Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
I would pay money for a time machine just to see the look on any hitman's face when he's handed a .22 rifle with a silencer, and told he has to shoot Kennedy in a motorcade.

Pretty sure it would be the same as when he's told there is a second shooter who's going to be the patsy, and he's armed with a 6.5x52mm.

I would love to be there when this assassination scenario is hatched, and later approved. Multiple gunmen nobody sees, or actually fires their weapons, and we pin it all on a guy like Lee Oswald, a glory-hound who would turn us all in for that medal/reward/fame.
Click to expand...

The Onion had a headline on it that was hilarious, but it isn't close to hand.

IIRC they had a list of confiscated murder weapons from a Zipgun to a Ray Gun.
 
That latent CTist in me would love someone to find an Oswald co-conspirator.

Not the dead-horse kind, a well thought-out character.

You know, some guy Oswald meets in New Orleans. Maybe the guy is CIA, sub-contracts with the CIA, or is just an anti-Castro brain-trust guy. This guy gets Oswald fired up, takes him out to a ranch in the swamps where he gets the guy up to speed with his rifle, and gives him basic training in tradecraft.

This guy is mobile, and after Oswald fails with General Walker he comes to town when it is announced that JFK is coming to Dallas. This mystery man drives Oswald to those shooting ranges, and makes sure he is committed to the act. Maybe there is a back-up target if Kennedy has the bubble-top on, who knows.

That's what I would at least listen to. There would have to be pictures, and this mystery man would have taken a few to document Oswald's heroics/treason. You could have the CIA/Maffia hunting this guy down to shut him up for all of the usual reasons, or maybe he just was deep enough in the shadows to be unnoticed by history.

Give me that story and I'd give it a fair hearing.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
That latent CTist in me would love someone to find an Oswald co-conspirator.

Not the dead-horse kind, a well thought-out character.

You know, some guy Oswald meets in New Orleans. Maybe the guy is CIA, sub-contracts with the CIA, or is just an anti-Castro brain-trust guy. This guy gets Oswald fired up, takes him out to a ranch in the swamps where he gets the guy up to speed with his rifle, and gives him basic training in tradecraft.

This guy is mobile, and after Oswald fails with General Walker he comes to town when it is announced that JFK is coming to Dallas. This mystery man drives Oswald to those shooting ranges, and makes sure he is committed to the act. Maybe there is a back-up target if Kennedy has the bubble-top on, who knows.

That's what I would at least listen to. There would have to be pictures, and this mystery man would have taken a few to document Oswald's heroics/treason. You could have the CIA/Maffia hunting this guy down to shut him up for all of the usual reasons, or maybe he just was deep enough in the shadows to be unnoticed by history.

Give me that story and I'd give it a fair hearing.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

In Conspiratoria there are 10's of suspects that fit that profile to a "T."

The problem is that the various churches of Conspiratoria have never agreed on which suspect to indict and the high priests fight amongst themselves for primacy.

Until peace is declared, the high priests of Conspiratoria will never release the white smoke signifying the final judgement.

ETA: Need I mention the smoke will most likely emanate from a bong?
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
I would pay money for a time machine just to see the look on any hitman's face when he's handed a .22 rifle with a silencer, and told he has to shoot Kennedy in a motorcade.

Pretty sure it would be the same as when he's told there is a second shooter who's going to be the patsy, and he's armed with a 6.5x52mm.

I would love to be there when this assassination scenario is hatched, and later approved. Multiple gunmen nobody sees, or actually fires their weapons, and we pin it all on a guy like Lee Oswald, a glory-hound who would turn us all in for that medal/reward/fame.
Click to expand...

Well, Mr. "I can see the entry wound in the Zapruder Film", the Winchester 74 was advertised as potentially lethal at 100 yards. And see this video of how rapidly it can be fired. And there was only one undeniably lethal wound in Dealey Plaza.
 
MicahJava said:
Why talk vague when you can talk about specific issues?

The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain. But Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he could examine the crater in the intact skull just fine. This indicates the hole they examined was lower in the skull, near the EOP, and not 4 inches above the EOP like the HSCA put it.

Rebuttal?
Click to expand...

hzrXmvD.gif
Several pages in across two different threads and still no actual rebuttal of this issue.
hzrXmvD.gif
 
MicahJava said:
Well, Mr. "I can see the entry wound in the Zapruder Film", the Winchester 74 was advertised as potentially lethal at 100 yards. And see this video of how rapidly it can be fired. And there was only one undeniably lethal wound in Dealey Plaza.
Click to expand...

My buddy Manny could have killed JFK with a lime thrown from the TSBD.

I think you can safely take him off your suspect list as he was about 9 or 10 years old at the time and was most likely at home with his parents in Washington state.

The speculation in this post is just as relevant as the speculation in yours, but mine might be more entertaining, at least for adults.
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/hzrXmvD.gif[/qimg]Several pages in across two different threads and still no actual rebuttal of this issue.[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/hzrXmvD.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Must have overlooked this, post 315

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11874766&postcount=315

Weapons in custody w/ forensic confirmation beats speculation.

Since you earlier saw fit to compare your posts favorably to one of the greatest musicians and composer that have ever came down the road (Miles Davis, for those that missed another MJ's greatest misses) I find it so ironic that another musician using what obviously must have been ESP and the ability to predict the future had a hit song in 1961 predicting your posting style and your ability to communicate your position on this subject:

 
No BStrong, that's called changing the subject. You have no reason to think that this issue is "speculation" instead of proof the cowlick entry is a hoax. And before you screech "shifting the burden of proof", for all I know the brain removal problem is proof of the original low EOP location. I need specific critique to see if it stands up to scrutiny. I need YOUR help but all you've offered is BS.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Well, Mr. "I can see the entry wound in the Zapruder Film", the Winchester 74 was advertised as potentially lethal at 100 yards. And see this video of how rapidly it can be fired. And there was only one undeniably lethal wound in Dealey Plaza.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the lethal wound was caused by a 6.5x52mm Carcano round, same at the back-through-neck-through Connally wound. Is round is the only bullet type fired on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza. So we can play Youtube videos of awsome guns of all kinds, but there was only one - the Carcano, and that is the 500 pound gorilla in this crime.
 
MicahJava said:
No BStrong, that's called changing the subject. You have no reason to think that this issue is "speculation" instead of proof the cowlick entry is a hoax. And before you screech "shifting the burden of proof", for all I know the brain removal problem is proof of the original low EOP location. I need specific critique to see if it stands up to scrutiny. I need YOUR help but all you've offered is BS.
Click to expand...

You don't want help.

I don't know how a cell phone works. I can look it up on Google, watch a couple of Youtube videos, but in the end I need to take the experts' word for it all. I'm sure I can also find "experts" who will tell me cell phones are powered by individual demons who all work for Cthulhu. The trick is not to get sucked into woo.
 
MicahJava said:
No BStrong, that's called changing the subject. You have no reason to think that this issue is "speculation" instead of proof the cowlick entry is a hoax. And before you screech "shifting the burden of proof",for all I know the brain removal problem is proof of the original low EOP location. I need specific critique to see if it stands up to scrutiny. I need YOUR help but all you've offered is BS.
Click to expand...

Asking for my help to prove the fact or fiction of your assertion is the text book definition of "shifting the burden of proof" but imo you hold the record for killing the irony meter and ******** meter on this website.

What the jive you are currently married to "proves" is that there is a difference in recollection and perception of the medical evidence, and that is all it proves.

I predict the fall back position will be the JAQ gambit, but you have played this particular angle out as close to the bitter end as possible.

You refuse to consider the established evidence as a whole to focus on one narrow and impossible to clarify piece of speculation that neither one of us has any professional expertise or professional experience in - I've seen a bunch of GSW's to the head. That doesn't make me an expert.

You have continually refused to consider any possibility of human error to be a contributing factor to the differing opinions in evidence about the evidence that is subject to this speculation.

You have repeatedly engaged in speculation specifically related to firearms and related issues when it is absolutely clear you have no idea what you're talking about and that is my particular field of professional expertise.

It's the conspiracy theorist Hat Trick.

Go head on and spin this to your heart's content, but this is about you trying desperately to work an angle on the established facts with no more knowledge of the subject matter than believing what somebody else wrote on the subject, primarily folks with no more knowledge of the subject matter than you - it's not a recipe for success.
 
Last edited:
BStrong, I don't need your help proving the brain removal problem, I need your help DISproving it! :D
 
Tomtomkent said:
You need help showing there is an issue worthy of discussion.
Click to expand...

Okay, if you think the entry hole was in the cowlick 4 inches above the EOP, how did they remove the brain without separating that part of the skull?
 
MicahJava said:
BStrong, I don't need your help proving the brain removal problem, I need your help DISproving it! :D
Click to expand...

In post #335

"You refuse to consider the established evidence as a whole to focus on one narrow and impossible to clarify piece of speculation that neither one of us has any professional expertise or professional experience in - I've seen a bunch of GSW's to the head. That doesn't make me an expert."

Why would you look to me for answers in a field where I have no expertise, and have clearly stated that I have no expertise while completely ignoring the material I post regarding the piece of this issue where I clearly do have professional expertise?
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, if you think the entry hole was in the cowlick 4 inches above the EOP, how did they remove the brain without separating that part of the skull?
Click to expand...

What did the autopsy results say? You've said before that you agree with the autopsy. Were you simply mistaken or did your one CT website tell you to say that?
 
Tomtomkent said:
With a saw.
Click to expand...

The doctors had to do very little work with a saw to separate enough of the skull to facilitate removal of the brain. The area of the skull surrounding the large defect was so brittle that pieces just naturally broke off. The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays was right beside the large defect, so it almost certainly was among the pieces that easily came off.

And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.
 
MicahJava said:
The doctors had to do very little work with a saw to separate enough of the skull to facilitate removal of the brain. The area of the skull surrounding the large defect was so brittle that pieces just naturally broke off. The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays was right beside the large defect, so it almost certainly was among the pieces that easily came off.

And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.
Click to expand...

What does the autopsy say?
 
Tomtomkent said:
What does the autopsy say?
Click to expand...

I posted a link late in the other thread wherein Dr Humes discussed how the brain was removed along with just about everything else related to the autopsy. This interview was conducted by a CT-based group, and was hostile to him, and he responded to every answer to the best of his recollection.

MJ didn't bother to read either the pages where the brain being removed was discussed (spoiler: they used the bone saw like they always do), and he didn't read the entire line of questioning.

This is typical with him.

"I want answers!"

Someone posts an answer with a link.

"I want other answers, ones that I agree with."
 
MicahJava said:
And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.
Click to expand...

There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/hzrXmvD.gif[/qimg]Several pages in across two different threads and still no actual rebuttal of this issue.[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/hzrXmvD.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Black Knight syndrome at its finest. You have presented extremely weak evidence, and other posters have ripped it to shreds. You are looking at your severed arm, saying "It's only a flesh would".
 
HSienzant said:
There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

Hank
Click to expand...

I know, and I'm willing to bet that he knows, but honesty is not in him.

I'm waiting for an explanation of why he needs my opinion on something I flatly state I'm not qualified to comment on, while ignoring my contributions in the subject matter that is in my field.
 
MicahJava said:
Don't get scared of big words like "skull" and "brain".
Click to expand...

Ad hominem.


MicahJava said:
The area of skull around the large defect was very brittle and fractured so easily that the doctors had to do "virtually do no work with a saw" to remove the pieces of bone.
Click to expand...

Exactly. So why do you think they had to do anything near the entry wound specifically?


MicahJava said:
The depressed cowlick fracture was right beside the lower parietal area of the large defect, of course it would have to be separated in the process of removing the brain.
Click to expand...

Of course you can cite something besides your own opinion for this?


MicahJava said:
This is also a simple matter of volume. How much wiggle room do you think an unfixed brain has?
Click to expand...

Tell us. This is your argument. You should be prepared to argue specifics. Anything less is just the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.



MicahJava said:
You remove a human brain, you need to create a big enough opening on the top of the head. It definitely couldn't happen while also keeping the HSCA beveled exit location intact.
Click to expand...

Again, according to whom? You?




MicahJava said:
[Per Finck: "The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."
Click to expand...

Tell us what Finck and Humes meant by "he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."

Do you understand what that says? Tell us in your own words.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?
Click to expand...

I doubt MJ will accept your challenge, Hank, so I'll just note that there are several problems with MJ's statement relating to logic and argumentation.

First, there is the argument from personal incredulity. "I can't believe they did it (or didn't do it) this way. Therefore, they didn't (or did)."

Then there is an implied "If I ran the Zoo" fallacy. "My instincts tell me that X is the way things should be done in this highly technical area. Therefore, things were (or were not) done that way. If they weren't, then the experts deviated from correct procedure."

There is also, of course, a complete lack of foundation laid for MJ's claim to being able to discuss areas of medical science and forensics. This is part of a larger problem of lack of demonstrated qualifications which MJ has never confronted, despite requests to do so. Yesterday it was 3D computer animation and graphics.

And there is embedded question-begging and implied burden-shifting, and probably more, if all the unpacking were worth the candle.

MJ may respond "Blah blah blah," as he has done before. What he doesn't, or won't, get is that observance of logical proprieties is vital to sound argument and effective persuasion. This has been recognized for millennia. But, as with other areas, CTs regard their relationship to logic as optional and dispensable. They are argumentative freelancers on a mission from God, or in pursuit of truth or the defeat of evil, or something.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs.
Click to expand...

Absolutely I understand that. Remember that Stringer told one story to Lifton in the 1970's about where the large wound was and another to the ARRB 24 years later about that same wound. He moved the location from the back of the head in 1972 to the top-right of the head in 1976. What's that tell you>

It tells me his recollections are not trustworthy. And this is - by your own admission - "some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs".

Untrustworthy recollections is some of your best evidence.

How do you spell toast? I spell it M-I-C-A-H J-A-V-A.



MicahJava said:
And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
Click to expand...

What part of "Untrustworthy recollections" do you fail to grasp?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
And have you forgotten how I pointed out that the area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture would've just naturally separated because of how brittle the area around the original large defect was? And how you couldn't remove the brain without first removing that area of the skull?
Click to expand...

We haven't forgotten you said that. We haven't forgotten that you never sourced that to any expert opinion either. Last I recall, you were still an uneducated laymen with no medical expertise telling us what you thought.
And we all properly discounted your opinion.

Hank
 
Quote without comment:

MicahJava said:
Since this photograph was taken after the brain had already been removed, that would mean they somehow took out his entire brain through a skull cavity not much bigger than this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/XGu6qby.jpg[/qimg]

How did they do that?
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
The areas of the skull around the original large head wound were so brittle, they easily separated into fragments. You also have to have a big enough skull cavity to facilitate the removal of the brain.
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
[quoting Finck]: "The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
I posted a link late in the other thread wherein Dr Humes discussed how the brain was removed along with just about everything else related to the autopsy. This interview was conducted by a CT-based group, and was hostile to him, and he responded to every answer to the best of his recollection.

MJ didn't bother to read either the pages where the brain being removed was discussed (spoiler: they used the bone saw like they always do), and he didn't read the entire line of questioning.

This is typical with him.

"I want answers!"

Someone posts an answer with a link.

"I want other answers, ones that I agree with."
Click to expand...

What in Humes' ARRB testimony settles this problem? He only reaffirmed the same exact points which make the brain removal problem a problem to begin with.
 
CORed said:
Black Knight syndrome at its finest. You have presented extremely weak evidence, and other posters have ripped it to shreds. You are looking at your severed arm, saying "It's only a flesh would".
Click to expand...

A fresh face! What exactly in this thread settles the brain removal problem? :confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom