Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

RoboTimbo said:

Highly unlikely for anyone? Or just for Oswald?

Click to expand...

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

Pretty unlikely for anyone? Or just Oswald?

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

Center of mass? Of a fellow sitting in a car and you are behind and above? I believe all that would not have been hidden by the car were his upper back and head.

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight.

Click to expand...

So what?

If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how this is unusual at all.

Here are some figures for you. The top of the front sight blade of the typical 6.5mm Carcano of the type found in the TSBD (I have one) is about .070"; it is about 30 inches in front of the shooters eye when aiming. This means it covers a line about 7.4" wide at 88 yards. The average human head is about 6 inches wide.

An NRA target for 100 yard high power slow fire is 21" wide with a black dot encompassing the 9 and 10 rings which is 6-3/8" wide. The front sight blade of an AR-15 A2 is available in several sizes from .05 to .072 for example. Hitting the 21 inch wide target with a front sight blade like this is very easy even for a beginner. Hitting the 6 inch wide black center is not hard at all, especially for a trained shooter; even if it is moving slowing away at a slight angle from 88 yards while shooting several stories above the target. Get where I'm going with this?

Oswald was a very motivated person who was trained by the Marine Corps to shoot at targets much father away than the short distances that existed in Dealey Plaza. "Dotting the eye" or holding at the "6 o'clock" position while shooting is the usual thing.

You keep coming up with these outlandish claims and expecting us to be stupid enough to believe them. Why be so insulting on the forum?

MicahJava said:

No, such a trajectory could have only been caused by a lot of deflections. A bullet entering any curved area of the skull will have guaranteed deflection, and the dark squiggly line on the X-ray goes sharply from the neck area then off the first rib.

I used to think that very low-velocity missiles can only create large exit wounds, but it is now my understanding that exit wounds from missiles barely exiting the tissue can be very small, and can resemble an entry wound.



I think it was Francis X. O'Neil or James Sibert that said during the autopsy, the possibility of high-tech ammunition was being investigated before they just settled on the undercharged round hypothesis. Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

Click to expand...

I'm just going to leave this here without comment.

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

At 300 feet the head would be comfortably large enough with iron sights.

With a 4x scope it would have been like shooting a pumpkin.

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

What if there were multiple assassins? Why is a single assassin singled out in this way by you?

Which of the "other assassins" was known to have a rifle with a appropriately sighted scope? Or even a rifle with just iron sights? Wouldn't all these "other assassins" that you conjecture but have no evidence for all suffer from the same difficulty of putting a shot in JFK's head if your argument had any merit? So JFK suffered no head wound because of the difficulty, survived the shooting, and is now 100 years old a month and a half ago?

Your argument about the difficulty makes no sense. If not Oswald, who, and where's the evidence for another shooter? You have none.

Contrast this to my own experience. Prior to July 5th, 2015 (and I've mentioned this before), I had never fired a firearm of any sort in my life. On that date I went with my nephew (with a military background) and one brother to a shooting gallery and fired my nephew's recently acquired Carcano rifle (manufacture date of 1917) and hit four of six at 100 yards. Granted, this was at a stationary target, but in contrast to Oswald, who had Marine Corps training and was deemed an 'excellent shot' by civilian standards, I had about two minutes of training that focused on how to brace the rifle against my shoulder so I wouldn't injure myself. I still managed to put four of six shots into the target, including the last three in two tests of three shots each. To date, those are the only six shots I ever fired with any firearm in my life.

Compare those six shots (my total experience) to Oswald's training and how many shots he got to train with at a minimum:

Mr. SPECTER - Does that letter set forth the marksmanship practice which Mr. Oswald had in the Marine Corps?
Major ANDERSON - It does; yes. It shows that he had the course A firing and followed by "fam" firing in the B course.
Mr. SPECTER - By "fam" firing, what does that mean?
Major ANDERSON - This is sharp terminology for familiarization firing and it is used to familiarize a man with the weapon prior to his being armed with said weapon.
Mr. SPECTER - And on what date was the A course registered?
Major ANDERSON - 21 December 1956.
Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used?
Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was his final qualification there?
Major ANDERSON - 212.
Mr. SPECTER - And what rating is that equivalent to, or within what range of rating is that score?
Major ANDERSON - That should have been a sharpshooter.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?
Major ANDERSON - 400 rounds for recruit firing.
Mr. SPECTER - And during what period was that?
Major ANDERSON - That was to be fired within a 2-week period.
Mr. SPECTER - Did he have exposure on another course for M-1 firing at a later date?
Major ANDERSON - The record shows that 6 May 1959 he fired the B course.
Mr. SPECTER - And what weapon was used at that time?
Major ANDERSON - The M-1 rifle.
Mr. SPECTER - And what score was obtained on that occasion?
Major ANDERSON - 191 for marksman.
Mr. SPECTER - And what was the authorized ammunition allowance?
Major ANDERSON - 200 rounds.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/anderson.htm

Oswald has to be considered a much better shot than me. And if I could do four of six with about two minutes of training at 100 yards, surely he could do two of three with his furthest shot at 88.4 yards. And bear in mind his shots were with a 23-year-old weapon (1963 minus 1940, the year of manufacture for his rifle), while mine was nearly FOUR times older (2015 minus 1917), or 98 years old.

Mr. SPECTER. Based on the tests of Mr. Oswald shown by those documents, how would you characterize his ability as a marksman?
Sergeant ZAHM. I would say in the Marine Corps he is a good shot, slightly above average, and as compared to the average male of his age throughout the civilian, throughout the United States, that he is an excellent shot.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zahm.htm

And let's dispose of that "Moving Target" nonsense right now. Since the car at the time of the head shot was moving down at about four degrees and directly away from Oswald in the sixth floor window of the Depository, it was essentially a stationary target at the time. It was getting smaller as it moved away, but not moving across his field of vision as he sighted for the final shot and pulled the trigger.

And instead of your own non-expert and solely layman's opinion on what Oswald could or couldn't do with a weapon, let's look at an actual expert's opinion:

Mr. SPECTER. Sergeant Zahm, I am now going to show you the same photographs which I showed to Major Anderson in setting the basis for asking you a hypothetical question on capabilities here. As the record will show, we have heretofore before the President's Commission entered into evidence Exhibit No. 347 which is an overhead shot of Dealey Plaza. Commission Exhibit No. 348, which I am now displaying to you, is a photograph of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence in the record indicates that the marksman stood at the point designated "A" with the lower half of the window being raised halfway, and the gun protruding out of that window pointing down the street called Elm Street in approximately the angle of my pencil which is virtually although not exactly straight down the street. Elm Street declines 3° as it slopes under the triple underpass.
As the evidence will further show, Commission Exhibits Nos. 893 and 895 respectively depict frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film which is a range of the first shot from 176.9 feet to 190.8 feet. In the lower left-hand corner under designation "Photograph through rifle scope" there is shown the view of the marksman froth the sixth floor of the depository building as he looked down t ZAHM. Very definitely.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you characterize that, as a difficult, not too difficult, easy, or how would you characterize that shot?
Sergeant ZAHM. With the equipment he had and with his ability, I consider it a very easy shot.
Mr. SPECTER. Now taking a look at Commission Exhibit No. 902, which as the record will show, has been introduced into evidence to depict the shot which struck President Kennedy in the head at a distance from the rifle in the window to the part of the President's body being 265.3 feet. Assuming the same factors about using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and pointing it down Elm Street as shown on Commission Exhibit No. 347, would a marksman of Mr. Oswald's capabilities using such a rifle with a 4-power scope be able to strike the President in the back of the head? Would Mr. Oswald possess the capability to complete such a shot which did, in this situation, strike the President in the back of the head?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes; I think that aiming at the mass of what portion of the President is visible at that distance and with his equipment, he would very easily have attained a hit, not necessarily aiming and hitting in the head. This would have been a little more difficult and probably be to the top of his ability, aiming and striking the President in the head. But assuming that he aimed at the mass to the center portion of the President's body, he would have hit him very definitely someplace, and the fact that he hit him in the head, but he could have hit, got a hit.
Mr. SPECTER. So you would have expected a man of Oswald's capabilities at a distance of 265.3 feet to strike the President someplace aiming at him under those circumstances?
Sergeant ZAHM. Yes.

And, since Oswald trained at 200 yards and 500 yards (the latter nearly SIX [6!] times the distance of the LONGEST shot he would have to make in Dealey Plaza), your argument that Oswald was incapable or unlikely to make an 88-yard shot to JFK's head means your argument is also that Oswald was incapable or unlikely to make an 200-yard or 500-yard shot in the Marines and put it in the bullseye. But of course we know he did do that (see his scorebook, published in the Warren Commission volumes of evidence). The fact that he made shots at 200 and 500 yards in the Marines establishes he could make 88-yard shots in Dealey Plaza, and that your arguments here are a joke.

Your arguments are a big failure and simply make no sense.

Whether you understand the point or not.

Hank

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

There have been many here that continue to tell you that your lack of experience, first hand, precludes you from making this ascertain. Those of us who have fired rifles know better. Try an assault range first then come back with your results.

Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

Click to expand...

Cite that fragmented rounds were available in 1963, not just an idea or in testing phases.

EDIT:
Learn how to fire a rifle before taking on an assault course.

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

That's just a thinly disguised logical fallacy of PERSONAL INCREDULITY:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Because you found something difficult to understand, or are unaware of how it works, you made out like it's probably not true.
Complex subjects like biological evolution through natural selection require some amount of understanding before one is able to make an informed judgement about the subject at hand; this fallacy is usually used in place of that understanding.
Example: Kirk drew a picture of a fish and a human and with effusive disdain asked Richard if he really thought we were stupid enough to believe that a fish somehow turned into a human through just, like, random things happening over time.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
"At what point did you reject the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand how good the idea is?" —Dilbert[1]
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

Your logical fallacies have no bearing on what the truth is.

Hank

MicahJava said:

HS, recently I've been spending a little more time re-reading all of the important testimonies and meticulously saving what I find interesting on text files sorted by subject. Not totally done yet, but I've already posted what you're responding to here already. There are at least two statements from the autopsy that imply that a special, separate scalp incision was made to expose the small wound low in the head, in addition to the large scalp incision already made to facilitate removal of the brain.

From Humes and Boswell's 9/16/1977 interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite- oh, it must be, I can't read it- but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire- I guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES. To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.


From Finck's 3/11/1978 HSCA testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous.

Click to expand...

Hilarious. The Finck quote above -- "the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone" -- establishes exactly what I said: that to see the entry wound on the external portion of the skull, they had to cut away the scalp from the skull bone fragment, as the scalp was adhering to the bone (and, of course, the bone adhering to the scalp).

And the Boswell quote establishes that the skull was badly fragmented, some was missing, and not much if any cutting was necessary to see the wound on the interior entry point of the skull or to excise the brain.

And you might take your own advice that "Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous..."

That is exactly what you're been doing all along. We're not fooled by you constantly offering up your own laymen's interpretation of what transpired at the autopsy while ignoring the clear testimony of the men who were there. For the best example of you doing exactly what you preach against, consider you are suggesting there were TWO SHOTS TO THE HEAD. Which of the various autopsy doctors present at the autopsy ever suggested such a thing?

NONE. You are simply "trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous" that they never said.

Hank

MicahJava said:

Twenty forensic pathologists? Last I checked, there were only about twelve that signed off on the cowlick entry theory or something similar to it (some of them reported the entry as a one or two+ centimeters difference from eachother).

HSienzant said:

I count 16 Forensic Pathologists and two others (denoted) with areas of expertise:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck, at the original autopsy
2. William Carnes, Clark Panel member, 1968
3. Russel Fisher, Clark Panel member, 1968
4. Russel Morgan, Clark Panel member, 1968
5. Alan Moritz, Clark Panel member, 1968
6. Robert McMeekin, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
7. Richard Lindenberg, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
8. Werner Spitz, Rockefeller Commission, 1975, HSCA Panel, 1978
9. John Coe, HSCA Panel, 1978
10. Joseph Davis, HSCA Panel, 1978
11. George Loquvam, HSCA Panel, 1978
12. Charles Petty, HSCA Panel, 1978
13. Earl Rose, HSCA Panel, 1978
14. Cyril Wecht, HSCA Panel, 1978
15. James Weston, HSCA Panel, 1978
16. Michael Baden, HSCA Panel, 1978
17. Fred Hodges, Radiologist, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
18. Alfred Olivier, Wound Ballistics, Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, 1975

I may have missed some.

http://www.jfklancer.com/Clark Panel.html
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=930#relPageId=273&tab=page
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0008a.htm
http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0042a.htm

MicahJava said:

What? Not all of those are forensic pathologists, and those aren't all of the forensic pathologists who studied the X-rays. And they don't all agree with the cowlick entry theory. And at least some of them aren't qualified to analyze the JFK X-rays and all of their complications.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, 16 of the 18 are forensic pathologists. I mentioned that.

And now you're admitting there are more forensic pathologists than I actually named, exactly as I suggested ("I may have missed some")?

So your original claim that there were only twelve is false?

And some of them are not qualified to analyze X-Rays according to whom -- MicahJava?

You're not an expert and you don't get to tell us what you think. We really don't care.

You need to cite expert authority to give your claims any sense of validity. We'll wait.

Hank

Removed duplicate post.

MicahJava said:

Um, okay? Still not a moving target.

Click to expand...

So that's your complaint now?

That was already disposed of above.

JFK was essentially not a moving target either, as the limo was proceeding down Elm at the time of the head shot almost directly away from Oswald, and at a downward angle (the road was set at approximately a 3.5 degree descent angle as it had to travel under the railroad overpass).

So how come this guy could hit something that looked much smaller than the head of an ant at a much greater distance by a factor of 25 times more distant than Oswald, but Oswald couldn't hit the President at just 88 yards, despite Oswald hitting targets at 200 yards and 500 yards in the Marines?

You previously claimed Oswald couldn't make this shot with the iron sights:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11853010#post11853010

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant.

Click to expand...

But other people can make shots far more distant, and Oswald himself could make shots far more distant.

Can you explain how that works, and what authorities you're citing for the claim? Your own claim from personal incredulity is just another in a long line of LOGICAL FALLACIES by you.

Hank

MicahJava said:

On the question of where this earlier hypothetical head bullet ended up, the only logical answer would be that it exited the throat, without invoking alteration or high-tech ammunition.

Click to expand...

And where'd it end up? And what happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back?

What's that you're whispering?

Oh, TWO Magic Bullets!

Hilarious.

At least you're now admitting it's only a "hypothetical head bullet" that hit near the EOP and exited the throat.

Previously you were arguing in stronger language: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11752178#post11752178

Tolls, the nature of the brain damage doesn't make sense with the EOP entry wound exiting the top-right side of the head. It only makes sense if the missile that struck the EOP brushed past the cerebellum and hit the floor of the skull. The large head wound would then be created by a separate missile.

Click to expand...

MicahJava said:

Unless shown otherwise, I will continue to think that the brain removal problem in relation to the small head wound is a kind of Rosetta Stone showing that something is very wrong with the official version of the JFK shooting.

Click to expand...

WHAT "Brain Removal Problem"?

Remember your own words: "Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous..."

So please quote the experts who find a "Brain Removal Problem". Got any, or is all this in your own head only?

Previously, you appeared to be claiming this was wholly your own invention (you never cited any expert opinion):
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757315#post11757315

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?

Click to expand...

You understand what the logical fallacy of personal incredulity is by now I trust? And how you cannot use yourself as your own expert, and how your layman's opinion is meaningless?

Explain how you were able to eliminate your own lack of knowledge as the basic issue here.

Hank

MicahJava, you fall strangely silent on the questions that keep dogging you. Any chance of you ever actually having answers? The questions aren't going to go away. They just further reinforce how far removed from reality you are.

RoboTimbo said:

MicahJava, you fall strangely silent on the questions that keep dogging you.

Click to expand...

Because he has no evidence supporting his position. It's all his *personal interpretation* of the evidence. Which he constantly confuses with the *evidence*.

RoboTimbo said:

Any chance of you ever actually having answers?

Click to expand...

No. Because there's an infinite number of ways to be wrong, and only one way to be right. He's not right, so he can't have answers. It only fits together one way, and we already know what way that is.

RoboTimbo said:

The questions aren't going to go away.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't mean he'll ever acknowledge them. Acknowledging them means he would have to admit he has no answers, and means he would have to admit he cannot explain how his *unique* interpretation of one small part of the evidence fits with all the other evidence. Which pretty much explains why he won't acknowledge the questions - they blow his argument out of the water, and he knows it.

RoboTimbo said:

They just further reinforce how far removed from reality you are.

Click to expand...

He's a conspiracy theorist, so that probably goes without saying. As a general rule, however, it's a given.

Resolved: Conspiracy theorists ignore expert opinion and discard any evidence contrary to their beliefs to argue for their unique interpretation of the evidence. They cannot cite any expert opinion that establishes their interpretation, and they rely on logical fallacies like personal incredulity and straw man arguments to keep their interpretation afloat. They cannot explain the overlying structure of their supposed conspiracy, or why conspirators would want to do what they claim, nor can the explain how the evidence all fits together, even assuming their interpretation is correct. They ignore contradictions in their own assertions, and pretend their interpretation is the only one that makes sense.

Hank

From the prior thread, saw this exchange and wanted to point out the problem:

MicahJava said:

Would it even be physically possible to remove the brain from the cranium without removing the part of the skull which had this alleged cowlick entry? There's just not enough room. So how could Dr. Finck say he saw the small head wound in the skull?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757315#post11757315

BStrong said:

It's a human thing called being wrong. Even physicians fall victim to it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757325#post11757325

MicahJava said:

So all those times Dr. Finck described the entry wound, he was just hallucinating?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11757329#post11757329

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The other possible alternative to Finck suffering from hallucinations, which MicahJava apparently doesn't even consider, and hence, makes his above reference to hallucinating a loaded question, is that he (MicahJava), likewise being human, and being a non-expert layman, is wrong in his interpretations and his assertions.

As we've seen, the autopsists explained the brain removal problem MicahJava professes to see as a simple matter of the skull being extensively fractured, so much so that two cuts down to the level of the ears was sufficient to expose the entry wound on the interior of the skull fragment which still adhered to the scalp and how the entry wound in the scalp was seen to correspond to the entry wound in the interior of the posterior skull. And how the scalp and skull bone had to be separated to expose the exterior of the posterior skull, and expose that portion of the skull wound.

But he will go on pretending he's not assuming what he needs to prove, and go on assuming we need to disprove his interpretations of the evidence, instead of him proving his interpretations of the evidence.

Hank

MicahJava said:

This is the first time I'm learning about this, so thanks for pointing out this example to me. While there is controversy on this event, either way it is apparently known as the luckiest shot in recorded history. Again, I never said it would literally be impossible to hit Kennedy's head with iron sights, just that it would be highly unlikely.

Click to expand...

1. Which in no way would preclude any other shooter from connecting with with a "lucky shot."

2. The fact that you find it "unlikely"is immaterial. You have -0- experience in the subject matter.

To sum up the pin-the-headwound on the POTUS game that MJ finds so so compelling and in light of his often posted disbelief that LHO could hit JFK using irons (or anything else for that matter) along with the assertion that the autopsy doctors deliberately (MJ don't know nothin' about them human frailties) botched the procedure, these are the basic possibilities:

1. LHO was part of a conspiracy. LHO fired on POTUS. LHO scored hits Person or Persons unknown did likewise. JFK was hit an unknown number of times because attending physicians deliberately altered and/or destroyed evidence of multiple GSW's from different directions and/or different caliber projectiles.

A) Same as above, physicians were incompetent, not complicit.

2. LHO was not part of a conspiracy. LHO fired on POTUS. LHO scored hits. Person or Persons unknown that were part of a conspiracy did likewise. JFK was hit an unknown number of times because attending physicians deliberately altered and/or destroyed evidence of multiple GSW's from different directions and/or different caliber projectiles.

A) Same as above, physicians were incompetent, not complicit.

3. LHO was part of a conspiracy. He fired on POTUS. He did not hit POTUS. Person or Persons unknown fired on POTUS and scored hits. Attending physicians deliberately altered and/or destroyed GSW evidence indicating multiple shooters/locations.

A) Same as above, physicians were incompetent, not complicit.

For those of us that don't engage in flights of fancy regarding the assassination of JFK:

LHO brings his rifle to work. Sets up a shooting bench using cardboard boxes at hand.

LHO fires on JFK as the motorcade passes his work site.Scores hits.

Absolute chaos breaks out.

FBI, Secret Service, Dallas PD, Dallas County Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, - every LEA in the area immediately starts running around with their hair on fire w/o any sop in place or any idea about who was in charge.

Doctors at Parkland have a different set of challenges but a very similar environment to operate in.

JFK dies from his wounds.

The Presidential party wanted nothing more to vacate the area. They were through with Texas and no state statute was going to stop them. They took their dead and left.

LHO goes home, retrieves his revolver. Is confronted by a Dallas PD officer who he shoots and kills.

LHO takes refuge in a theater.

Dallas cops are called, they apprehend LHO with the murder weapon used on their officer in hand.

LHO is murdered by Jack Ruby.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense than the MJ Chinese Opera scenarios.

MicahJava said:

I mean, it's a moving target and his head would be appear to be about less than the diameter of the front sight. If you say the single assassin was aiming for his head and not just his center of mass, then yeah that sounds pretty unlikely.

Click to expand...

You are still beating this dead horse? For crying out loud, it wasn't even close to a difficult shot, with a scope or with iron sights. The notion that there was something miraculous about Oswald hitting JFK with a rifle from less than 100 yards is possibly the silliest notion to come out of the JFK conspiracy theory world.

CORed said:

You are still beating this dead horse?

Click to expand...

That and a few other dead horses...

Like the brain couldn't be removed unless the wound in the upper back of the head was removed first by being cut off as in a standard craniotomy...

And the evidence indicates two shots to the head...

And Oswald having a partially torn dollar bill in his wallet after his arrest suggests he was a spy...

And the majority of the witnesses thought the shots came from either the Depository or the knoll (NOT both!), and we can explain why no more than four witnesses thought the shots came from two directions because they were all influenced by the last sound they heard...

And there were more than three shots, but some of them were silenced and fired by unseen gunmen who fired unseen weapons which were never heard and left no bullets, shells, or weapons behind, almost like they were never there at all...

The first shot was in the range of Z190 - Z224.

And Connally is trustworthy in his recollections except when he isn't...

And the bullet recovered at Parkland is a decredited piece of evidence...

He hasn't beaten some of those dead horses lately, but he's left a whole lot of deceased equines in his wake.

Hank

HSienzant said:

That and a few other dead horses...

Like the brain couldn't be removed unless the wound in the upper back of the head was removed first by being cut off as in a standard craniotomy...

And the evidence indicates two shots to the head...

And Oswald having a partially torn dollar bill in his wallet after his arrest suggests he was a spy...

And the majority of the witnesses thought the shots came from either the Depository or the knoll, and we can explain why more didn't think the shots came from two directions because they were influenced by the last sound they heard...

And Connally is trustworthy in his recollections except when he isn't...

And the bullet recovered at Parkland is a decredited piece of evidence...

He hasn't beaten some of those dead horses lately, but he's left a whole lot of deceased equines in his wake.

Hank

Click to expand...

Don't forget the "silencer" nonsense.

abaddon said:

Don't forget the "silencer" nonsense.

Click to expand...

Added this: "And there were more than three shots, but some of them were silenced and fired by unseen gunmen who fired unseen weapons which were never heard and left no bullets, shells, or weapons behind, almost like they were never there at all..." to the above... thanks!

Hank

HSienzant said:

That and a few other dead horses...

Like the brain couldn't be removed unless the wound in the upper back of the head was removed first by being cut off as in a standard craniotomy...

And the evidence indicates two shots to the head...

And Oswald having a partially torn dollar bill in his wallet after his arrest suggests he was a spy...

And the majority of the witnesses thought the shots came from either the Depository or the knoll (NOT both!), and we can explain why more than four witnesses didn't think the shots came from two directions because they were all influenced by the last sound they heard...

And there were more than three shots, but some of them were silenced and fired by unseen gunmen who fired unseen weapons which were never heard and left no bullets, shells, or weapons behind, almost like they were never there at all...

And Connally is trustworthy in his recollections except when he isn't...

And the bullet recovered at Parkland is a decredited piece of evidence...

He hasn't beaten some of those dead horses lately, but he's left a whole lot of deceased equines in his wake.

Hank

Click to expand...

And what evidence has he presented for this little tid bit? LOL Just idle speculation and mis-understanding of the paper trail that exists

bknight said:

And what evidence has he presented for this little tid bit? LOL Just idle speculation and mis-understanding of the paper trail that exists

Click to expand...

His "evidence", as I understand it, consists of:

(a) His misunderstanding of how JFK's brain was removed from the head of JFK at the autopsy,

(b) combined with his misunderstanding of how much damage the cerebellum suffered,

(c) combined with his misunderstanding of what Oswald could accomplish with his weapon at 88 yards,

(d) combined with his misunderstanding of what the evidence indicates regarding where the bullet struck JFK on the back of the head,

(e) combined with his misunderstanding of how to read X-Rays and what they show of a bullet track in the neck.

There might be more misunderstandings, but I think I hit the major ones.

Regarding the point (e) above, it's more than a little funny that he claims all the forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials aren't qualified to read X-Rays, but then turns around and treats us to his own layman's unqualified opinion of what the supposed dark line in the X-Rays means, what caused it, and what the source was. In other words, it takes a lot more background than forensic pathologists have to read an X-Ray, but also none at all - even a layman like MicahJava can do it. Unless they actually have training in that subject matter, like forensic pathologists. Then they don't have enough.

As I pointed out earlier:

== quote ==
Resolved: Conspiracy theorists ignore expert opinion and discard any evidence contrary to their beliefs to argue for their unique interpretation of the evidence. They cannot cite any expert opinion that establishes their interpretation, and they rely on logical fallacies like personal incredulity and straw man arguments to keep their interpretation afloat. They cannot explain the overlying structure of their supposed conspiracy, or why conspirators would want to do what they claim, nor can the explain how the evidence all fits together, even assuming their interpretation is correct. They ignore contradictions in their own assertions, and pretend their interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
== quote ==

His arguments make no sense, he cites his own layman's opinion as if it's gospel, he ignores expert testimony when inconvenient, he takes quotes out of context, he utilizes faulty recollections from 33 years after the fact even when more contemporaneous statements that conflict with his interpretation exist, he ignores any arguments he cannot rebut, he ignores the conflicts in his own assertions, and he constantly shifts the burden of proof.

And he expects that kind of performance art to be convincing.

It is not.

Hank

HSienzant said:

His "evidence", as I understand it, consists of:

(a) His misunderstanding of how JFK's brain was removed from the head of JFK at the autopsy,

(b) combined with his misunderstanding of how much damage the cerebellum suffered,

(c) combined with his misunderstanding of what Oswald could accomplish with his weapon at 88 yards,

(d) combined with his misunderstanding of what the evidence indicates regarding where the bullet struck JFK on the back of the head,

(e) combined with his misunderstanding of how to read X-Rays and what they show of a bullet track in the neck.

There might be more misunderstandings, but I think I hit the major ones.

Regarding the point (e) above, it's more than a little funny that he claims all the forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials aren't qualified to read X-Rays, but turns around and treats us to his own layman's opinion of what the supposed dark line in the X-Rays means, what caused it, and what the source was. In other words, it takes a lot more background than forensic pathologists have to read an X-Ray, but also none at all - even a layman like MicahJava can do it. Unless they actually have training in that subject matter. Then they don't have enough.

As I pointed out earlier:

== quote ==
Resolved: Conspiracy theorists ignore expert opinion and discard any evidence contrary to their beliefs to argue for their unique interpretation of the evidence. They cannot cite any expert opinion that establishes their interpretation, and they rely on logical fallacies like personal incredulity and straw man arguments to keep their interpretation afloat. They cannot explain the overlying structure of their supposed conspiracy, or why conspirators would want to do what they claim, nor can the explain how the evidence all fits together, even assuming their interpretation is correct. They ignore contradictions in their own assertions, and pretend their interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
== quote ==

His arguments make no sense, he cites his own layman's opinion as if it's gospel, he ignores expert testimony when inconvenient, he takes quotes out of context, he utilizes faulty recollections from 33 years after the fact even when more contemporaneous statements that conflict with his interpretation exist, he ignores any arguments he cannot rebut, he ignores the conflicts in his own assertions, and he constantly shifts the burden of proof.

And he expects that kind of performance art to be convincing.

It is not.

Hank

Click to expand...

As I indicated misunderstanding of the paper trail real evidence.

bknight said:

As I indicated misunderstanding of the paper trail real evidence.

Click to expand...

Certainly. I simply expanded on your remarks to delve into more detail.

Hank

HSienzant said:

Hilarious. The Finck quote above -- "the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone" -- establishes exactly what I said: that to see the entry wound on the external portion of the skull, they had to cut away the scalp from the skull bone fragment, as the scalp was adhering to the bone (and, of course, the bone adhering to the scalp).

And the Boswell quote establishes that the skull was badly fragmented, some was missing, and not much if any cutting was necessary to see the wound on the interior entry point of the skull or to excise the brain.

And you might take your own advice that "Another general rule of thumb is that if a JFK autopsy witness does not specifically say that something happened, don't just continue trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous..."

That is exactly what you're been doing all along. We're not fooled by you constantly offering up your own laymen's interpretation of what transpired at the autopsy while ignoring the clear testimony of the men who were there. For the best example of you doing exactly what you preach against, consider you are suggesting there were TWO SHOTS TO THE HEAD. Which of the various autopsy doctors present at the autopsy ever suggested such a thing?

NONE. You are simply "trying to interpret their words into something unambiguous" that they never said.

Hank

Click to expand...

Oh no, you dropped the pieces I gave you earlier. I'll help you pick them up. Let me copypasta a previous comment I made to you:

Hank, I'm afraid your idea- that the autopsy doctors just left portions of skull bone stuck to the scalp all the way through the brain removal process and even until the torso dissection, and THIS is how Finck saw the entry wound on the back of of the head- is simply wrong, and you cannot sleep at night honestly thinking that is the answer.

This is from Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Now let me recapitulate as I understand what you said here. One, you arrived at about 8:30 in the evening, give or take a little bit. Two, at the time you arrived you believed that the brain had already been removed.

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. What was the situation that was verbally presented to you at the time you got there? How many gunshot wounds were there there that had been discovered at that time when you walked in the room? What was your briefing, in other words?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I remember what I saw, the wounds I saw.

Dr. PETTY. All right.

Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember.

Dr. PETTY. All right. What wounds did you see when you. first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive you into any corner at all, I just want to know what. wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.

Dr. FINCK. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled, inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that wound as a wound of entry. The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/ lower neck on the right side. In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.

Dr. LOCUVAM. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I don't remember.

Dr. ROSE. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. We would have to refer to the autopsy report.

note: What Finck doesn't remember is significant here. Notice how he doesn't immediately clarify that the area of skull with the entry crater was separated. Once again, he is clearly indicating here that he is talking about the wound still being in the intact, empty cranium.

Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.

Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.

Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?

Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.

Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?

Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.

Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?

Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.

And Finck even talks about taking photographs of the entry crater in the intact, empty cranium!

Dr. BADEN. Were you present when these color photographs were taken of the head?

Dr. FINCK. I was at least for some of them. I remember positively that a Navy photographer took pictures and I wanted pictures of the crater in particular because this is a positive finding for a wound of entry in the back of the head. So I wanted a picture showing no crater from the outside and a clear-cut crater from the inside, but I don't know.

Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.

Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.

Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.

Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?

Dr. FINCK. I think so.

...

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.

Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.

Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.

Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16, of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to what you believe that could be.

Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?

Mr. PURDY. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?

Mr. PURDY. They are initialed. No. 43 here is a copy made from the original, which is initialed by Dr. Boswell. These were initialed at the time of the review and they were turned over to the Archives. Perhaps it would be appropriate soon to show the X ray which corresponds to this region.

Dr. PETTY. May I ask one other question, perhaps two. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.

Dr. FINCK. Absolutely.

Dr. PETTY. Did you ever see such a photograph?

Dr. FINCK. I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967 when I was recalled from Vietnam. I was asked to look at photographs and as I recall there were two blank 4 by 5 transparencies; in other words, two photographs that had been exposed but with no image and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs.

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Dr. PETTY. Did you see the brain?

Dr. FINCK. I saw the brain.

Is that enough, or do I have to keep listing all of the times Finck made this perfectly crystal clear? How many other times has he told the same story? And spare me a diatribe about 15-year-old memory. Finck is saying nothing different from what he told the Warren Commission in 1964, or to General Blumberg in 1965, or at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. He's just reaffirming the obvious so the Hanks of the world can't distort what happened.

And this comment:

Dr. Finck is a great witness because he makes sure to say when he doesn't remember something. Luckily, most of what he doesn't recall is mostly meaningless relative to him. But he remembers the important stuff. Like here, on 5/24/1996 at his ARRB deposition:

Q: In the autopsy protocol, copy of which I have shown you before, that wound is identified as being 2-1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

A: Yes.

Q: Is that your recollection of where the entrance wound was?

A: From the record, yes.

Q: In addition to that entrance wound, there was also an exit wound. Do you recall that?

A: [Perusing document] Close to midnight, portions of cranial vault - portions of cranial vault are received from Dallas, Texas, and identified an exit. Yes.

Q: Okay. We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit wound and the entrance wound?

A: No.

Q: Three holes or just two?

A: Two.

Q: And which bone was the entrance wound located in?

A: The occipital bone. It was recorded as occipital. We should refer to the record for that.

Q: Was the entrance wound a hole that perforated the occipital bone, or is it one that split the occipital bone such that there would be,for example, a half circle with part of -

A: No, it perforated, I was able to see a crater from the inside. I said that right here [indicating].

Q: You are referring to Exhibit 28.

A: Right occipital, lacerated occipital corresponds to the wound. "The skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone. On that basis I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance." This is unquestionable.

Q: And so just so I am clear, I understand that you have identified as being beveled but I want to know whether the wound is a circular wound in the sense that the shell, the skull all around the wound is intact, or is part of the adjacent skull blown away from the portion of the entrance wound?

A: It was a perforation of the occipital bone.

Q: In his testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, Dr. Boswell stated that - and his words will speak for themselves, so this is my recharacterization of them - he said that you needed to place a loose piece of fragment back onto the skull before you could identify the full circle for the entrance wound. Is it your current recollection that Dr. Boswell would be mistaken in that regard?

A: You are referring to the wound of entrance?

Q: Wound of entrance.

A: I don't remember. I don't know what you are saying. I have a clear picture of that wound of entrance. I don't understand what you said about the wound of entrance. I have to do what with the wound of entrance?

Q: That in order to see the full circle of the wound of entrance, you would need to put a piece of skull fragment back into place in order to identify the full circle for the entrance.

A: I don't remember that.

Clear as day. Do you see how Dr. Finck is specifically denying your idea of how it may have happened?

MicahJava said:

I think it was Francis X. O'Neil or James Sibert that said during the autopsy, the possibility of high-tech ammunition was being investigated before they just settled on the undercharged round hypothesis. Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

Click to expand...

I usually just pass through this thread but the above is stupidity of a different order. ice bullets have been tried, shockingly they vaporize on firing. if a wax bullet could be somehow coated so it didn't vaporize or ignite it would either splash on contact or at best behave like a bean bag round. As for 'dissolving' metal, this is just bloody minded nonsense.

HSienzant said:

Yes, 16 of the 18 are forensic pathologists. I mentioned that.

And now you're admitting there are more forensic pathologists than I actually named, exactly as I suggested ("I may have missed some")?

So your original claim that there were only twelve is false?

And some of them are not qualified to analyze X-Rays according to whom -- MicahJava?

You're not an expert and you don't get to tell us what you think. We really don't care.

You need to cite expert authority to give your claims any sense of validity. We'll wait.

Hank

Click to expand...

Earlier I only tallied up about twelve experts who were either forensic pathologists or radiologists who agreed with the cowlick entry. How many radiologists agree with it? How many forensic radiologists agree with it?

And no, you do not have to be qualified to interpret gunshot wound X-rays very well if you are a forensic pathologist. A forensic pathologist's job is to determine the cause of death at autopsy. See where Dr. Finck was asked to identify an entry wound on the X-rays, to which he replied "I always refer to the radiologists on that".

Garrison said:

I usually just pass through this thread but the above is stupidity of a different order. ice bullets have been tried, shockingly they vaporize on firing. if a wax bullet could be somehow coated so it didn't vaporize or ignite it would either splash on contact or at best behave like a bean bag round. As for 'dissolving' metal, this is just bloody minded nonsense.

Click to expand...

Okay, well that's Sibert/O'Neil talking, not Micahjava. Did you read the part about the undercharged round? Around the time Sibert and O'Neil left the autopsy, the prevailing hypothesis was that a bullet somehow only barely penetrated Kennedy's back and then naturally squeezed out of the same entry wound it created.

HSienzant said:

Regarding the point (e) above, it's more than a little funny that he claims all the forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials aren't qualified to read X-Rays, but then turns around and treats us to his own layman's unqualified opinion of what the supposed dark line in the X-Rays means, what caused it, and what the source was. In other words, it takes a lot more background than forensic pathologists have to read an X-Ray, but also none at all - even a layman like MicahJava can do it. Unless they actually have training in that subject matter, like forensic pathologists. Then they don't have enough.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, earlier you said that you agreed the dark squiggly line probably represented a bullet track, and not air pushed between the tissues up into the neck as the result of the tracheotomy procedure (which is the favored official explanation).

The dark squiggly line is clear as day for anybody to see for themselves where it exists within the body.

Axxman300 said:

I'm just going to leave this here without comment.

Click to expand...

What? It is true that exit wounds can be very small if they are created by very low-velocity bullets. This is from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Ronald Jones of Parkland hospital:

Mr. SPECTER - In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following, "Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted as well as a small hole in anterior midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound. What led you to the thought that it was a bullet entrance wound, sir?

Dr. JONES - The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than this had done, and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of an explosive type of exit wound, with more tissue destruction than this appeared to have on superficial examination.

Mr. SPECTER - Would it be consistent, then, with an exit wound, but of low velocity, as you put it?

Dr. JONES - Yes; of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side.

Mr. SPECTER - What is your experience, Doctor, if any, in the treatment of bullet wounds?

Dr. JONES - During our residency here we have approximately 1 complete year out of the 4 years on the trauma service here, and this is in addition to the 2 months that we spend every other day and every other night in the emergency room during our first year, so that we see a tremendous number of bullet wounds here in that length of time, sometimes as many as four and five a night.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had any formal training in bullet wounds?

Dr. JONES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had occasion to observe a bullet wound which was inflicted by a missile at approximate size of a 6.5 ram. bullet which passed through the body of a person and exited from a neck without striking anything but soft tissue from the back through the neck, where the missile came from a weapon of the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, and the victim was in the vicinity of 160 to 250 feet from the weapon?

Dr. JONES - No; I have not seen a missile of this velocity exit in the anterior portion of the neck. I have seen it in other places of the body, but not in the neck.

MicahJava said:

Oh no, you dropped the pieces I gave you earlier. I'll help you pick them up. Let me copypasta a previous comment I made to you:

Click to expand...

No, don't bother. This was discussed in detail in the past, and I rebutted all your arguments by pointing out the problems with it.

I did that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11888746#post11888746

As I've noted in the past, you don't get a free fringe reset just because you didn't like the way the discussion was resolved the first time. We don't need to go through it again. You lost. You quote the autopsy doctors saying things that confirm my points, and pretend they somehow confirm yours.

That is merely your pretense, and doesn't make your interpretations of the evidence true.

Hank

MicahJava said:

Okay, well that's Sibert/O'Neil talking, not Micahjava. Did you read the part about the undercharged round? Around the time Sibert and O'Neil left the autopsy, the prevailing hypothesis was that a bullet somehow only barely penetrated Kennedy's back and then naturally squeezed out of the same entry wound it created.

Click to expand...

No, that's you talking. You alluded earlier to something supposed said by Sibert or O'Neill, but never quoted it. Do you remember saying this?

MicahJava said:

I think it was Francis X. O'Neil or James Sibert that said during the autopsy, the possibility of high-tech ammunition was being investigated before they just settled on the undercharged round hypothesis. Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

Click to expand...

I'd loved to see you establish you didn't make that nonsense up.


Hank

MicahJava said:

I'm sorry, earlier you said that you agreed the dark squiggly line probably represented a bullet track, and not air pushed between the tissues up into the neck as the result of the tracheotomy procedure (which is the favored official explanation).

The dark squiggly line is clear as day for anybody to see for themselves where it exists within the body.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/kkF4LTR.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Not seeing where it points to anywhere but the upper back. And I don't recall saying I agreed that it was a bullet track. Can you cite the evidence for both claims, or are you just making stuff up again?

And now you're back to claiming anyone can read X-Rays, even laymen like MicahJava or me, and reach the correct conclusions, but earlier you complained that the forensic pathologists on the HSCA forensic pathology panel aren't qualified to read X-Rays and reach a proper conclusion:

MicahJava said:

And all that is required to be a forensic pathologist is to identify a cause of death at autopsy. There is nothing "laughable" at calling for only the opinions of specialists in gunshot wound X-rays.

Click to expand...

Can you reconcile that for us?

HHank

MicahJava said:

Okay, well that's Sibert/O'Neil talking, not Micahjava.

Click to expand...

Nope you brought them up. Did you spend even one minute checking the plausibility of these ideas before posting about them?

HSienzant said:

No, don't bother. This was discussed in detail in the past, and I rebutted all your arguments by pointing out the problems with it.

I did that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11888746#post11888746

As I've noted in the past, you don't get a free fringe reset just because you didn't like the way the discussion was resolved the first time. We don't need to go through it again. You lost. You quote the autopsy doctors saying things that confirm my points, and pretend they somehow confirm yours.

That is merely your pretense, and doesn't make your interpretations of the evidence true.

Hank

Click to expand...

Garrison said:

Nope you brought them up. Did you spend even one minute checking the plausibility of these ideas before posting about them?

Click to expand...

I have not researched high-tech ammunition, or the history thereof because so far I don't think it's very necessary tool to explain the shooting. I just mentioned it for a second.

MicahJava said:

Holy tapdancing, that comment was so bad I blocked it out of my memory. Just pure crap! How about an honest response to what the evidence clearly shows?

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's a hand-waving away of the rebuttal. That's not a rebuttal. That's just tap-dancing around the issues you need to address.

And calling it "crap" doesn't make it so.

And suggesting I'm dishonest (QUOTE: "How about an honest response") isn't anything other than ad hominem. Another logical fallacy by you.

You still lose. In so many ways.

Here's one more.

And that rebuttal that you claim you've forgotten all about happened only a month ago. Contrast that with the 33-year-after-the-fact recollections you like to data-mine and like to pretend are meaningful.

You can't remember what happened six days less than a month ago, yet you pretend what Humes said he recalled 33 years after the assassination is somehow meaningful.

And then you pretend what you recall about what Sibert & O'Neill said about ice bullets and the like (they said nothing) is somehow meaningful, then claim it wasn't important at all when you cannot cite for that nonsense.

Hilarious. You contradict yourself at ever turn.

Hank

MicahJava said:

I have not researched high-tech ammunition, or the history thereof because so far I don't think it's very necessary tool to explain the shooting. I just mentioned it for a second.

Click to expand...

You made a claim you can't back up.

You have a habit of doing that.

You lose again, in multiple ways. Once for the original claim, another time for repeating it, claiming it came from Sibert & O''Neill, and a third time for the loss of credibility suffered from constantly making up stuff you cannot document. You have no credibility left.

Here's the posts and responses where you apparently felt compelled to first bring up the ice bullet nonsense.

MicahJava said:

Consider that, if a first head shot happened at around the time Kennedy went behind the sign on the Zapruder film, you're talking about a 5 second span of time for any very nearby witnesses to see it. Also consider the lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza, like how several people in the motorcade are pictured with dark shadows covering their east sides. And you're talking about "blood" which could have only been seen in the small space between his hairline and his shirt collar.

HSienzant said:

Consider that you're arguing that JFK got shot in the head and did nothing more than raise his arms to his neck.

Consider that you don't explain what happened to the bullet. [emphasis added - this is the only point you choose to address in your subsequent post. You ignored everything else.]

Consider that the image on the Zapruder film (which depends on the exposure setting) has nothing to do with what people saw. It was a bright sunny day, just after noon, which would have been near-optimal viewing conditions for eyewitnesses. The "lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza" don't help your argument whatsoever.

Consider that you don't know the map directions in Dealey Plaza. "Northeast" is almost directly behind the limo in the Zapruder film. The sun was high in the southern sky, and the limo passengers were facing it, putting the northern part of their bodies in shadow. The 'eastern' side of the passengers & spectators would be the side mostly away from Zapruder's camera.

Look at a map: https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jfk-dealeyplaza.gif
(north is denoted on the Main Street portion of the map. You can see the limo was proceeding in a south-westerly direction during the shooting).

Consider that the sign in question didn't block all the spectators view of JFK during the early part of the shooting - or even most of them. Or even a significant minority of the spectators. Any of those spectators on the east side of Elm (opposite Zapruder) didn't have the sign blocking their vision, nor did most of the spectators on the west side of Elm. Only those near Zapruder would have their vision blocked by the sign at approximately the same time as Zapruder.

Consider that you are citing the lack of evidence for a wound in JFK's hairline as evidence for the wound in JFK's hairline, telling us how difficult that wound would be to see. I remind you the more likely explanation remains that no one saw that wound because there was no such wound.

Consider that your listing above is pretty much a meaningless jumble of non-evidence, suppositions, and outright errors of fact. Consider that is why we don't find your arguments convincing.

MicahJava said:

On the question of where this earlier hypothetical head bullet ended up, the only logical answer would be that it exited the throat, without invoking alteration or high-tech ammunition. Remember that JFK chest X-ray what shows a cavity filled with air going from the middle neck to the anterior throat area? The one that Lattimer swore represented a bullet track but totally could not be evidence of a single high-velocity round entering the back and exiting the throat?

Axxman300 said:

2. Please explain, using your apparently vast knowledge of firearms, what you mean by high-tech ammunition as it would have existed in 1963.

MicahJava said:

I think it was Francis X. O'Neil or James Sibert that said during the autopsy, the possibility of high-tech ammunition was being investigated before they just settled on the undercharged round hypothesis. Bullets made of wax, ice, plastic, were suggested. I understand that bullets that dissolve into a very fine metallic dust existed.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Essentially, by the introduction of your falsehood, you failed to respond to any of the points raised initially and failed to admit your argument was wrong, sending us down the rabbit hole of your own design to deflect the conversation once more.

And the bottom line, now that you're cornered on this? Why, what's the fuss, it's not at all important.

MicahJava said:

I have not researched high-tech ammunition, or the history thereof because so far I don't think it's very necessary tool to explain the shooting. I just mentioned it for a second.

Click to expand...

If it's not important, why'd you bring it up if not to deflect the conversation?

We're on to you.

When stuck and you have no rebuttal, you apparently make up stuff.

Hank