Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
bknight said:
A post that has a lot of IFs that are all about wild speculation without the least bit of evidence.

Frame z190 has been shown to have no movement consistent with a gunshot, fail again. The first frame that indicates reaction to weapons is 223, JFK has been shot and JBC reacting to being shot between z223-224.

No evidence of a "silenced" shot only speculation and a vast majority of people heard three shots, indicated by the three shell casings in the TSB. Most of the credible witnesses heard the shots from the right of the vehicle, JBC reacted to the right, SS reacted to the back right. They all knew approximately where the shots came from.

You haven't answered any of Hank's question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12059989&postcount=2426
Click to expand...

Copied from a previous long comment of mine:

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by physicist Don Olson and criminalist Ralph Turner:

"The Warren Commission believed that frames 225-230 represented the President's reactions to a shot fired somewhere in the interval of Zapruder frames 210-224, while the President was behind the road sign. However, certain observations in the Zapruder film will be noted here to indicate that the first wounding of the President may not have been blocked from the record by the road sign. The transition in the President's appearance between frames 183 and 230 (described above) in fact seems to begin with certain reactions in the intervals of frames 194-206.

First, a general trend in the frames 194-206 may be noted. Beginning as early as frame 194, the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window ledge."

...

"Study of the frames reveals further information. Recalling the descriptions above, it is clear that between frames 183 and 230, two specific changes occurred in the President's position. First, the President turned his head and shoulders back from the crowd until he was facing forward. Also, the President's right arm moved from a position with the elbow below a chrome strip on the outside of the car, into a position with the arm and elbow well inside the car and raised almost to chin level. These frames and motions have been described in such great detail because both of these specific changes in Kennedy can be observed to occur in the "early Zapruder frames," i.e., those before the President disappears from view behind the road sign. In this context, It happens that frame 204 is very important.

On the interval the President's body is seen to narrow somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the Left front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward.

As the President moves and rotates to the left, his right arm is pulled back into the car. While his elbow has been resting outside the car, it comes up noticeably at frame 195. The President's elbow can be seen to cross the chrome strip on the side of the car at frames As President Kennedy disappears from view behind the sign, his right arm seems to he in a particularly unusual position the clearly visible gray of his suit coat indicating that his right arm and elbow have been raised at least to the level of his chin."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf



From the 9/12/1978 testimony of Calvin McCamy, spokesman for the HSCA photographic evidence panel:

"...There is considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81#relPageId=148&tab=page


From the HSCA photographic evidence panel's final report:

64. (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.

...

70. At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=22&tab=page


HSCA photographic expert Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s

Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.
 
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...

When you go on these rants, you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters. For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering (perhaps from firing an undercharged round or using a sabot), allegedly those and the one live round were found by police originally in that condition with those markings.

Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).
 
MicahJava said:
Tomtomkent, the autopsy face sheet diagram is translated as meaning a lower head wound. A human EOP is roughly level with the top of your ears, depending on how your head is tilted.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/AzVKdD8.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

How does that document describe itself?
Show me where it says "face sheet".
It doesn't. Because it's a descriptive sheet. It even says "Descriptive Sheet" on it.

It is not "translated" to mean anything than a rough, unscaled, diagram, and a few notes.

Please stop trying to make it anything more. It does not strengthen your argument, it only highlights gaps in your understanding.
 
MicahJava said:
TomTomKent, can you make a case for the cowlick entry wound theory?
Click to expand...

No.
This conversation has been going for five incarnations of the thread, since before you joined in. Let's do it properly:

I'm not going to make a "case" for the wound, as described in the autopsy, the photographs, the x-rays, and the WC testimony, and confirmed by the WC findings. That case has been made. It is currently the Null Hypothesis. Unless you can provide alternate evidence, (and so far you have failed to do so, regardless of if you believe any of your posts contained actual evidence or not) it will remain the Null Hypothesis.

I am not running in circles, repeating the same "case" over and again so you can pretend there is a fringe reset. I am happy with what has been established as fact, over hundreds of pages of discussion.

If YOU want to convince OTHERS of an alternative then feel free to change your posting tactics and offer us a fully formed, well described, hypothesis that best fits the totality of evidence.
 
HSienzant said:
It doesn't indicate that. No many how many times you repeat that falsehood, it doesn't become more true with repetition.
Click to expand...

Read these two links carefully. You may want to think twice:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931229&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931291&postcount=962

Since you haven't seen these supposed missing photographs, how can you claim they would clear up anything? For that matter, you're simply begging the question, assuming there are mysteries, and then claiming photos you've never seen would clear them up.

That's a nonsensical argument.
Click to expand...

What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today. And have you ever wondered why there are no photographs which clearly show the original head wound detailing the damage to the brain? Plus, Saundra Pencer's testimonies have already confirmed that there once existed post-mortem photographs of Kennedy's body once it had been partially reconstructed by the autopsy doctors.

Then you have other stories, an x-ray of a probe going from the back to the throat, a photograph of probes going into the wounds on the body. Who knows.

Uhh, allow me to take a wild guess, the same explanation Dr. Lattimer and every forensic pathologist thought it showed? The bullet path from the upper back that exited JFK's throat?

Instead of asking nonsensical / meaningless questions, why not try answering the ones you've been asked, repeatedly, and avoid studiously?
Click to expand...

You should know that Lattimer located the back wound way too high. The photographs and clothing evidence show that the back wound was slightly lower anatomically than the throat wound.

Once reported? Did anyone else report it? Did Wecht ever mention it again? If it's a 'possible' bullet fragment, doesn't that mean it's also possible it's NOT a bullet fragment? You will ignore this question.
Click to expand...

Wecht wrote it off as a minute fragment from a missile that entered the back and exited the throat. You should know that any fragment there couldn't be from that. This fragment needs more investigation.

You are begging the question by inserting as a fact ("the EOP wound") the very point you need to establish is true.
Click to expand...

For some people, all the evidence in the world isn't enough.

You've really got this begging the question logical fallacy down pat, don't you? Why not mix it up a bit and try some other logical fallacies? [/quote]

Gary Cornwell of the HSCA that admitted 20 years later in his own book Real Answers that he coerced Humes and that he thought Humes was a lying prick trying to cover his ass for being wrong in the autopsy report.

That's not true.
Click to expand...

Please state your case based on any sampling of witness evidence for a loud gunshot before Zapruder frame 190.

That's true, but entirely misleading. He defined the entire assassination shooting sequence as happening in a brief span of time, but estimated that brief span of time as 10 to 12 seconds!
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds.

That's five to six seconds between shots. Your argument is contrary to most other CTs, like Robert Harris, who claimed the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second (consult the earlier portions of this thread chain). You are arguing above for the first and second shots being bunched together.

But earlier this year you argued the last two - not the first two - were bunched together here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11757954&postcount=2434
"I really think the best option is to have the first shot at z190-224, and the last two shots bunched together."

So you are caught once again flip-flopping around like a fish on a boat deck. So which shots were closer together? The first and second or the second and third? Or are they all bunched?

I'm tempted to quote what Glenn said to Rick over the radio the first time they spoke in the Walking Dead television series. The bullet travels faster than sound, so the sound would have arrived at Connally after a bullet had just transected his trunk, sliced through his wrist, and struck his thigh. I think he had more important things to worry about than listening for the sound of the gunshot at that point. As Connally himself explained:
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.

And even though Connally didn't hear it, numerous other people did. For instance, Nellie Connally, who WASN'T struck by a bullet, testified that she heard the shot that struck her husband.
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."





Well, let's ask the witnesses, shall we? Here's one:
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
Mr. BALL - Had you heard sounds originating near the triple underpass before?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; quite often. Because trucks backfire and various occurrences.

Bowers was there. You were not.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing witnesses describing large head shot. The witness evidence indicates that the last two out of three loud gunshots were closely bunched together, to the point that many apparently mistook the last two shots as only one shot.
 
MicahJava said:
When you go on these rants, you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

Then supply some. Better yet, offer a fully formed, fully evidenced theory.

MicahJava said:
For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering (perhaps from firing an undercharged round or using a sabot),
No. They don't. You have supplied none.

MicahJava said:
allegedly those and the one live round were found by police originally in that condition with those markings.
Click to expand...

And the allegations remain meaningless unless you produce verifiable evidence this is so. I thought you were talking about what could be theorised, and now you are offering allegations? Theories have to best suit the totality of evidence. If you have to say "allegedly" it isn't a theory, and you are not theorising.

MicahJava said:
Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).
Click to expand...

As we only have EVIDENCE of two rounds hitting people, and only thin evidence of what happened to the third, then you have just talked your way out of this evidence to conclude multiple shooters.

But, by all means. Show us another shooter, in their location, with a viable weapon, and the evidence they left...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Tomtomkent said:
No.
This conversation has been going for five incarnations of the thread, since before you joined in. Let's do it properly:

I'm not going to make a "case" for the wound, as described in the autopsy, the photographs, the x-rays, and the WC testimony, and confirmed by the WC findings. That case has been made. It is currently the Null Hypothesis. Unless you can provide alternate evidence, (and so far you have failed to do so, regardless of if you believe any of your posts contained actual evidence or not) it will remain the Null Hypothesis.

I am not running in circles, repeating the same "case" over and again so you can pretend there is a fringe reset. I am happy with what has been established as fact, over hundreds of pages of discussion.

If YOU want to convince OTHERS of an alternative then feel free to change your posting tactics and offer us a fully formed, well described, hypothesis that best fits the totality of evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's fair. You're taking the words of historical figures and pretending they're saying something that they're clearly not. I think you're pretending you actually think that. An honest person would acknowledge that they are disagreeing with the statements of the autopsy participants.
 
MicahJava said:
What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today.
Click to expand...

How did you gain access to the photographs?
What documentary evidence do you have for the contents of the photographs?
Or, more likely, why do you keep claiming to state with a measure of authority what is, or is not, in a collection you do not have access to?

MicahJava said:
And have you ever wondered why there are no photographs which clearly show the original head wound detailing the damage to the brain?
Click to expand...

No. Because nobody else claims to know what is, or is not, in the photographs they have not seen. Or that the wounds visible in the photographs we DO have might not be "the original wounds". We use only the evidence we actually have, and compare it to what the autopsy actually said...

MicahJava said:
Plus, Saundra Pencer's testimonies have already confirmed that there once existed post-mortem photographs of Kennedy's body once it had been partially reconstructed by the autopsy doctors.
Click to expand...

Yes. Why would you find this suspect?

MicahJava said:
Then you have other stories, an x-ray of a probe going from the back to the throat, a photograph of probes going into the wounds on the body. Who knows.
Click to expand...

And why do you think stories have to be validated by other evidence? People can misremember, honest people make mistakes, some people even *gasp* like to tell tall stories to CTists. Even assuming everybody is honest and well intentioned, you are doing this backwards:

You should be looking for what can be validated by objective evidence, and not pretending that stories throw doubt on it.


MicahJava said:
You should know that Lattimer located the back wound way too high. The photographs and clothing evidence show that the back wound was slightly lower anatomically than the throat wound.
Click to expand...

Even if this was correct, and factored in JFK's body position, etc:
So what. You want us to believe a bullet can deflect sharply down, from the skull to the throat, but not slightly upwards, due to the impact force of the materials encountered in a body?

And, actually, YOU should check YOUR statement, and not rely on flawed CT sources.

MicahJava said:
Wecht wrote it off as a minute fragment from a missile that entered the back and exited the throat. You should know that any fragment there couldn't be from that. This fragment needs more investigation.
Click to expand...

Once again you are claiming to know better than your own sources?
Your evidence is Wecht identified a possibility, that he himself decided against?


Maybe you should try offering a full and comprehensive theory, that fits all known evidence, and support it with something other than your own assertions?
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think that's fair. You're taking the words of historical figures and pretending they're saying something that they're clearly not. I think you're pretending you actually think that. An honest person would acknowledge that they are disagreeing with the statements of the autopsy participants.
Click to expand...

No.
I am taking the documentary evidence, their testimony, their conclusions, analysis, and supporting objective evidence, and accepting the most likely outcome is that which has been given.

I'm taking the time to check your claims about what "they meant", and finding your assertions are failing, or simply counter to the given conclusions by the same witnesses, when placed in context.

Take for example your discussion of Wecht. You have made such a fuss about something he stated as a possibility, but ignore his given conclusions, because they do not match what you want to believe.

That sort of cherry picking shows no respect to actual people, who made it quite clear what they believed, what their doubts were, and why they reached their actual conclusions.

You are claiming an autopsy is suspicious, or containing lies, or mistakes, but offering no actual evidence, because you are trying to harvest only the facts you think you can twist to something different.

Perhaps, before you complain about what historical figures may, or may not, have been trying to say, you should read their testimony in full, in context, and the supporting documents, objectively, rather than searching for a few breadcrumbs you hope might make a conspiracy.
 
MicahJava said:
If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, .
Click to expand...

There is no possibility without proof. There is no proof.

then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility: The small head wound had inward beveling, the large head wound had outward, so they had a place for the EOP shot to go.
Click to expand...

There was no outward beveling. The round shattered the skull from the inside. Again, have you read the autopsy?


Let's pretend for a moment that the doctors didn't know full well that Kennedy's throat wound was originally a bullet hole on the night of the autopsy;
Click to expand...

No.

they didn't have any place for a back entrance wound to go besides speculating that a bullet barely penetrated the back and naturally squeezed it's way out.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I can't pretend doctors are that stupid....naturally squeezed its way out...

When they discovered the throat wound, allegedly without having investigated it at all as the possibility of a bullet wound, they had a place for the back shot to exit.
Click to expand...

Problem here is that it WAS and exit wound, the fiber evidence proved this.

Two gunshots, perfectly clean with the three-shot scinareo
Click to expand...

Scenario.

Also no, at the time of the autopsy the thinking was the 3rd bullet struck Connally. So there was no SCENARIO to fit.
 
MicahJava said:
*snipped a huge amount of pointless cut & paste* Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.
Click to expand...

Not one thing you just spammed us with indicates an early GSW to the head. Not one single line. We KNOW what JFK was reacting to as the car came back into view from behind the sign - THE BACK WOUND - Connally is reacting too.

You are so bad at this.
 
MicahJava said:
So you're saying that you think the official autopsy report is incorrect? And the statements from the autopsy participants who unquestionably verified the specific detail of the EOP wound location are not providing evidence are not evidence?
Click to expand...

The recollections from a third of a century after the assassination are not evidence, no. But that's what you cite in many cases.


MicahJava said:
Your idea of evidence is the questionable interpretations of twelve or so purported "experts"?
Click to expand...

No. Let's discard your begging the question entirely. My idea of evidence is the expert opinion of twelve forensic pathologists who were specifically selected for the panel because of their expertise and reputation. Including one you reference quite frequently, Cyril Wecht. And another who you complained six months or so ago should have performed the autopsy in Dallas (Dr. Earl Rose), until you found out he was on the HSCA panel. Then you dropped that complaint like a hot potato.


MicahJava said:
How many of your cowlick entry experts have researched the complexities of the same X-ray and photography equipment used at the autopsy?
Click to expand...

Who's whining now?

What complexities? All know how to read a radiograph and orient photos of the head. How many autopsies have you conducted, participated in, or even witnessed? Is it a nice round number like "O"? Well, these twelve men conducted, collectively, the nice round number of over 100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#HSCA_analysis_.281979.29

You have no basis for complaint. You don't know what you're talking about. You're not an expert.


MicahJava said:
How many of your cowlick entry experts supported the ridiculous idea that the open-cranium photographs depict an entry and exit on the margins of a skull cavity only 5 inches wide after the brain had already been removed?
Click to expand...

Asked and answered at least half a dozen times. Your complaint doesn't become more real because you refuse to accept the answer and simply repeat the question.


MicahJava said:
How many of them do we know were actually trained whatsoever in x-ray interpretation for gunshot wounds?
Click to expand...

Hilarious! What part of "forensic pathology" do you not understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_pathology#United_States
"In the United States, all told, the education after high school is typically 13–15 years in duration (4 years undergraduate training + 4 years medical school + 4–5 years residency [anatomic and clinical pathology combined] + 1-2 year forensic pathology fellowship)."

I think at some point they learned how to read radiographs.

Heck my daughter knows how to read radiographs, and she's "only" a DMD.


MicahJava said:
Do you have any photographic study that provides evidence that the "red spot" on the back-of-head photographs is indeed 4-5 inches above the EOP and not only ~2 inches above the EOP?
Click to expand...

Do you have any photographic study that it's not? It's the expert opinion of those twelve men on the HSCA forensic pathology panel that's where the wound is, it is not?

It's on you to show all twelve men are wrong. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Nothing you've posted to date calls any of their opinions into question.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Like the presence of the military at the autopsy, Burkley's influence may have been downplayed in subsequent Dr.'s testimonies for political purposes.
Click to expand...

Or not. Remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchens)


MicahJava said:
Either way, Burkley witnessed the autopsy very closely.
Click to expand...

You didn't cite Burkley. You referenced a line from Manchester's book and merely conjectured Burkley was the source. That's not evidence of anything Burkley said.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
When you go on these rants, you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize...
Click to expand...

It is also not uncommon for a CTist to ignore the list of question asked in the previous post by blowing smoke.

that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

No, not in 54 years has there been any evidence of other gunmen.

For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering
Click to expand...

We've covered this and it is an unqualified lie.

Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).
Click to expand...

Is this based on your 12 years with A Squadron? Or your years as a gunsmith and competition shooter?
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Lattimer actually [provided? - Hank] evidence for conspiracy, including:

A. Concluding that the dense particles in the lower neck area on the JFK X-rays are bullet fragments.
Click to expand...

How is that evidence of conspiracy? It's evidence of a bullet passage.


MicahJava said:
B. Concluding that the dark cavity of air in the lower neck area is consistent with a bullet track.
Click to expand...

How is that evidence of conspiracy? It's evidence of a bullet passage.

MicahJava said:
The Clark Panel concluded the same couple of doozies.
Click to expand...

How is that evidence of conspiracy? It's evidence of a bullet passage.


MicahJava said:
I still believe that Lattimer was incompetent to analyze the complexities of the JFK skull X-rays.
Click to expand...

He was a surgeon operating on soldiers during war time. He certainly saw more than his fair share of wounded men. What's YOUR background in this area?



MicahJava said:
After all, he claimed that the X-ray's black void spot on the right forehead mean that area was blasted out, while really it can only mean that a pocket of air between the tissues occurred there.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Again, let's contrast your expertise with his, and the HSCA's forensic pathology panel. Lattimer - operated on soldiers wounded in battle in Europe during WWII. HSCA forensic pathology panel - over 100,000 autopsies. MichahJava - ZERO medical expertise.

Sorry, No offense but I'm going with Lattimer and the HSCA forensic pathology panel.

Who do you want reading your radiographs? A trained surgeon with war time experience, a group of twelve forensic pathologists with over 100,000 autopsies combined, or just some internet nobody? (no offense).

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things...
Click to expand...

These are the people you are quoting for the EOP entrance, and above you suggest they might be liars. If you don't understand why that destroys any argument you might make from what they said, we cannot help you understand it.

Suggesting they are untrustworthy cuts the very legs out from under your argument.

We can explain it to you, we cannot understand it for you. That you need to do on your own.


MicahJava said:
...then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility: The small head wound had inward beveling, the large head wound had outward, so they had a place for the EOP shot to go. Let's pretend for a moment that the doctors didn't know full well that Kennedy's throat wound was originally a bullet hole on the night of the autopsy; they didn't have any place for a back entrance wound to go besides speculating that a bullet barely penetrated the back and naturally squeezed it's way out. When they discovered the throat wound, allegedly without having investigated it at all as the possibility of a bullet wound, they had a place for the back shot to exit. Two gunshots, perfectly clean with the three-shot scinareo [sic - scenario].
Click to expand...

So here you suggest they were incompetent. But again, that's a problem for YOUR arguments, because you rely on their expertise when you wish to cite them, but dismiss them as incompetent when it serves your purposes.

Sorry, no. We can see the problem with your argument, even if you remain blind to it (or pretend to be blind to it, or are incompetent to see the problem with it).

And you don't have the qualifications, experience, education, or background to make that criticism in any case. Maybe Earl Rose could criticize something Cyril Wecht or James Humes said, but you can't. You're not qualified to judge.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Humes continued being present with the body as it was having the Mortician's reconstruction done through the early morning hours. One of the Gawler's Funeral Home people arrived to the autopsy at 11:30 PM, and he described that soon after that one of the three Dr.'s contacted Parkland Hospital and learned about the original throat wound.
Click to expand...

And how many decades after the fact did "one of the Gawler's Funeral Home people" say that? I thought you said your arguments could be made from 1960s recollections only. Here you are pulling a 33-year after the event recollection out of your hind parts.

Why can't you make your argument from recollections from the 1960s? Because if you don't have faulty recollections to fall back on, you don't have a case.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Where did the EOP bullet go? There are explanations without anything being faked.
Click to expand...

Begging the question once more. You haven't established the existence of this "EOP bullet", and begging it into existence hardly counts as evidence for its existence.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
part 2:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16%3Anewviewsonthesamescene
Click to expand...

So Lattimer's experiment was wrong? Because a conspiracy theorist says Lattimer admitted to it?

You haven't learned anything about how trustworthy conspiracy theorists are.

The answer is "not very". I doubt highly any of that transpired, but it doesn't matter in any case.

A incorrectly designed experiment by Lattimer doesn't mean you are right.

Let's assume Lattimer admitted that the wound was in the EOP. Your own cited conspiracy theorist says Lattimer conceded an entry wound at the EOP and a curved track from entry to exit in the head would account for the wounds as we know them:

On March 24, 2004, Lattimer wrote Canal: “It does seem to me that you and your colleagues have made great progress in investigating these points, and the curved track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable.”

How do you get from there to an EOP bullet exiting the throat?

You can't.

So this is much ado about nothing. It doesn't establish your argument is true. It doesn't overturn the conclusions of Lattimer, the autopsists, and the HSCA forensic pathology panel that the bullet that struck the back of the head exited the skull near the top-right side of the head.

It simply means - at worst - that Lattimer's test didn't test the true entry wound location.

But then it also means the original tests conducted for the Warren Commission, which put the entry wound location near the EOP were more accurate. And what did the expert who conducted those tests conclude?

Here you go:
Mr. SPECTER, Dr. Olivier, in the regular course of your work for the U.S. Army, do you have occasion to perform tests on reconstructed human skulls to determine the effects of bullets on skulls?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I do.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you have occasion to conduct such a test in connection with the series which you are now describing?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes; I did.
Mr. SPECTER. And would you outline briefly the procedures for simulating the human skull?
Dr. OLIVIER. Human skulls, we take these human skulls and they are imbedded and filled with 20 percent gelatin. As I mentioned before, 20 percent gelatin is a pretty good simulant for body tissues.
They are in the moisture content. When I say 20 percent, it is 20 percent weight of the dry gelatin, 80 percent moisture.
The skull, the cranial cavity, is filled with this and the surface is coated with a gelatin and then it is trimmed down to approximate the thickness of the tissues overlying the skull, the soft tissues of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. And at what distance were these tests performed?
Dr. OLIVIER. These tests were performed at a distance of 90 yards.
Mr. SPECTER. And what gun was used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano that was marked Commission Exhibit 139.
Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western ammunition lot 6,000.
Mr. SPECTER. What did that examination or test, rather, disclose?
Dr. OLIVIER. It disclosed that the type of head wounds that the President received could be done by this type of bullet. This surprised me very much, because this type of a stable bullet I didn't think would cause a massive head wound, I thought it would go through making a small entrance and exit, but the bones of the skull are enough to deform the end of this bullet causing it to expend a lot of energy and blowing out the side of the skull or blowing out fragments of the skull.

So either Lattimer's tests are accurate and showed Oswald's bullets could create that damage to the head or Olivier's tests are accurate and showed Oswald's bullets could create that damage to the head.

You don't get around the problem by saying Lattimer tested the wrong entry wound location.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
...The book is also the source of a Gawler's funeral home employee that told Manchester that the autopsy doctors contacted Parkland hospital and discovered the throat wound at around midnight.

I wouldn't go sourcing William Manchester's book as evidence for the single-assassin theory.
Click to expand...

Gee, conspiracy theorists generally denigrate Manchester's book because he concluded Oswald was the lone assassin. You're telling us he's reliable?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Copied from a previous long comment of mine:

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by physicist Don Olson and criminalist Ralph Turner:

"The Warren Commission believed that frames 225-230 represented the President's reactions to a shot fired somewhere in the interval of Zapruder frames 210-224, while the President was behind the road sign. However, certain observations in the Zapruder film will be noted here to indicate that the first wounding of the President may not have been blocked from the record by the road sign. The transition in the President's appearance between frames 183 and 230 (described above) in fact seems to begin with certain reactions in the intervals of frames 194-206.

First, a general trend in the frames 194-206 may be noted. Beginning as early as frame 194, the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window ledge."

...

"Study of the frames reveals further information. Recalling the descriptions above, it is clear that between frames 183 and 230, two specific changes occurred in the President's position. First, the President turned his head and shoulders back from the crowd until he was facing forward. Also, the President's right arm moved from a position with the elbow below a chrome strip on the outside of the car, into a position with the arm and elbow well inside the car and raised almost to chin level. These frames and motions have been described in such great detail because both of these specific changes in Kennedy can be observed to occur in the "early Zapruder frames," i.e., those before the President disappears from view behind the road sign. In this context, It happens that frame 204 is very important.

On the interval the President's body is seen to narrow somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the Left front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward.

As the President moves and rotates to the left, his right arm is pulled back into the car. While his elbow has been resting outside the car, it comes up noticeably at frame 195. The President's elbow can be seen to cross the chrome strip on the side of the car at frames As President Kennedy disappears from view behind the sign, his right arm seems to he in a particularly unusual position the clearly visible gray of his suit coat indicating that his right arm and elbow have been raised at least to the level of his chin."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf



From the 9/12/1978 testimony of Calvin McCamy, spokesman for the HSCA photographic evidence panel:

"...There is considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81#relPageId=148&tab=page


From the HSCA photographic evidence panel's final report:

64. (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.

...

70. At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=22&tab=page


HSCA photographic expert Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s

Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.
Click to expand...

None of the above is evidence of a bullet strike. It's evidence of a bullet shot sometime before frame Z210.

It seems like a lot of quoting to establish a point most 'lone-nutters' already concede. Most LNs (and some CTs) put the first shot around Z160.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today.
Click to expand...

Let's, in 1967, Humes, Boswell, and Finck went to the National Archives to review the recently deposited photos, and this is their report:

THE HEAD WOUND

Entry

The autopsy report states that a lacerated entry wound measuring 15 by 6
mm. (0.59 by 0.24 inches) is situated in the posterior scalp approximately
2.5 cm. (1 inch) laterally to the right and slightly above the external
occipital protruberance (a bony protruberance at the back of the head).
In non-technical language this indicates that a small wound was found in
the back of the head on the right side. Photographs Nos. 15, 16, 42 and
43 show the location and size of the wound, and establish that the above
autopsy data were accurate. Due to the fractures of the underlying bone
and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound
to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher
than its actually measured site.
Click to expand...
Their conclusion:

SUMMARY

The photographs and x-rays corroborate our visual observations during the
autopsy and conclusively support our medical opinion as set forth in the
summary of our autopsy report.

It was then and is now our opinion that the two missiles which struck the
President causing the neck wound and the head wound were fired from a
point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased.

Our examination of the photographs and x-rays lasted approximately five
hours, and at its conclusion the photographs and x-rays were returned to
the Archivist of the United States.
Click to expand...

Source:http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hbf.txt

A year later in 1968, Attorney General Ramsey Clark appointed a panel of forensic pathologists to examine the goodies. This is their inventory:

Black and White and Colored Prints and transparencies

Head viewed from above

#5(9JB), 8(7JB), 13(6JB), 16(10JB), 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37

Head viewed from right and above to include part of face, neck,
shoulder and upper chest

#3(14JB), 4(13JB), 11(6JB), 12(5JB), 26, 27, 28, 40, 41

Head and neck viewed from left side
#6(3JB), 15(4JB), 17(2JB), 18(1JB), 29, 30, 31

Head viewed from behind
#7(16JB), 14(15JB), 42, 43

Cranial cavity with brain removed viewed from above and in front
#1(18JB), 2(17JB), 44, 45

Back of body including neck
#9(11JB), 10(12JB), 38, 39

Brain viewed from above
#50, 51, 52

brain viewed from below
#46, 47, 48, 49

The black and white and color negatives corresponding to the
above were present and there were also seven black and white
negatives of the brain without corresponding prints. These were
numbered 19 through 25(JTB) and appeared to represent the same
views as #46 through 52. All of the above were listed in a
memorandum of transfer, located in the National Archives, and
dated Apr. 26, 1965.

X-ray Films

(The films bore the number 21296 and an inscription
indicating that they have been made at the US Naval Hospital,
Bethesda, MD on 11/22/63.)

Skull, A-P view
#1

Skull, left lateral
#2,3

Skull, fragments of
#4, 5, 6

Thoracolumbar region, A-P view
#7, 11

Chests, A-P view
#9

Right hemithorax, shoulder and upper arm, A-P view
#8

Left hemithorax, shoulder and upper arm, A-P view
#10

Pelvis, A-P view
#13

Lower femurs and knees, A-P view
#12

Upper legs, A-P view
#14
Click to expand...

Source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm

Let me get this straight, the key photographs are put into the archive, are then accounted for visually by the Autopsy Doctors, and are still there a year later...but somehow they've gone missing... Okay...
 
Should point out that I said the negatives are not in the archives and the inventory shows that they are...so yeah, I blew that one.

I'd be shocked if the Kennedys don't have copies.
 
MicahJava said:
When you go on these rants
Click to expand...

Hilarious!

A dispassionate listing of the evidence against Oswald becomes a 'rant' somehow.

You might be showing your bias with your choice of words, you know.


MicahJava said:
...you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask for your conjectures or criticisms. Go back and read it again.

I asked for your "one way" this happened.

Spell it out for us.




MicahJava said:
For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering (perhaps from firing an undercharged round or using a sabot), allegedly those and the one live round were found by police originally in that condition with those markings.
Click to expand...

There's no evidence of tampering of any sort. Your conjectures and criticisms are not evidence. I asked for the way this happened. Are you punting yet again?


MicahJava said:
Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).
Click to expand...

Why didn't it fire all three again? You're not back to arguing a dented shell couldn't be fired from the rifle? We disposed of that silly argument a month or so ago. The shell could have been - and most likely was - dented upon ejection. You even cited a conspiracy theorist who got a dented shell upon ejection after about 60 trials. Don't you remember?

Which way did it happen? You don't know?

Why can't you tell us, and cite the evidence for it, instead of just criticizing the evidence against Oswald by raising bogus issues to distract and prolong the discussion? And you do this repeatedly.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Read these two links carefully. You may want to think twice:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931229&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931291&postcount=962
Click to expand...

Negative on that. You claimed they lied. You don't get out of establishing that here by posting a couple of links to conspirary theorist arguments I'm not going to bother to read.

If you can't be bothered to post the evidence here, I can't be bothered to rebut it.

Otherwise, you might want to read this and rebut it:
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/contents.htm


MicahJava said:
What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today.
Click to expand...

And you know that how? And you know what they show how?

Have you seen the entire collection so you can attest to what they show and what's missing?


MicahJava said:
And have you ever wondered why there are no photographs which clearly show the original head wound detailing the damage to the brain?
Click to expand...

Same questions as above.


MicahJava said:
Plus, Saundra Pencer's testimonies have already confirmed that there once existed post-mortem photographs of Kennedy's body once it had been partially reconstructed by the autopsy doctors.
Click to expand...

Her recollections from 33 years after the fact hardly *confirm* anything. Nobody's recollections would.


MicahJava said:
Then you have other stories, an x-ray of a probe going from the back to the throat, a photograph of probes going into the wounds on the body. Who knows.
Click to expand...

"Stories" is a good name for this stuff. "Stories", as in "fish stories". You should've seen the photographs that got away. ;)


MicahJava said:
You should know that Lattimer located the back wound way too high. The photographs and clothing evidence show that the back wound was slightly lower anatomically than the throat wound.
Click to expand...

How should I know that? How do YOU know that? Enlighten us.

The HSCA determined the wound would be downward and hit Connally after exiting JFK's throat, did they not?

Lattimer determined the same thing, did he not?

The three autopsists determined the path was downward through JFK, did they not?

Didn't the HSCA determine, from the wound locations, that the sniper's nest was within the area from which the shots that struck JFK could have emanated?

You don't get around all this by claiming Lattimer misplaced the wound and claiming I should know this.


MicahJava said:
Wecht wrote it off as a minute fragment from a missile that entered the back and exited the throat. You should know that any fragment there couldn't be from that. This fragment needs more investigation.
Click to expand...

How should I know that? How do YOU know that? Enlighten us.


MicahJava said:
For some people, all the evidence in the world isn't enough.
Click to expand...

MicahJava, meet MichaJava. MicahJava, MicahJava.


MicahJava said:
Gary Cornwell of the HSCA that admitted 20 years later in his own book Real Answers that he coerced Humes and that he thought Humes was a lying prick trying to cover his ass for being wrong in the autopsy report.
Click to expand...

Okay. That's an assertion by you about something Gary Cornwell supposedly said. Let's do this in order.

Quote EXACTLY (and source, including the specific page number) what Cornwell said.

And then, answer this: What's the evidence for this assertion by Cornwell? Got any? What confirms or corroborates it?


MicahJava said:
Please state your case based on any sampling of witness evidence for a loud gunshot before Zapruder frame 190.
Click to expand...

No. You don't get to shift the burden of proof here. You need to establish your claims. I don't need to prove they are not true.


MicahJava said:
I think you're confusing witnesses describing large head shot.
Click to expand...

Not in the least.

This is just your deflection from the points and evidence I cited that rebut your silly arguments.

For example, you argued the shot that hit the governor might have been silenced. I quoted Nelly Connally, seated beside the Governor, saying she heard the shot that hit the Governor. That established your 'silenced' weapon argument was nonsense. I also pointed out the bullet travels faster than sound, so the Governor not hearing the shot that wounded him was perfectly understandable, as his sensory system might have been a bit overloaded by the time the sound of the bullet arrived.

You also argued that the Governor said there was only a brief moment between the first and second shots. I quoted the Governor saying the entire assassination sequence was brief - and he defined brief as ten to twelve seconds.

I also pointed out you were contradicting an earlier assertion of yours where you claimed the last two shots were bunched, but now you're claiming the first two were bunched.

You also brought up that some witnesses thought the shots came from the knoll, but ignored all the rebuttal arguments I presented previously, including the fact that according to your own arguments, these witnesses (the vast majority of which thought ALL the shots came from the knoll) must be wrong, because you don't argue all the shots came from the knoll, but rather, you argue for multiple shooters in multiple locations.

You can pretend not to understand the rebuttal point, or you can ignore it until well after the cows come home and start filling your house with cow patties. But that won't make the rebuttal point go away.

NONE of this has anything to do with a head shot, and if you don't understand why, I am loss to help you understand.

Your dismissal of my points with this sentence ("I think you're confusing witnesses describing large head shot") shows you're not serious about anything except prolonging the conversation, because you presented no rebuttal argument for any of my points whatsoever.


MicahJava said:
The witness evidence indicates that the last two out of three loud gunshots were closely bunched together, to the point that many apparently mistook the last two shots as only one shot.
Click to expand...

Yet you quoted the Governor in all apparent seriousness as saying the first two were bunched to make another point. Why not try to reconcile your own arguments in your own head before you present them here?

And then try to explain how both your arguments can be true. And then admit if they can't, that you were wrong about one and tell us which one you were wrong about.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I don't think that's fair. You're taking the words of historical figures and pretending they're saying something that they're clearly not. I think you're pretending you actually think that. An honest person would acknowledge that they are disagreeing with the statements of the autopsy participants.
Click to expand...

Projection. On a 20 foot by 60 foot screen.

Because that's precisely what you've been doing since you got here.

Hilarious!

I mean, above, you just called the autopsists LIARS.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
...The book is also the source of a Gawler's funeral home employee that told Manchester that the autopsy doctors contacted Parkland hospital and discovered the throat wound at around midnight.

I wouldn't go sourcing William Manchester's book as evidence for the single-assassin theory.
Click to expand...

Yet somehow you are quite happy to cite Manchester as evidence for multiple assassins.

Funny that.
 
HSienzant said:
And how many decades after the fact did "one of the Gawler's Funeral Home people" say that? I thought you said your arguments could be made from 1960s recollections only. Here you are pulling a 33-year after the event recollection out of your hind parts.

Why can't you make your argument from recollections from the 1960s? Because if you don't have faulty recollections to fall back on, you don't have a case.

Hank
Click to expand...

Manchester's book came out in 1967. The quote about the doctors contacting Parkland at midnight came from Joseph Hagan.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Yet somehow you are quite happy to cite Manchester as evidence for multiple assassins.

Funny that.
Click to expand...

Can anybody fail to notice the double standard that people apply to evidence to justify a CT?

When somebody says something that supports the CT? No matter how far it outlays from the larger pattern? That is the TRUTH.

If they later discount the possibility, or draw a different conclusion? It is a LIE, for the cover-up.

The CT offers no reason why they decided one or other statement is a lie, is oblivious to the idea that declaring somebody a liar might undermine their argument, or that they should question which, if either statement is a lie, or a mistake, or an idea that went nowhere under scrutiny...

It is a recurring feature in this long discussion, and it is never convincing to see the imbalance of scrutiny.
 
MicahJava said:
Copied from a previous long comment of mine:

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by physicist Don Olson and criminalist Ralph Turner:

"The Warren Commission believed that frames 225-230 represented the President's reactions to a shot fired somewhere in the interval of Zapruder frames 210-224, while the President was behind the road sign. However, certain observations in the Zapruder film will be noted here to indicate that the first wounding of the President may not have been blocked from the record by the road sign. The transition in the President's appearance between frames 183 and 230 (described above) in fact seems to begin with certain reactions in the intervals of frames 194-206.
Click to expand...



And after watching the video many times reversing and re-playing, I disagree with the HCSA, JFK is wounded in the back during 223-224 while he is behind the sign, JBC is wounded during this interval also. Most of the interval 190-213(about the time JFK disappears behind the sign) is blurry and I minor movements could be misinterpreted by the HSCA. Five members disagreed with those findings for what ever reasons. From the earliest time in Zapruder JFK is waving at the crowd looking left and right. When he emerges from the sign ~224 he is reacting the to back/neck wounds.
First, a general trend in the frames 194-206 may be noted. Beginning as early as frame 194, the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window ledge."
Click to expand...


Any such movements are slight and could have been as a result of shifting in his seat, I observe no noticeable change until he goes behind the sign, but after emerging from the sign there is a definite change in his behavior. It must be stated that a lot of the Zapruder film is of poor quality compared to today with some very blurry(technology camera movement) that precise movements can't be made with high percentage of accuracy.
...

"Study of the frames reveals further information. Recalling the descriptions above, it is clear that between frames 183 and 230, two specific changes occurred in the President's position. First, the President turned his head and shoulders back from the crowd until he was facing forward. Also, the President's right arm moved from a position with the elbow below a chrome strip on the outside of the car, into a position with the arm and elbow well inside the car and raised almost to chin level. These frames and motions have been described in such great detail because both of these specific changes in Kennedy can be observed to occur in the "early Zapruder frames," i.e., those before the President disappears from view behind the road sign. In this context, It happens that frame 204 is very important.
Click to expand...



From my perspective the elbow is below or at contact with the car body any comments on the hand could just as easily be described as completing a wave. I don't see any difference in JFK's behavior from the start of Zapruder until he disappears behind the sign. From the poor quality of the film many observations could be made, not just mine.



On the interval the President's body is seen to narrow somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the Left front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward.

As the President moves and rotates to the left, his right arm is pulled back into the car. While his elbow has been resting outside the car, it comes up noticeably at frame 195. The President's elbow can be seen to cross the chrome strip on the side of the car at frames As President Kennedy disappears from view behind the sign, his right arm seems to he in a particularly unusual position the clearly visible gray of his suit coat indicating that his right arm and elbow have been raised at least to the level of his chin."
Click to expand...


Have you watched the film?
Here is my archive:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gm-MoQfe7E
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf



From the 9/12/1978 testimony of Calvin McCamy, spokesman for the HSCA photographic evidence panel:

"...There is considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound."
Click to expand...


Yes I agree with that description, when JFK emerges from behind the sign he is beginning the clutching motion to the throat.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81#relPageId=148&tab=page


From the HSCA photographic evidence panel's final report:

64. (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.

...

70. At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=22&tab=page


HSCA photographic expert Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s

Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.
Click to expand...

Frame 206-210 may have been the first shot or could have been earlier.. It is my opinion that the first shot was 150-160 as you can observe at different times JFK and JBC turning their heads to the left where the shots came from. Then a pause before the next round. There were two groupings of shell casings on the floor of the TSBA one casing by itself, two in close proximity, as if LHO firing position changed. This would be consistent with the travel of the car away from him requiring a change in firing stance. No mystery for me, just understanding aiming/firing a rifle.
 
MicahJava said:
Manchester's book came out in 1967. The quote about the doctors contacting Parkland at midnight came from Joseph Hagan.
Click to expand...

Wow. Out of all my posts above, you found one point to quibble over, and it concerns hearsay from a book. Apologies for the error.

One point!

You mention a Joe Hagan but don't source it.

I found this (link below), which mentions nothing about the autopsists contacting Parkland. It says preparation of the body started at 11pm on 11/22/63 and ended by 4am on 11/23/63.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md134.pdf

Hagan's interview with the ARRB is from 1996 -- 33 years after the assassination. Surely you can't be referencing that while asserting your claims are from the 1960s doocumentation.

Here's the ARRB summary of his interview: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/md182-1.pdf

Especially since his interview includes this admission that his recollection is contradictory in places: Ultimately, his own response as he considered all of these inconsistencies in his recollections of the timing of various events surrounding the transportation of personnel, and the mahogany casket, was to say, “I can’t put it all together.” ...

Moreover, the interview notes the first link above was NOT prepared by Joe Hagan: Chronology of Events of November 22-25, 1963 entitled “Funeral Arrangements for John Fitzgerald Kennedy”: Mr. Hagan did not think that he had prepared this summary of events himself, and said that that John Gawler had probably prepared this document.

Surely you're neither relying on his memorandum for the record in which I can see no reference to a call to Parkland at about midnight, nor his interview 33 years after the assassination where he admits his recollection about the chronology of events is hazy and doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now try rebutting the rest of the points I made in the preceding posts. There are a few dozen posts in total over the past few days that you've mostly brushed aside and ignored.

You won't rebut them because you can't rebut them.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility: The small head wound had inward beveling, the large head wound had outward, so they had a place for the EOP shot to go. Let's pretend for a moment that the doctors didn't know full well that Kennedy's throat wound was originally a bullet hole on the night of the autopsy; they didn't have any place for a back entrance wound to go besides speculating that a bullet barely penetrated the back and naturally squeezed it's way out. When they discovered the throat wound, allegedly without having investigated it at all as the possibility of a bullet wound, they had a place for the back shot to exit. Two gunshots, perfectly clean with the three-shot scinareo.
Click to expand...

I am quite certain you are not a professional. I am, my word is my bond. To insinuate that professionals (all three) are lying flies in the face of being a professional. You have no evidence of any lying, just wild speculation as per your normal assessments.

"The small head wound had inward beveling"
and lets see from the report that entry hole was 7 by 4 mm.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hbf.txt


bknight said:
Is this a small hole?
Click to expand...

What could cause this small head wound? Could a 7.62 x 52 mm Carcano do it? Yes it could.
 
bknight said:
"The small head wound had inward beveling"
and lets see from the report that entry hole was 7 by 4 mm.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hbf.txt

What could cause this small head wound? Could a 7.62 x 52 mm Carcano do it? Yes it could.
Click to expand...

Oswald's weapon fired 6.5mm x 52mm Carcano bullets.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Ce141.jpg/300px-Ce141.jpg

Some CTs argue a 7.62 Mauser was discovered in the sniper's nest.

I'm sure you don't mean what you wrote.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Wow. Out of all my posts above, you found one point to quibble over, and it concerns hearsay from a book. Apologies for the error.

One point!

You mention a Joe Hagan but don't source it.

I found this (link below), which mentions nothing about the autopsists contacting Parkland. It says preparation of the body started at 11pm on 11/22/63 and ended by 4am on 11/23/63.

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md134.pdf

Hagan's interview with the ARRB is from 1996 -- 33 years after the assassination. Surely you can't be referencing that while asserting your claims are from the 1960s doocumentation.

Here's the ARRB summary of his interview: http://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/md182-1.pdf

Especially since his interview includes this admission that his recollection is contradictory in places: Ultimately, his own response as he considered all of these inconsistencies in his recollections of the timing of various events surrounding the transportation of personnel, and the mahogany casket, was to say, “I can’t put it all together.” ...

Moreover, the interview notes the first link above was NOT prepared by Joe Hagan: Chronology of Events of November 22-25, 1963 entitled “Funeral Arrangements for John Fitzgerald Kennedy”: Mr. Hagan did not think that he had prepared this summary of events himself, and said that that John Gawler had probably prepared this document.

Surely you're neither relying on his memorandum for the record in which I can see no reference to a call to Parkland at about midnight, nor his interview 33 years after the assassination where he admits his recollection about the chronology of events is hazy and doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now try rebutting the rest of the points I made in the preceding posts. There are a few dozen posts in total over the past few days that you've mostly brushed aside and ignored.

You won't rebut them because you can't rebut them.

Hank
Click to expand...

sigh...

Joe Gawler and Joe Hagan, his chief assistant, supervised the loading of the coffin in a hearse, or, as Hagan preferred to call it, a “funeral coach.” The firm’s young cosmetician accompanied them to Bethesda. The two caskets, Oneal’s and Gawler’s, lay side by side for a while in the morgue anteroom; then Oneal’s was removed for storage and the undertakers, Irishmen, and George Thomas were admitted to the main room. The autopsy team had finished its work, a grueling, three-hour task, interrupted by the arrival of a fragment of skull which had been retrieved on Elm Street and flown east by federal agents. The nature of the two wounds and the presence of metal fragments in the President’s head had been verified; the metal from Oswald’s bullet was turned over to the FBI. Bethesda’s physicians anticipated that their findings would later be subjected to the most searching scrutiny. They had heard reports of Mac Perry’s medical briefing for the press, and to their dismay they had discovered that all evidence of what was being called an entrance wound in the throat had been removed by Perry’s tracheostomy. Unlike the physicians at Parkland, they had turned the President over and seen the smaller hole in the back of his neck. They were positive that Perry had seen an exit wound. The deleterious effects of confusion were already evident. Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1.
Click to expand...

-The Death of a President by William Manchester, 1967

See, since Sibert and O'Neil left around 11:30 PM because they assumed the autopsy was finishing up once the funeral home people, it would make sense if the autopsy doctors only then telephoned Dr. Perry and learned of the throat wound.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom