RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
There's something I don't understand about your made up wound: where did the shot come from?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
There's something I don't understand about your made up wound: where did the shot come from?
Axxman300
Philosopher
Projecting again I see.
Well I've only quoted it a dozen time - word for word, which makes your claim that we're ignoring this FACT a lie. We're not ignoring the entry point, just the opposite - we're agreeing that's the entry point.
No, it's just the only explanation consistent with the evidence both visual and physical.
Yes, that's what happens when a high powered bullet enters at skull, but whatever.
His feet were never examined, thus they were never checked for power burns, and we will never conclusively know if JFK did not, in fact, off himself.
Is English your first language?
From what I can gather from you're poorly worded assertion you believe that there should be fragments in the occipital area - the point of entry - even though the pure force of the bullet, and the energy released upon impact would have blown fragments into the front of the brain, and out of the head...which actually happened.
But the 6.5x52mm round entered nose first.
The round that passed through Kennedy's neck entered Connally sideways.
That's why they did the autopsy.
That's why they did the autopsy, and recorded everything - so they wouldn't have to rely on memory.
Nobody's saying that now. No smart people at least, since there's just the one picture, and with no frame of reference using the rest of the picture you'd be pretty dumb to draw a conclusion.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Where does that claim come from? There are no different views, only slightly different copies of the same few views of the body.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Because the autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking photographs that are not a part of the official collection.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Offered without proof. They were all there as late as 1998.
Since you're young you probably are unaware that in 1963 pictures were first exposed onto what old people call "Film", and that film was then "Developed" in a "Dark Room" where the film was exposed onto specially treated paper, soaked in chemicals, and developed into "Prints". The original film contained the images in a negative exposure status, and these are called "Negatives".
The cool things about negatives is that you can take them back into a dark room and make as many prints as you can afford. Today you can do this with a digital scanner.
My point?
The photographs were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy Family in 1966...the photographs only...the negatives are in a safe in Massachusetts protected by people you don't want to mess with.
The fact is that none of the pictures are missing because stealing them would be pointless since the negatives are out of reach. The story about missing photographs is just another CT lie. CTists NEED these pictures to be stolen because it adds to the mythology of the assassination, and their continued existence undermines their pet conspiracy theories.
Photos you've never seen, yet are listed in the last inventory, which you'd know if you did any real research.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Oh from memory, after the fact?
And what did they all say when they went to the National Archives? That's right, the pictures were all there. So when did they go missing?
Axxman300
Philosopher
From every caption of that photograph since it first surfaced in the 90's. Plus it's obvious from looking.
And you know this how? You've never seen all of the photographs. The inventory gave descriptions of what each series covered. Half of the over 40 covered the head inside and out.
Checkmate.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
You are making things up. We know what's in the official collection. Plenty of people have been given access to the full official collection.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
They did not say they were all there. The doctors and John Stringer described taking several photographs which are not in the official collection. John Stringer even clarified to the ARRB that they were more or less pressured to sign a document from the Clark panel stating that the official collection was complete.
Axxman300
Philosopher
...and nothing's missing.
Axxman300
Philosopher
They're all there. More to the point, any missing photographs can be replaced. But they're all there. All one needs to do is check the negatives, which all have their own numbers. If an exposure is missing it would be easy to find out which one.
This event didn't happen in a vacuum, every step was recorded by multiple people. Missing evidence would be noticed and listed.
You have yet to tell us how and why these photographs went missing, and who took them. If you cannot tell us then there is nothing to discuss here.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Can you reconcile these two statements issued back-to-back?
I can't. You seem to be saying in the second post that there are different views we haven't seen that are either lost or not released to the public, but the first post discounts that possibility, saying the views we haven't seen are only slightly different than the ones we have seen.
Hank
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Again, you are stating what is, or is not, in a collection you have no access to. How? How did you verify what was there? How do you know they are not misremembering?
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
You have no objection to it when yo cite such things as evidence, so what's your point?
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
MicahJava, beyond your endless fixation on the location of the EOP wound, you haven't shown anything else.
You said there was 'more than enough' evidence to show a conspiracy.
Why not post the rest of the evidence?
Could you also post the forensic evidence you claim proves there were multiple shooters?
Thanks.
You said there was 'more than enough' evidence to show a conspiracy.
Why not post the rest of the evidence?
Could you also post the forensic evidence you claim proves there were multiple shooters?
Thanks.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I don't think he claims there is any.
His argument as presented so far seems to boil down to:
"If the bullet went in the back of the head as low as I think, it must have exited low, so that big old exit wound was another shooter."
HSienzant
Philosopher
He most definitely does think there is forensic evidence of multiple shooters.
He asserted that here:
Hank
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Yes, but offering him the benefit of the doubt... I think he believes he has shown us that evidence. I don’t think he has anything beyond the EOP thing.
I don’t mind being proven wrong. And I could have been clearer in my post.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Micah Java,
Still waiting for you to tell us what Mark Lane got right in Rush to Judgment.
Still waiting for you to tell us why a dented shell after ejection means Oswald couldn't commit the assassination.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the conspirators thought shooting JFK from the front and altering the wounds would work.
Still waiting for you to tell us what medical evidence indicates more than three shots.
Still waiting for you to cite the forensic evidence of multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.
These are assertions you have made in the past and have yet to defend.
Hank
Still waiting for you to tell us what Mark Lane got right in Rush to Judgment.
Still waiting for you to tell us why a dented shell after ejection means Oswald couldn't commit the assassination.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the conspirators thought shooting JFK from the front and altering the wounds would work.
Still waiting for you to tell us what medical evidence indicates more than three shots.
Still waiting for you to cite the forensic evidence of multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.
These are assertions you have made in the past and have yet to defend.
Hank
bknight
Master Poster
He can't post/cite the evidence of any of these questions because that evidence resides in his mind or CT mind set. You and Axxman300 have cite more than enough evidence to show MJ has nothing but beliefs.
HSienzant
Philosopher
A reminder every now and then to the lurkers about who can cite the evidence to prove their points and who is blowing smoke doesn't hurt.
MicahJava makes a LOT of assertions. But never backs them up.
Hank
Axxman300
Philosopher
The really sad thing is MJ has not dived into the recent document release by the National Archives at all. A real truth seeker would be living on that site for the next three weeks downloading files, and sorting them to construct a narrative - even if it was for a CT narrative.
I know MJ hasn't because I found a memo that - while it doesn't prove his theory - he could certainly find a new horse to beat to death with it. I wasn't even looking for it, I was just systematically opening the FBI files from 1968.
And no, I'm not going to discuss the contents because this would mean I'd have to find it again to post the supporting link, and in the end the story itself is obvious hearsay. But it's waiting out there in cyberspace just waiting for MJ to find it...which he won't because that involves work.
HSienzant
Philosopher
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
I like how you see evidence as something that I use as a weapon, rather than something that concerns everybody because there can be only one truth.
bknight
Master Poster
FTFY.
Yes there is only one truth, you just can't take the evidence and match the findings by the autopsy, Warren Commission, HSCA et. al.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Do you really want to go there?
Let's hear your one truth.
It only happened one way.
Here's the way I put it together:
The evidence indicates that one Lee Harvey Oswald brought his rifle(1) to the Depository within a paper bag(2). Ballistic and witness evidence indicates his rifle fired three shots during the assassination(3). Further ballistic evidence indicates his rifle fired the bullets that wounded the two men(4). All three of these pieces of evidence - along with the three shells - were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. No other weapon was found in Dealey Plaza, no other shooter was seen in Dealey Plaza other than the one in the sniper's nest, and no shells, bullets, or bullet fragments were found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting other than those ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons. The autopsy determined - and all subsequent forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy material agreed - that JFK was struck twice - and only twice - both shots entering the posterior of the body in the upper back and head, and exiting the anterior of the body in the throat and top-right side of the head, respectively.
That's what the evidence indicates. One shooter - Oswald - with Oswald's weapon, from Oswald's place of work. Two bullets struck JFK with an entry and exit for each.
Now, let's hear your evidence for this one truth.
No hemming and hawing or changing the subject.
If it only happened one way and there's only one truth, and if the above is not it, how did it happen?
Point to the medical evidence of more than three shots.
Point to the forensic evidence of multiple shooters.
Tell us where they were located. Provide the evidence for that. Tell us what they struck - if anything - and why all of the evidence large enough to examine points only to Oswald's weapon.
Name names. Tell us why all the autopsists and forensic pathologists said just two bullets struck JFK.
Tell us your one truth.
Your problem is you don't have a coherent alterative story. All you have is your opinion which more often than not disagrees with what the experts determined everywhere in this case.
And still you can't come up with a coherent story and spell out your one truth. Because you don't have any truth, just a series of quibbles and alternative opinions, with nothing supporting them but your own opinion.
Your 'weapon', upon examination, strongly resembles a wet noodle that you are attempting to lash us with.
Hilarious!
Hank
_____________________
(1) A rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was found in the Depository after the assassination; that weapon was shipped from Kleins to Oswald's PO Box; Oswald was photographed with the weapon; his prints are on it.
(2) He was seen by two witnesses with a long paper sack that morning and a long paper bag with his prints on it was found in the Sniper's Nest.
(3) Three shells were found at the window traceable to his rifle and about 90% of the witnesses heard three shots.
(4) A nearly whole bullet was found at Parkland and two large fragments were found within the limo.
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
MJ, do you know what 7.62 x 52 mm means? What would be the minimum entry hole size?
Oh I forgot you've never fired a weapon before.
Oh I forgot you've never fired a weapon before.
bknight
Master Poster
HSienzant
Philosopher
Tell it like it is.
He's hoping to wear us down with nonsense until we all give up and leave in disgust. Then he'd have this platform to himself.
That won't happen.
(I get paid too much to allow it to happen).
Hank
bknight
Master Poster
He's hoping to wear us down with nonsense until we all give up and leave in disgust. Then he'd have this platform to himself.
That won't happen.
(I get paid too much to allow it to happen).
Hank
I only get a check from NASA.
Different drawer from the slush fund.
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
[MJ]...but, but...EOP vs cowlick theory![/MJ]
Seems like by now even MJ would understand how that one note he's whistling (and in the wrong key to boot) is completely overwhelmed by the symphony that sings Oswald's guilt. But understanding consilience is just not something CTists are equipped to handle, I guess.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Actually there really is only one truth and you are doing your very best to avoid it at all costs.
You must be so proud.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Axxman300
Philosopher
Evidence is worthless without context.
You have chosen an argument where corroboratory evidence is unavailable (autopsy photos) because you think it allows you room to argue conspiracy without explaining how it was pulled off. A lot of Ctists use this strategy, and it always rings hollow. Your EOP issue is exactly the same tactic as the Roswell Crash folks who draw upon after-the-fact testimony to make their case, and like your EOP there are photographs that have been used to assert something fishy was going on.
Like Roswell fanatics you have come late to the JFK CT show and waste time foisting CTs that have been put to bed decades ago.
Truth is a philosophical concept, fact is a scientific one. You have stated you came into this looking for a conspiracy, and not with an objective mind. I was a CT-Loon for over 25 years, and it's easy to find conspiracies everywhere when you have the mindset that conspiracies are everywhere.
The fact is JFK was struck by two of the three bullets fired by Oswald from the 6th floor of the TSBD. All of the known facts point to his guilt. None of the facts point to a conspiracy. And nobody can say that the FBI and CIA didn't look for a conspiracy, the record are testament to how hard they looked for one.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Well there is a string of nonsense
For starters everyone but you cares about actual evidence.
For seconcders, Faux evidence as evidence will not fly, even on planet Zog.
For thirders, Why exactly is it that you consider you crank claims to be a blunt instrument of violence?
For fourthers, sure there can only be one truth. But you have utterly failed to grasp it.
You have my sympathy. It is not often that one happens upon such a level of crankery.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
MicahJava, why did you dishonestly post this:
If you weren't going to answer this:
Why are you still dishonestly running away?
If you weren't going to answer this:
Why are you still dishonestly running away?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Notice how my rants include actual evidence that can not be ignored in a crime case, while everybody else is just whining and chanting old mantras like a weakened fictional antagonist?
Serious question: If it were ever proven that the official photographs and x-rays are incompatible with the existence of a small bullet hole resembling an entry wound near the external occipital protuberance, why should any rational person then not then logically conclude that they are faked?
The official autopsy report, partially based on notes made at the autopsy, says "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance". A face sheet diagram, marked at the actual autopsy and stained in the President's blood, indicates a small wound roughly in the occipital area.
A serious load of autopsy participants have described a small wound at this location. Dr.'s Humes, Boswell, and Finck all throughly examined the body and detailed this. Then you have John Stringer, the photographer who was probably the fourth closest to the body. These golden four have all disagreed with the "four inches above the EOP" theory, denied the red spot on the back-of-head photographs was the wound they reported, and continued until their deaths insisting that this wound was near the EOP, near the base of the head, not on the top of the head. Then you have the small cast; Francis X. O'Neil examined the body himself and made statements and a drawings indicating a wound on the base of the head, in the "lower head" area. Then you have Charles Boyers, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey (Lipsey even called it a "upper neck" wound, but proceeded to clarify that he meant in the lower head area and marked face sheet diagram indicating a small wound near the EOP). I guess you could include the mortician Tom Robinson, who handled the body and told the HSCA he remembered seeing the doctors probing the base of the head (note that when reading his testimony or looking at his drawings of the large head wound, that the cranium had to have already been enlarged by the time he arrived at the autopsy). There are literally no humans present at the autopsy who were ever interviewed and agreed with any theory that the photographs or X-rays supported the theory that there was any entry wound high on the top of the head, and not low near the base of the head/EOP. There are virtually none alive by now to change their minds. That's history.
This is a hypothetical, of course. I think the official evidence could fit very well with a missile entrance near the EOP; nothing has to be faked. There are many serious indications that the panels of experts hired to re-evaluate the official JFK medical-legal evidence (totaling only about a dozen individual human forensic pathologists, and the occasional radiologist known to be experienced in X-rays) were ridden with a pressure to make the official evidence confirm the basic autopsy and official conclusion that the head wounds were caused by one bullet, entering from "above and behind". The Clark Panel and HSCA's cowlick entry was truly a unique pet theory in the hsitory of forensic evidence. Then you have about a dozen more forensic pathologists and some radiologists who have independently examined the official X-rays and either couldn't identify any particular entry wound or specifically denied the cowlick entry theory (for example, radiologist John Ebersole from the actual JFK autopsy was shown the official X-rays first by the Clark Panel and then the HSCA, where he was interviewed and did not agree with their "entry wound on the top of the head" theory).
Serious question: If it were ever proven that the official photographs and x-rays are incompatible with the existence of a small bullet hole resembling an entry wound near the external occipital protuberance, why should any rational person then not then logically conclude that they are faked?
The official autopsy report, partially based on notes made at the autopsy, says "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance". A face sheet diagram, marked at the actual autopsy and stained in the President's blood, indicates a small wound roughly in the occipital area.
A serious load of autopsy participants have described a small wound at this location. Dr.'s Humes, Boswell, and Finck all throughly examined the body and detailed this. Then you have John Stringer, the photographer who was probably the fourth closest to the body. These golden four have all disagreed with the "four inches above the EOP" theory, denied the red spot on the back-of-head photographs was the wound they reported, and continued until their deaths insisting that this wound was near the EOP, near the base of the head, not on the top of the head. Then you have the small cast; Francis X. O'Neil examined the body himself and made statements and a drawings indicating a wound on the base of the head, in the "lower head" area. Then you have Charles Boyers, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey (Lipsey even called it a "upper neck" wound, but proceeded to clarify that he meant in the lower head area and marked face sheet diagram indicating a small wound near the EOP). I guess you could include the mortician Tom Robinson, who handled the body and told the HSCA he remembered seeing the doctors probing the base of the head (note that when reading his testimony or looking at his drawings of the large head wound, that the cranium had to have already been enlarged by the time he arrived at the autopsy). There are literally no humans present at the autopsy who were ever interviewed and agreed with any theory that the photographs or X-rays supported the theory that there was any entry wound high on the top of the head, and not low near the base of the head/EOP. There are virtually none alive by now to change their minds. That's history.
This is a hypothetical, of course. I think the official evidence could fit very well with a missile entrance near the EOP; nothing has to be faked. There are many serious indications that the panels of experts hired to re-evaluate the official JFK medical-legal evidence (totaling only about a dozen individual human forensic pathologists, and the occasional radiologist known to be experienced in X-rays) were ridden with a pressure to make the official evidence confirm the basic autopsy and official conclusion that the head wounds were caused by one bullet, entering from "above and behind". The Clark Panel and HSCA's cowlick entry was truly a unique pet theory in the hsitory of forensic evidence. Then you have about a dozen more forensic pathologists and some radiologists who have independently examined the official X-rays and either couldn't identify any particular entry wound or specifically denied the cowlick entry theory (for example, radiologist John Ebersole from the actual JFK autopsy was shown the official X-rays first by the Clark Panel and then the HSCA, where he was interviewed and did not agree with their "entry wound on the top of the head" theory).
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,031
Seems pretty obvious that a small semicircular wound of entry in the back of the head would come from behind.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Still dishonestly refusing to answer questions?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Wasn't Oswald shooting from behind?
- Status