Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Axxman300 said:
Oh look, here's Fincks ARRB deposition and starting on page 19 he talks about the entry wound:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=787#relPageId=19&tab=page

And if you read the whole thing, which you won't, he says the scalp had been cut and peeled back by the time he arrived. Plus, this guy doesn't remember a lot of things by 1996.
Click to expand...


And?... We've been over what Finck told the ARRB.

By the way, another understated point is that the statements of Humes & Boswell and Finck to the HSCA indicate that they had to make a special incision low in the back of the head to expose the entry wound in the skull corresponding to the wound in the scalp, after the initial incision had already been made to reflect the scalp and remove the brain. If the entry wound was on the upper cowlick part of the head, just the regular first reflection of the scalp would be enough to see the corresponding wound in the skull bone.
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
My question to MicahJava is still what difference does a couple of inches difference in the entry wound location make? MicahJava treats the difference as if this difference necessarily makes a conspiracy. Both the WC and HSCA both reported that a SINGLE bullet wound entry at the back of the head caused the damage. No "second" bullet wound was noted.
Where is the conspiracy?
Click to expand...

It's a difference of four to five inches.

The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head. A bullet entering the original EOP location and exiting the top of the head almost certainly would've caused severe damage to the cerebellum, which is not seen on the official brain photographs, and it would also be very difficult to explain the pattern of fragments on the X-rays, not to mention the strange trajectory.
 
MicahJava said:
It's a difference of four to five inches.

The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head. A bullet entering the original EOP location and exiting the top of the head almost certainly would've caused severe damage to the cerebellum, which is not seen on the official brain photographs, and it would also be very difficult to explain the pattern of fragments on the X-rays, not to mention the strange trajectory.
Click to expand...

Are you a trunk monkeyist?
 
MicahJava said:
It's a difference of four to five inches.

The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head. A bullet entering the original EOP location and exiting the top of the head almost certainly would've caused severe damage to the cerebellum, which is not seen on the official brain photographs, and it would also be very difficult to explain the pattern of fragments on the X-rays, not to mention the strange trajectory.
Click to expand...

Total speculation with no facts to back it up.
 
MicahJava said:
The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head.
Click to expand...

And there you have your answer, bknight. Okay, MJ, you've stated your position. But you still have all your work before you. Now that you've put two entrance wounds in JFK's skull, it's time to forget about brain removal and the rest of your current spiel. Let's say, arguendo, that we grant you your two entrance wounds in the head. Now, please reconcile the rest of the evidence--medical, ballistic, and so forth--with this two-wound scenario. And try to do so without positing altered evidence, testimonial perjury, or some other official chicanery, unless you can actually prove such things. It's in your court.
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
And there you have your answer, bknight. Okay, MJ, you've stated your position. But you still have all your work before you. Now that you've put two entrance wounds in JFK's skull, it's time to forget about brain removal and the rest of your current spiel. Let's say, arguendo, that we grant you your two entrance wounds in the head. Now, please reconcile the rest of the evidence--medical, ballistic, and so forth--with this two-wound scenario. And try to do so without positing altered evidence, testimonial perjury, or some other official chicanery, unless you can actually prove such things. It's in your court.
Click to expand...

A tangential wound is one large missile wound of both entrance and exit.
 
bknight said:
During the Zapruder film no images of a second head wound exists, nor is there any indication in the autopsy report of a second wound. Sorry that dog won't hunt.
Click to expand...

Gunshots don't always work like in the movies.
 
bknight said:
Total speculation with no facts to back it up.
Click to expand...

Okay, then why don't you stand by the original EOP location for the small head wound and wait to see where the forensic evidence leads from there.

Edit: why do I have a red frowny face above my comment? I didn't put it there and I can't remove it.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Okay, then why don't you stand by the original EOP location for the small head wound and wait to see where the forensic evidence leads from there.

Edit: why do I have a red frowny face above my comment? I didn't put it there and I can't remove it.
Click to expand...

Tell me more about this tangential wound.
 
MicahJava said:
A tangential wound is one large missile wound of both entrance and exit.
Click to expand...

So now you're positing one bullet that caused all the wounds you've been discussing? Please stop dodging. You seem to pride yourself on being a heroic private detective working for the memory of JFK. Do you think the cat-and-mouse game you're playing here is worthy of that high calling?
 
bknight said:
During the Zapruder film no images of a second head wound exists, nor is there any indication in the autopsy report of a second wound. Sorry that dog won't hunt.

MicahJava said:
Gunshots don't always work like in the movies.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Straw man. No one suggested they do. Now try responding to the actual points made for a change.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Gunshots don't always work like in the movies.
Click to expand...


Considering the sum of your knowledge of GSW's is CT's and popular fiction, that's pretty funny.

How much bandwidth has been wasted by you trying to ram the square peg of some other guy's CT into the round hole of reality?
 
MicahJava said:
It's a difference of four to five inches.

The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head.
Click to expand...

According to which autopsy doctor who had JFK's body in front of them to examine or which qualified forensic pathologist who reviewed the extant autopsy materials?

What's that? This is solely your own NON-EXPERT opinion? You have no valid qualifications worthy of mention? And no reason to be telling us what you think occurred?



A bullet entering the original EOP location and exiting the top of the head almost certainly would've caused severe damage to the cerebellum, which is not seen on the official brain photographs
Click to expand...

So you are admitting the evidence indicates it did NOT happen and you are just wasting time until your train arrives?



and it would also be very difficult to explain the pattern of fragments on the X-rays, not to mention the strange trajectory.
Click to expand...

So you're providing even more evidence it did NOT happen and you're just treating us to various musings of MicahJava on a warm summer day?

What do you see in that cloud?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
And?... We've been over what Finck told the ARRB.
Click to expand...

And we learned testimony decades after the fact is unreliable, often self-contradictory, and doesn't support your preferred solution in the slightest.


MicahJava said:
By the way, another understated point is that the statements of Humes & Boswell and Finck to the HSCA indicate that they had to make a special incision low in the back of the head to expose the entry wound in the skull corresponding to the wound in the scalp, after the initial incision had already been made to reflect the scalp and remove the brain. If the entry wound was on the upper cowlick part of the head, just the regular first reflection of the scalp would be enough to see the corresponding wound in the skull bone.
Click to expand...

No free fringe reset for you. We've covered your arguments extensively.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11897951&postcount=689

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Gunshots don't always work like in the movies.
Click to expand...

However this movie was of a real live event. The President clutching at a throat wound and then the top of his head being blown off, leaving real traces, not film artifacts that match the ammunition used by LHO for all the wounds. There is no mystery here and what I believe is irrelevant what has been proved by autopsy reports and several reviews. One shooter, three shots, two hits.
 
MicahJava said:
That's not what I asked and you know it.

And, importantly, the area of the skull around the large defect was so fractured that pieces would naturally break off. Very little sawing of the skull was necessary. So since the X-rays show the cowlick fracture right beside the large defect, the cowlick area of the skull would have been among the pieces to naturally break off. Since Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the skull cavity was enlarged and the brain was removed yet could still examine the entry wound in the intact rest of the skull, this indicates that the entry wound was not on the upper cowlick area as theorized by the HSCA.
Click to expand...

The bolded sentence is not supported by any evidence and is in fact contradicted by the testimony of the actual autopsy doctors and the autopsy report and the autopsy x-rays you yourself provided here. You won't be able to provide anything that says the entry wound portion of the skull broke off from the rest of the skull and I previously quoted extensively from the autopsy doctors to establish that argument was wrong. The conclusion you reach in the final sentence above is therefore erroneous because you are relying on 'facts' not in evidence.

No free fringe reset for you.

Hank
 
Last edited:
I performed an experiment with MJ and it went as expected.

I linked to a site that is friendly to CTists, and suggested he read the entire deposition beyond the pages I mentioned to get a better picture of the autopsy from both men.

He didn't read a word.

He refers to a handful of photographs and TWO head x-rays as if they are definitive enough to base a medical assessment. They are not, they are the JFK equivalent to Patterson's Bigfoot film, wherein you can see something, but there is not enough information.

The two men who had hands on JFK's body, and dissected the skull agree on the entry point and what they saw. Only a fool argues against them.:thumbsup:
 
I'm going to join the chorus calling MJ out:

What's your theory on who killed JFK?

If not Oswald then who?

Remember, you need to explain why they used his rifle, how they knew he worked at the TSBD, why he was the only employee to flee the crime scene, and why - if he was innocent - did he shoot Tippet?

If it wasn't his rifle, then exactly what other caliber can produce an equal amount of damage?

You also have to list suspects with enough influence to sway the Secret Service, FBI, Earl Warren, RFK, and LBJ.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
Gunshots don't always work like in the movies.
Click to expand...

Begs the question: How many GSWs have you seen either on the internet, and in person?

I've never seen someone shot, but I have seen some head wounds working construction. There is no mistaking a head injury. The blood is a brighter red due to the oxygen, there is more in the head than in the arms of legs, and the blood will flow from the smallest nick (someday when you grow up and shave you will learn about how much your head wants to bleed).

That fictitious .22 subsonic round would strike JFK's head like a hammer.
 
MJ noticed gunshot wounds don't always work like in the movies?

Neither do gunshots.

Maybe this means he is on his way to seeing all the problems with his silenced rifle, of another calibre, causing a second wound they, erm, wouldn't work that way because it wasn't a movie...
 
Axxman300 said:
I'm going to join the chorus calling MJ out:

What's your theory on who killed JFK?

If not Oswald then who?

Remember, you need to explain why they used his rifle, how they knew he worked at the TSBD, why he was the only employee to flee the crime scene, and why - if he was innocent - did he shoot Tippet?

If it wasn't his rifle, then exactly what other caliber can produce an equal amount of damage?

You also have to list suspects with enough influence to sway the Secret Service, FBI, Earl Warren, RFK, and LBJ.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Me too.
MJ, this is all very confusing. You claim LHO couldn't have made the shot because JFK would have looked like an ant. You then need to explain how the bullets from his gun made it into JFK's body, plus how all the other evidence tying LHO to the gun was fabricated. Then you need to state how another shooter was able to make the apparently impossible shot, without being seen by anyone there, make their escape unnoticed and then remove their bullets from the body. You then have to explain how the position of the wounds in JFK's skull provide significant evidence for any of this. Some explanation of the motives for all this would also be nice.
 
MicahJava said:
It's a difference of four to five inches.

The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head. A bullet entering the original EOP location and exiting the top of the head almost certainly would've caused severe damage to the cerebellum, which is not seen on the official brain photographs, and it would also be very difficult to explain the pattern of fragments on the X-rays, not to mention the strange trajectory.
Click to expand...

I think it's quite obvious by now that MJ will never advance any theory about what he thinks happened.
However, this quote may go a little way to solving that problem.
He claims there were two gunshot wounds to the head. Having seen some CSI programmes (yes, I freely admit that is the level of my expertise here, but bear with me), it is presumably possible to use the angle of penetration of the second shot to track backwards and suggect a possible location for the second shooter.
As I say, I am in no way qualified to do this, but perhaps HSeinzant or someone with more expertise than me would be able to do this, and suggest, based on what little MJ has let slip, where the second shot was fired from, and how plausible or not such a location is? It might lead to more progress than the current never-ending circle we seem to be stuck in.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I think it's quite obvious by now that MJ will never advance any theory about what he thinks happened.
However, this quote may go a little way to solving that problem.
He claims there were two gunshot wounds to the head. Having seen some CSI programmes (yes, I freely admit that is the level of my expertise here, but bear with me), it is presumably possible to use the angle of penetration of the second shot to track backwards and suggect a possible location for the second shooter.
As I say, I am in no way qualified to do this, but perhaps HSeinzant or someone with more expertise than me would be able to do this, and suggest, based on what little MJ has let slip, where the second shot was fired from, and how plausible or not such a location is? It might lead to more progress than the current never-ending circle we seem to be stuck in.
Click to expand...

HSienzant - as in Hank Sienzant, thanks.

Near as I can figure, he thinks the shot came from one of the lower floors of what was then the Dal-Tex building -- now the Sixth Floor Museum Bookstore.

I've asked him to spell out on a number of occasions his theory and name the precise location for his shooter and specify the witnesses that saw a shooter in the location he favors -- he's never done better than "behind". He can't do better because as everyone here knows (including MicahJava), there are NO witnesses who saw a shooter anywhere but in the Depository, and there is NO hard evidence (like shells, a rifle, or bullet fragments) recovered from anywhere related to the assassination that could be linked to a second shooter.

And on the other side, we have Oswald's rifle in the building where about a dozen people saw a man fitting Oswald's description or a rifle, or both, in the window immediately before, during, or just after the shooting; we have shells traceable o that rifle at the window, we have fragments of a bullet fired from that rifle recovered from the limo, and a early whole bullet from that rifle recovered at Parkland Hospital.

You might remember Bob Harris favored a shooter in the Dal-Tex building as well, but the best argument he could come up with was "There was no evidence of a second shooter because these guys were professionals and didn't want to get caught"' which explains exactly nothing, and ISN'T evidence for a second shooter anymore than it's evidence for pink unicorns -- after all, they don't want to get caught either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10760856&postcount=3287
Originally Posted by Robert Harris
This has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have heard from you guys all day:-) You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no assassins were there.
You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no pink unicorns were there.

No one found evidence of pink unicorns in that unsearched building, nor did any witnesses outside in Dealey Plaza see any pink unicorns in the building nor did anyone see pink unicorns enter the building, nor did anyone see any pink unicorns leave the building.

Exactly what evidence we have of assassins, we have for pink unicorns as well.

By your "logic", this is some kind of proof pink unicorns accompanied the snipers into the building to act as spotters. It works the exact same way.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
And you deny the ridiculously obvious fact that a sniper would choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail.
Further evidence that there were pink unicorns in the building! You deny the ridiculously obvious fact that pink unicorns also choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail! Have you ever seen a pink unicorn? Did you ever find any evidence of one? See, this proves my contention that pink unicorns were inside the building with those assassins! There is *just as much evidence* for the pink unicorns as there is for the sniper or snipers you conjecture.

... (discussion of other points deleted)

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Don't you think THAT evidence is infinitely more important than that snipers did exactly what we should expect them to do, to avoid getting caught?
Along with the pink unicorns, Robert, along with the pink unicorns. They did exactly what we should expect pink unicorns to do as well, to avoid getting caught
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out to MJ on numerous occasions, he can't go from his anomaly-hunting to a larger theory -- no one can -- because his anomalies don't fit together to make a cohesive whole.

He can't even, within the narrow confines of what he's apparently willing to discuss, avoid contradicting himself. He says he accepts the autopsy, and the autopsy conclusions, but then says there were two shots to the head, which the autopsy doctors never said anywhere, at any time.

Most conspiracy theorists are not shy about alleging all the evidence pointing to Oswald has been planted, swapped, or forged, but MicahJava has been reticent to explain why so much evidence points to Oswald -- there are only two possibilities, the evidence points to Oswald because he was the shooter, or he was framed. MJ hasn't even spelled out Oswald's role in the assassination.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
HSienzant - as in Hank Sienzant, thanks.

Near as I can figure, he thinks the shot came from one of the lower floors of what was then the Dal-Tex building -- now the Sixth Floor Museum Bookstore.

I've asked him to spell out on a number of occasions his theory and name the precise location for his shooter and specify the witnesses that saw a shooter in the location he favors -- he's never done better than "behind". He can't do better because as everyone here knows (including MicahJava), there are NO witnesses who saw a shooter anywhere but in the Depository, and there is NO hard evidence (like shells, a rifle, or bullet fragments) recovered from anywhere related to the assassination that could be linked to a second shooter.

And on the other side, we have Oswald's rifle in the building where about a dozen people saw a man fitting Oswald's description or a rifle, or both, in the window immediately before, during, or just after the shooting; we have shells traceable o that rifle at the window, we have fragments of a bullet fired from that rifle recovered from the limo, and a early whole bullet from that rifle recovered at Parkland Hospital.

You might remember Bob Harris favored a shooter in the Dal-Tex building as well, but the best argument he could come up with was "There was no evidence of a second shooter because these guys were professionals and didn't want to get caught"' which explains exactly nothing, and ISN'T evidence for a second shooter anymore that it's evidence for pink unicorns -- after all, they don't want to get caught either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10760856&postcount=3287

As has been pointed out to MJ on numerous occasions, he can't go from his anomaly-hunting to a larger theory -- no one can -- because his anomalies don't fit together to make a cohesive whole.

He can't even, within the narrow confines of what he's apparently willing to discuss, avoid contradicting himself. He says he accepts the autopsy, and the autopsy conclusions, but then says there were two shots to the head, which the autopsy doctors never said anywhere, at any time.

Most conspiracy theorists are not shy about alleging all the evidence pointing to Oswald has been planted, swapped, or forged, but MicahJava has been reticent to explain why so much evidence points to Oswald -- there are only two possibilities, the evidence points to Oswald because he was the shooter, or he was framed. MJ hasn't even spelled out Oswald's role in the assassination.

Hank
Click to expand...
Wasn't he going for the sewer shooter at one point? It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.
 
Ahh, who to believe? The consilience of evidence and the historical record or a guy who can't figure out frowny faces on an internet forum.
 
HSienzant said:
HSienzant - as in Hank Sienzant, thanks.

Near as I can figure, he thinks the shot came from one of the lower floors of what was then the Dal-Tex building -- now the Sixth Floor Museum Bookstore.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that the location of the gun with the silencer that we heard from someone previously (Harris, maybe?)
 
Last edited:
bknight said:
Didn't Marrs also diagram a shooter from the ~2 floor of the Dal-Tex building?
Click to expand...

It's been a staple of conspiracy theorists since the mid-1960s, when Harold Weisberg first suggested the man on the Dal-Tex fire escape visible in the background of the Altgens photo was in "apparent distress" (or words to that effect) in WHITEWASH.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Altgens#/media/File:Altgens6.jpg

Marrs cribbed conspiracy nonsense from everyone (and made up a lot of his own), so I'd be surprised if he didn't include that in his book CROSSFIRE. It's Ben a while since I referred to that book, so cannot speak with certainty.

Harris thought a window was broken in the Dal-Tex and the shooter fired from that window. The broken window was merely his interpretation, and no evidence of the shooter was ever provided, of course.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
Are you still trying to shift the burden of proof?!
Click to expand...

Apparently the burden-shift will never end, Regnad. Either MJ doesn't grasp the concept or doesn't care. Or it's just simpler to hunt anomalies without a logic license, in blithe disregard of the consilience of evidence and the burden of proof it imposes on the Nimrod of anomalies. It's been suggested to MJ that this is not the forum for such juvenile tactics--that he'll be spotted immediately--but he takes refuge in all manner of fallacies as if his holy mission entitles him to violate every norm of argumentation. Sanctified norm-violation is, in fact, the assumed prerogative of many CTs in their self-appointed role as special investigator. Remember, they have to conduct their search and seizure of the occulted truth among brainwashed sheeple and paid shills like you and me. MJ has actually tried peddling his wares over on alt-assassination, where logic is treated as a piñata, but I don't think he's quite happy in that bedlam either.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of random smearing and straight up lying about facts, what I have said, how the discussion has gone, etc. and using juvenile distractions to monkey around. Has anybody on any forum thread been so patient at explaining simple concepts to others as I have? How about trying to explain the crucial issues that I have brought up?
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
I've been away from this thread for awhile. Are you still trying to shift the burden of proof?!
Click to expand...

No, I've already explained the basic reasons why the autopsy doctors could have have removed the brain without also separating the "cowlick" area of the skull. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he the entry hole was still sitting there in the intact, empty cranium. Not as part of a skull fragment, but the intact rest of the skull. I think cowlick theorists should give an explanation for that.

And also some other sparse statements from the doctors indicate that after they had already reflected the scalp to remove the brain, they had to make another special incision to remove the area of the scalp around the entry wound. If the wound was in the cowlick area, the first big incision in the scalp would be enough to expose the entry wound.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
How about trying to explain the crucial issues that I have brought up?
Click to expand...

Actually, your muddled arguments about JFK's head wounds are not "crucial issues." And we don't have to "explain" anything. That's burden-shifting. Burden-shifting is a crucial issue, but you pay no attention to it.
 
OKBob said:
Actually, your muddled arguments about JFK's head wounds are not "crucial issues." And we don't have to "explain" anything. That's burden-shifting. Burden-shifting is a crucial issue, but you pay no attention to it.
Click to expand...

But what is the position of the cowlick theorists? So far, it looks like the wounding as described by the HSCA is in it's own universe which cannot actually exist, especially their interpretation of the open-cranium photographs which implies that the doctors somehow fit the entire brain through a five-inch hole.
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of random smearing and straight up lying about facts, what I have said, etc. [...]
Click to expand...

The rules forbid accusations of lying without a basis. I challenge you to show where any participant in this thread has "lied" in his or her responses to you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom