire. Without other, physical, evidence to back it up, it has no significant value as evidence.

Click to expand...

Gotta break it up sometimes.

We have pointed out that people's perceptions can be, and often are faulty (hence Skeptics), and we have pointed out that physical, ballistic, and forensic evidence points to 2 6.5x52mm rounds striking JFK with one bullet being shared with Connelly. We have pointed out that Oswald was 2 for 4 on 11/22/63 with the deaths of JFK & Tippet, while wounding Connelly, and nearly shooting a second DPD officer in the theater during his collar. Throw in the attempt on General Walker and he was 2 for 5. We have pointed out that Oswald was the only TSBD employee to leave after the shooting.

We will continue to point this out forever because this CT is one of the cornerstones of the CT universe, a gateway conspiracy which often leads to weirder conspiracies if one is not careful.

I used to be a JFK CT-loon, and even today I am open to any new information which indicates someone else knew about Oswald's plan (such as there was any plan, and I'm not sure any more). There are almost a hundred books about the Kennedy's and their darker business dating back to Joe senior, and there are hundreds more about the CIA during that era, and there must be a thousand books about the mafia. Some of those books have drifted into CT-land, but there has been no consistent narrative, no consistent suspects (or suspects behind the suspects * not counting the CIA, because they seem to have magic powers in the CT universe).
There have been thousands of documents released, with thousands more due to see daylight this summer, and there have been peripheral document dumps from CIA regarding Cuba, Central America, and a list of operations in the 1960s. There are likely forgotten photographs hidden away in closets and attics in the Dallas area that might one day show a clear enough image to give a definitive answer (the second LHO backyard photo was found in the garage of a retired DPD officer by his son). The sad truth is that even if or when the Babushka lady's pictures ever emerge people will still argue over what they see or don't see in the photo.

Reheat said:

Comparing a bullet's supersonic shock wave to a supersonic aircraft at low level is like comparing the sound of a #500 bomb blast with a dog fart.

I once inadvertently flew over one of the manned sites in the Nevada Red Flag area at low level (~ 200') well above supersonic. The people there were still yelling over the phone when I landed about 1.5 hours later. Supersonic shock waves caused by aircraft at low level usually results in damage to windows and even structures. Bullets don't.

Click to expand...

Now if you were flying a suppressed aircraft everyone would have thought you were coming from the opposite direction and several other magical properties that I could produce (without citation) as needed for my narrative.

Axxman300 said:

I guy I know fell asleep out on one of Fort Ord's beach ranges (sleep/passed out/whatever). He woke to the sound of what he thought were bees swarming over his head, but soon discovered he was pinned down by a platoon of bootcamp recruits with their new M-16s.

Click to expand...

Not exactly the same situation, but the story that was been handed down to me was an FNG told the NCO, "hey look at those fireflies!" and the NCO's reaction was:

"Fireflies my ass, those are *********** tracers!"

There is no substitute for experience.

Meadmaker said:

This discussion of supersonic bullets, muzzle blasts, echos, and silencers (with or without noise projection) is all very interesting, but what does it mean?

If we think about the evidence, what we have is that some people heard shots from the grassy knoll. Some heard shots from the book depository. Some heard shots from elsewhere. What should we conclude from that?

It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from that evidence is that some of the witnesses were wrong about the source of the shots. Indeed, it is more than an "it seems", it's indisputable. Some people were wrong.

So the talk about sonic booms and silencers is kind of cool, but in terms of telling us anything about who killed John F. Kennedy, it's fairly useless. Lots of people reported lots of different things. They can't all be right. They can't all have fallen prey to the same acoustic tricks of bullets, guns, and echos. Some of them were just wrong, and enough of them were just wrong that we can say the earwitness testimony is nothing more than a little bit of a hint at the source of the gunfire. Without other, physical, evidence to back it up, it has no significant value as evidence.

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct.

The reason so many arcane factoids and subjective opinions get passed off as fact is that the CTist's generally avoid any type of specific, they only intend to poke holes in the WC to infer conspiracy.

The fact that they ignore the known and proven human behavior of fallibility as any possible explanation for discrepancies in eye and ear-witness testimony and physical evidence proves how specious their commitment to "truth" is.

Meadmaker said:

This discussion of supersonic bullets, muzzle blasts, echos, and silencers (with or without noise projection) is all very interesting, but what does it mean?

If we think about the evidence, what we have is that some people heard shots from the grassy knoll. Some heard shots from the book depository. Some heard shots from elsewhere. What should we conclude from that?

It seems to me that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from that evidence is that some of the witnesses were wrong about the source of the shots. Indeed, it is more than an "it seems", it's indisputable. Some people were wrong.

So the talk about sonic booms and silencers is kind of cool, but in terms of telling us anything about who killed John F. Kennedy, it's fairly useless. Lots of people reported lots of different things. They can't all be right. They can't all have fallen prey to the same acoustic tricks of bullets, guns, and echos. Some of them were just wrong, and enough of them were just wrong that we can say the earwitness testimony is nothing more than a little bit of a hint at the source of the gunfire. Without other, physical, evidence to back it up, it has no significant value as evidence.

Click to expand...

Hilarious. Trying to underestimate the value of dozens of corroborating witnesses when it seems fit. Anybody can do that to try to sound like a brainiac. What about the people concerned with the truth?

traxy said:

You're relying on witness memory again.

Told ya you'd come up empty handed.

Click to expand...

I guess you could just as easily say Sirhan Sirhan wasn't in the pantry of the ambassador hotel with a gun in his hand.

Axxman300 said:

So what are you arguing, because the evidence indicates one round striking the President in the back and exiting the throat. The internal probe doesn't matter because the fiber evidence backs this scenario up 100%.

The internal probe is nothing but a side-show.

Click to expand...

Axxman300, what do you mean? There is zero medical evidence to justify a back-throat connection (and for all I know, the interpretation of the clothing evidence you're citing could be pseudoscience from yesterday). One time John Lattimer claimed to have identified a back-throat track on the x-rays, but once the x-rays became publicly available for others to see what he was talking about, the "track" he saw was obviously from the head to the throat!

MicahJava said:

Axxman300, what do you mean? There is zero medical evidence to justify a back-throat connection (and for all I know, the interpretation of the clothing evidence you're citing could be pseudoscience from yesterday). One time John Lattimer claimed to have identified a back-throat track on the x-rays, but once the x-rays became publicly available for others to see what he was talking about, the "track" he saw was obviously from the head to the throat!

Click to expand...

Lattimer was a doctor, trained in reading x-rays.

Who, besides you, says the bolded?

Which forensic pathologist who examined the extant autopsy materials concurs with your assessment?

Or is this just more conspiracy theorist mythology getting passed around the campfire at night?

And how do you explain JFK pointing to his throat a good three seconds before the head shot? You can't, so you just ignore all questions about that.

Hank

MicahJava said:

Hilarious. Trying to underestimate the value of dozens of corroborating witnesses when it seems fit.

Click to expand...

Curiously, you still haven't named any of these supposedly "corroborating witnesses", nor do you affirm their accuracy (you don't really think all the shots came from the knoll area, do you?)

So why cite witnesses you KNOW are wrong?

Nor do you explain how the number of knoll witnesses went from 50% to 40% in the matter of a couple of weeks recently. Your numbers, like your interpretations of the evidence, are all your own, and any resemblance between your claims and the facts are purely coincidental.

MicahJava said:

Anybody can do that to try to sound like a brainiac. What about the people concerned with the truth?

Click to expand...

That would eliminate conspiracy theorists, who are only concerned with promulgating a mythos.

Hank

MicahJava said:

I guess you could just as easily say Sirhan Sirhan wasn't in the pantry of the ambassador hotel with a gun in his hand.

Click to expand...

The only one who will say anything remotely like that is going to be you. Isn't it?

You're next going to argue Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot, so don't tell us about the Ambassador Hotel and who was there and who was not. You are as wrong about the RFK assassination as you are about the JFK assassination.

Hank

PS: You didn't address the point, you merely deflected it. Reliance on witness testimony (especially decades later witness testimony) is fraught with peril and error. And that's still what you're doing.

traxy said:

You're relying on witness memory again. Told ya you'd come up empty handed.

Click to expand...

HSienzant said:

You're next going to argue Sirhan didn't fire the fatal shot, so don't tell us about the Ambassador Hotel. You are as wrong about the RFK assassination as you are about the JFK assassination.

Click to expand...

Why should I be intimidated by your internet tactics? When confronted with the information about the lower location on the small head wound, your brain simply shuts down. You short circuit. Nobody should trust your judgement. You have no evidence Sirhan fired the fatal shot except the for vain hope that he was hopping around the pantry doing acrobatics that nobody saw him do in the brief moment before that guy grabbed him arm to try and wrestle the gun out. It doesn't matter how many Dan Moldeas and Mel Aytons of the world try to make it sound believable.

We've all heard of informed conspiracy theorists becoming lone nutters, but have you ever heard of an informed lone nutter becoming a conspiracy theorist? No. Is it because lone nutterdom is just the true way to go? No. I've heard of plenty of atheists who know all the arguments against God that suddenly become Christians for whatever reason. It's because lone nutterdom gives you a sense of comfort and superiority that can't be matched. It's really stronger than a religion.

MicahJava said:

Hilarious. Trying to underestimate the value of dozens of corroborating witnesses when it seems fit. Anybody can do that to try to sound like a brainiac. What about the people concerned with the truth?

Click to expand...

Such a curious answer.

The whole point of my post was that there were indeed dozens of corroborating witnesses. The problem is that various subsets of the witnesses could corroborate the people within that subset, but would contradict the people in the other subset. No matter what you do, you have to underestimate the value of someone. It is impossible to do otherwise.

As for the people concerned with truth, perhaps you could wander the streets with a lamp looking for them. I'm sure they are out there somewhere. Perhaps you can succeed where Diogenes failed.

MicahJava said:

I guess you could just as easily say Sirhan Sirhan wasn't in the pantry of the ambassador hotel with a gun in his hand.

Click to expand...

Sirhan Sirhan was caught in the act, tackled on the spot just after firing the shots that killed RFK. Not exactly comparable.

So, am I to infer from your non answer that you are unable to piece together justification for your conspiracy without relying on witness memory?

MicahJava said:

Why should I be intimidated by your internet tactics?

Click to expand...

The tactics where I point out the flaws in your reasoning and your failure to produce evidence? I haven't seen any evidence you're intimidated in the least by your failures to marshall the evidence in your favor.

MicahJava said:

When confronted with the information about the lower location on the small head wound, your brain simply shuts down. You short circuit.

Click to expand...

Ad hominem.

Note what you called it and what you didn't. You called it information. You didn't call it evidence.

We both know why you did that.

MicahJava said:

Nobody should trust your judgement.

Click to expand...

I'm not asking anyone to trust my judgment. That's where we differ. I cite the testimony of the eyewitnesses and the expert witnesses, and ask the reader to trust their own judgment. You substitute your opinion for the eyewitnesses and the experts, and ask everyone to trust your judgment.

MicahJava said:

You have no evidence Sirhan fired the fatal shot except the for vain hope that he was hopping around the pantry doing acrobatics that nobody saw him do in the brief moment before that guy grabbed him arm to try and wrestle the gun out.

Click to expand...

You yourself want to tell us the pathologists can be wrong (except when you agree with the pathologists), and we should trust your opinion regardless. You yourself admit eyewitnesses can be wrong (except when you want to believe the eyewitnesses) and we should trust your opinion regardless. You are all over the map, the only constant appears to be the need for a conspiratorial conclusion.

I recall listening to a Long John Nebel (radio) talk show in the late 1960s concerning either the JFK assassination or the Garrison case, or both. After one conspiracy theorist on the show just got through making a point about why he thought the assassassination was a conspiracy, another of Nebel's guests said to John something along the the lines of. "I swear, if Sirhan Sirhan wasn't captured in the pantry with the smoking gun in his hand, these guys would be arguing he was innocent too!" Of course, it wasn't too long after that that the first arguments surfaced that Sirhan Sirhan was being railroaded, or framed.

He was caught by RFK's bodyguards with the gun still in his hand. Stop your silliness.

MicahJava said:

It doesn't matter how many Dan Moldeas and Mel Aytons of the world try to make it sound believable.

Click to expand...

I didn't cite either of those men, not once.

And it was just as I said. Despite you arguing only the 'lone nutters' here would be claiming Sirhan wasn't in the pantry, the only one coming close to that argument is you, with your argument that another person fired the fatal shot.

MicahJava said:

We've all heard of informed conspiracy theorists becoming lone nutters, but have you ever heard of an informed lone nutter becoming a conspiracy theorist? No.

Click to expand...

One cannot unsee what one has seen. I was a lone nutter until I devoted the better part of two years reading the 26 volumes of Warren Commission testimony and evidence and the 12 volumes published by the HSCA. Once I learned what the witnesses actually said, and not what I was being fed in conspiracy books, I can't not understand the lies by the conspiracy authors to sell books.

MicahJava said:

Is it because lone nutterdom is just the true way to go? No. I've heard of plenty of atheists who know all the arguments against God that suddenly become Christians for whatever reason. It's because lone nutterdom gives you a sense of comfort and superiority that can't be matched. It's really stronger than a religion.

Click to expand...

Yet I'm the one citing the evidence and you're the one speculating, citing hearsay, and stuff you read in conspiracy books and online that you cannot document.

For example:

MicahJava said:

The burden of proof has been on the Lone Nutters since the 70's to show how ~40% of witnesses could think shot(s) came from the knoll area.

Click to expand...

MicahJava said:

Since we have half of all Dealey Plaza witnesses screaming from the highest mountains they heard shots from the Knoll area, we can't just say it was confusion or something like that.

Click to expand...

Asked to document these varying claims by actually naming names, you punted every time.

Why should anyone trust your assertions when you don't even know what the facts are?

Hank

MicahJava said:

Axxman300, what do you mean? There is zero medical evidence to justify a back-throat connection (and for all I know, the interpretation of the clothing evidence you're citing could be pseudoscience from yesterday).

Click to expand...

The key phrase here is : "For all I know", which you repeatedly demonstrate is not much.

You say there is "zero evidence", and then site the evidence, and then question its validity without cause. Why? Because you aren't interested in the truth, you want a conspiracy.

Explain to me how fiber evidence is pseudoscience. Show me where fiber evidence is no longer used by law enforcement in the US, or any other country.
I'll save you time - you can't.

The evidence is solid: 1 bullet through the back exiting the front of JFK.

One time John Lattimer claimed to have identified a back-throat track on the x-rays, but once the x-rays became publicly available for others to see what he was talking about, the "track" he saw was obviously from the head to the throat!

Click to expand...

Nope.

MicahJava said:

We've all heard of informed conspiracy theorists becoming lone nutters, but have you ever heard of an informed lone nutter becoming a conspiracy theorist? No. Is it because lone nutterdom is just the true way to go? No. I've heard of plenty of atheists who know all the arguments against God that suddenly become Christians for whatever reason. It's because lone nutterdom gives you a sense of comfort and superiority that can't be matched. It's really stronger than a religion.

Click to expand...

Being a reformed JFK CT-idot let me explain the transformation.

When I was a CTist:

1. Everyone on the other side was either one of "them", brainwashed sheep, or shills for the government bad guys.

2. The gub'mint fabricated evidence, and ignored exculpatory evidence pointing away from Oswald.

3. The Carcano was a POS rifle that couldn't hit the side of a barn from the inside.

4. I never listened to anybody who didn't share my belief in conspiracy...because at some point ego took over from intellect.

...Then I went to Dallas. I saw that it was a flippin' easy shot that my mother could have made. On the sidewalk in front of the Grassy Knoll it was obvious that any shooter would be visible in even the worst of the photographs from that event.

I had been lied to by CT "experts", worse I had let myself be fooled by ignoring so many facts.

Post JFK-CT:

1. I began working on a book about the 7thID, and my research took me into ballistics, and I've interviewed 2 snipers, one being a good friend. The 6.5x52mm round with the gain twist of the Carcano, and the grains made it uniquely powerful.

2. I learned that most JFK "researchers" don't really do research. They look for factoids to support their preconceptions.

3. I took pre-police academy classes before I wrecked my back. I did ride-alongs with my local PD, and learned how the real world works and doesn't work.

4. I have learned to accept that perfection is impossible, and even in Open & Shut criminal cases where they catch the guy with the gun in his hand, have him on camera committing the crime, and the perp confesses that there are ALWAYS gaps in the evidence, and that pieces of the evidence don't always make sense when singled out, but are part of the puzzle.

5. Not all CTers are morons. People have a world view, this gets them through life acting as a gauge to measure incoming information so that they can make decisions. This world view can sometimes take a person down a rabbit hole without them ever questioning why.

We just saw this here. LBJ was not a popular President, was not well liked outside of Texas, and was the ultimate political insider, and mover & shaker. For some who hated LBJ the idea that there was a conspiracy in JFK's death, and that Johnson was either part of it, or actively covered up things was not a big stretch by 1966/67 when the JKF CT was finally rolling out of control. Throw in Vietnam, Nixon, Watergate, and by 1979 the JFK CT was almost dogmatic.

Most people today only know the assassination from third and forth-hand sources. Even in respectable news outlets you will often see references to people questioning the lone gunman scenario without cause to do so.

6. I ended my CT era by starting with the 6th floor, and working outward to Elm St. Could LHO make the shot? Yes. Could the Carcano get the shots off in time? Yes. Could the 6.5x52mm round do the damage as recorded in evidence? Yes. Could a shooter from the Grassy Knoll have shot the President? Yes. Does the ballistic evidence support a front shot in either of the two wounds? No.

Throw in Oswald's actions before and after the shooting and I can't see how he didn't do it.

I'm not smarter than everybody, but by walking away from CTist thinking I'm a lot less stupid.

MicahJava said:

Hilarious. Trying to underestimate the value of dozens of corroborating witnesses when it seems fit. Anybody can do that to try to sound like a brainiac. What about the people concerned with the truth?

Click to expand...

We've already weighed in.

MicahJava said:

I guess you could just as easily say Sirhan Sirhan wasn't in the pantry of the ambassador hotel with a gun in his hand.

Click to expand...

Coming from the poster that cites imaginary evidence, that's pretty funny.

You are asserting in this thread that the man who worked in the TSBD, whose rifle was used to assassinate JFK, who later shot and killed a DPD officer and was taken into custody with the murder weapon in hand is at best some pawn in a conspiracy of grand scale.

If I was a betting man, I'd say you would be the exact poster who'd assert that impotent loser #whatever that assassinated RFK was innocent.

HSienzant said:

Lattimer was a doctor, trained in reading x-rays.

Who, besides you, says the bolded?

Which forensic pathologist who examined the extant autopsy materials concurs with your assessment?

Or is this just more conspiracy theorist mythology getting passed around the campfire at night?

Click to expand...

It's from Kennedy and Lincoln. I can't provide a digital ebook, but Lattimer did proudly claim to have identified a bullet track on the chest X-ray. The way he described it, in conjunction with this drawing he provided, it becomes clear that he was referring to that dark squiggly line on the chest X-ray. Others have said it could be air from the tracheotomy, or air from a skull base fracture (which would be just as problematic- how would a bullet enter the head and crack the base of the skull while also exiting the top-right side of the head without severely damaging the cerebellum?)

And how do you explain JFK pointing to his throat a good three seconds before the head shot? You can't, so you just ignore all questions about that.

Hank

Click to expand...

If a bullet entered the EOP and exited the throat, why would you expect a huge blood splatter or head explosion like the 313 shot? Also, while he does appear to be pointing to his throat, he can't seem to quite move his arms right to that location. Cerebellar damage like from a bullet entering near the EOP and grazing the brain would cause loss of control in the lower body.

MicahJava said:

One time John Lattimer claimed to have identified a back-throat track on the x-rays, but once the x-rays became publicly available for others to see what he was talking about, the "track" he saw was obviously from the head to the throat!

HSienzant said:

Lattimer was a doctor, trained in reading x-rays. Who, besides you, says the bolded? Which forensic pathologist who examined the extant autopsy materials concurs with your assessment?
Or is this just more conspiracy theorist mythology getting passed around the campfire at night? And how do you explain JFK pointing to his throat a good three seconds before the head shot? You can't, so you just ignore all questions about that.

MicahJava said:

It's from Kennedy and Lincoln.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No, it's not, and below you admit it's not.

MicahJava said:

Lattimer did proudly claim to have identified a bullet track on the chest X-ray. The way he described it, in conjunction with this drawing he provided, it becomes clear that he was referring to that dark squiggly line on the chest X-ray.
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/lEdIX1n.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Lattimer's drawing shows a back entry wound and a throat exit wound. Nothing about "the track he saw was obviously from the head to the throat!"

MicahJava said:

Others have said it could be air from the tracheotomy, or air from a skull base fracture [emphasis added]

Click to expand...

So it was OTHERS who said this, not Dr. Lattimer! And it's not in KENNEDY AND LINCOLN as you claimed above. Why did you claim otherwise? So who exactly are these others, what are their qualifications, and why are you citing their anonymous opinions?

MicahJava said:

...(which would be just as problematic- how would a bullet enter the head and crack the base of the skull while also exiting the top-right side of the head without severely damaging the cerebellum?)

Click to expand...

That's the least of your problems... when was JFK struck in the head by this shot, according to you? You haven't identified a Zapruder frame. You haven't shown a second entry wound in the autopsy results, you haven't shown how all the forensic pathologists who subsequently examined the extant autopsy materials all missed this second wound, you haven't shown how these people you cite have any expertise in the areas in question.

MicahJava said:

If a bullet entered the EOP and exited the throat, why would you expect a huge blood splatter or head explosion like the 313 shot?

Click to expand...

This supposed bullet will cause a disruption in the brain, and that disruption has to go somewhere. It's your theory that this bullet damaged the skull and brain, but JFK was still able to sit upright and point to his throat?

MicahJava said:

Also, while he does appear to be pointing to his throat, he can't seem to quite move his arms right to that location.

Click to expand...

Lattimer identified that. It's called the THORBURN position. It's a known medical condition. I've seen NFL football players after getting a hard hit that injures the spinal cord assume that position.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEITsfVpie0 (44 seconds in, player in red on left).

MicahJava said:

Cerebellar damage like from a bullet entering near the EOP and grazing the brain would cause loss of control in the lower body.

Click to expand...

Says who? Is this something else John Lattimer didn't say in KENNEDY AND LINCOLN?

We spoke previously of exactly what you're doing here, attributing claims to some expert with valid expertise but merely substituting the claim of some non-expert instead:

HSienzant said:

You're the only one arguing with the witnesses and the conclusions of the experts who conducted the study you pretend to cite. But in reality, you ignore everything they said and just substitute your own opinion. Robert Harris did that a lot to add a "veneer of expertise" to his arguments -- citing some study, but ignoring the conclusions of the experts and substituting his own. You are doing the precise same thing.

Click to expand...

While you claimed it was in KENNEDY AND LINCOLN, it's not, and Lattimer never came close to suggesting a head shot exited the throat.

Hank

HSienzant,

Do YOU have a ebook file of Lincoln And Kennedy?

In this post, you quote an excerpt of the book where Lattimer describes the air in the throat area that he calls a bullet track:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11166985&postcount=703


That's not all though.

If you don't have the book in digital form, there are other times Lattimer indicated that he believed the air in the throat (that dark squiggly line) was a bullet track.

"I was surprised and interested to see air in the tissues of President Kennedy's neck along the track of the bullet"

-Lattimer, 1/10/1972

Lattimer had this weird illness where he insisted the back wound was high on the neck even though he saw the autopsy photographs.

I'm also surprised that you still think the Thorburn position is still a reasonable theory. I thought that idea was abandoned by most researchers. But feel free to argue that the Thorburn position is possible to happen in a split second like that, or even look like Kennedy's behavior -- but you must also acknowledge that Lipsey's testimony included a part where he remembered Kennedy's arms being stuck in a raised position and some authority at the autopsy forcing them down.

I've already discussed how cerebellar damage could account for the loss in motor skills as shown in the Zapruder Film.

MicahJava said:

HSienzant,

Do YOU have a ebook file of Lincoln And Kennedy?

Click to expand...

No, I have a hard copy. My then girlfriend (now wife of 35 years) bought it for me for Valentines Day back in 1981. FYI -- the book is still called KENNEDY AND LINCOLN

MicahJava said:

In this post, you quote an excerpt of the book where Lattimer describes the air in the throat area that he calls a bullet track:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11166985&postcount=703


That's not all though.

Click to expand...

Nothing in there about a shot through the brain exiting the throat.

MicahJava said:

If you don't have the book in digital form, there are other times Lattimer indicated that he believed the air in the throat (that dark squiggly line) was a bullet track.

"I was surprised and interested to see air in the tissues of President Kennedy's neck along the track of the bullet"

Click to expand...

Not the issue under debate. I'm asking you where Lattimer said anything about a bullet to the brain causing the throat wound. You said it was in KENNEDY AND LINCOLN. It's not.

MicahJava said:

Lattimer had this weird illness where he insisted the back wound was high on the neck even though he saw the autopsy photographs.

-Lattimer, 1/10/1972

Click to expand...

I remind you he's qualified to render an opinion here, and you're not. Your opinion of his opinion is meaningless.

MicahJava said:

I'm also surprised that you still think the Thorburn position is still a reasonable theory. I thought that idea was abandoned by most researchers.

Click to expand...

Sorry, can you advance a different reason JFK raises his elbows to the side and leaves them there for five seconds?

MicahJava said:

But feel free to argue that the Thorburn position is possible to happen in a split second like that

Click to expand...

It's due to trauma to the spine... whether from a bullet or other damage... As I noted, I've seen it in NFL players after a hard hit.

MicahJava said:

-- but you must also acknowledge that Lipsey's testimony included a part where he remembered Kennedy's arms being stuck in a raised position and some authority at the autopsy forcing them down.

Click to expand...

This would be after he's dead for about 8 hours?

MicahJava said:

I've already discussed how cerebellar damage could account for the loss in motor skills as shown in the Zapruder Film.

Click to expand...

You've mentioned it. You've never cited for it.

Another in a long line of assertions you've made you've never documented.

HAnk

Wait, you DO think that dark squiggly line on the X-ray is probably a bullet track, but you think is connects to the BACK? I have a pair of eyes, I can see that dark spot very well, thank you very much. The dark line goes from down the neck, off the first rib, then to the throat. Lipsey's Do you think the back wound was higher than the throat wound?

The autopsy doctors had eyes too.

"MR. STRINGER recalled conversation about the pathway through the neck and specifically discussion about air in the throat."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=600#relPageId=13&tab=page

And then we have Lipsey and Robinson's recollections about the doctors discussing a bullet track from the back of the head to the throat, and pushing a probe into the back of the head and having it come out of the throat.

Apparently you also need sources that cerebellar damage can cause loss of motor skills below the head.

"...damage to the flocculus, nodulus, and uvula result in a pronounced loss in equilibrium, including truncal ataxia..." (Impairment of the ability to perform smoothly coordinated voluntary movements)

"There is an inability to incorporate vestibular information with body and eye movements."

https://books.google.com/books?id=sor_roKluskC&pg=PA241&lpg=PA241&dq=damage+to+the+flocculus,+nodulus,+and+uvula+result+in+a+pronounced+loss+in+equilibrium,+including+truncal+ataxia&source=bl&ots=JaL5m0zlkz&sig=OUrA0PxhW6HgbFls_FE2F4dI97Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ3JfU8szSAhUJJiYKHYVKDxoQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=damage%20to%20the%20flocculus%2C%20nodulus%2C%20and%20uvula%20result%20in%20a%20pronounced%20loss%20in%20equilibrium%2C%20including%20truncal%20ataxia&f=false

"Damage to sections of the cerebellum makes normal movement difficult. Patients who have experienced trauma to this section of brain may have trouble walking, talking, judging distance and balancing. Damage to the flocculus can cause jerky eye movements and difficulty maintaining balance."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-flocculus.htm

About the Thorburn position, here's well-known neuropathologist Dr. Jan Leestma's response:

In my conversation with Dr. Leestma, he adamantly stated that Thorburn's position does not seem a viable outcome of Kennedy's injury. Dr. Leestma says that when a sudden injury, such as a bullet wound, is withstood by a victim, the nerve cells and fibers go into neural shock. The nerves are immediately traumatized; they literally turn off and result in slumping of the victim. He adds "when you physically shock any nerve, the last thing it does is fire. It classically becomes electrically silent. Whether the spinal cord is directly hit or grazed, the nerve cords extending beyond the actual spine would be affected and fall silent." When presented with what Lattimer contended occurred during Thorburn's reaction, Dr. Leestma said "it seems to me a reaction as such would just never occur. I don't care if the sixth cervical segment was severed or just touched, the nerves in that area would not go into an immediate neurological reaction with arms flying up, they would fall limp." Dr. Leestma placed C-6 at the base of the neck, just above the hump at the bottom of the neck.

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/JLDUNN.TXT