Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cosmic Yak said:
This should have been done a long, long time ago, MicahJava.
You say you have all the evidence you need to prove a conspiracy. You are also claiming the expertise necessary to question the accepted historical narrative. Fine, Then do it. Answer these questions, lay out your case: establish where you think the second shooter was, and provide the evidence and calculations to back it up.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I am certainly open-minded enough to examine this with interest. I am ready to be convinced. Go for it.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand. I am saying that regardless of whether it is compatible with the official evidence like the X-rays, I believe in the EOP wound. Unless you can figure out a way for a bullet to enter near the EOP and exit the right side of the head and still be consistent with the official evidence, nobody can state that they know ho the shooting happened. Did you just miss all of the times I posted evidence for the EOP wound? It's surprising that people even try denying it since it's in the autopsy report.
 
So, again, are you guys saying that "1 inch to the right center of the back of the head" in the Ward Death Certificate is referring to the large head wound? Or is that Death Certificate referring to the autopsy report's passage "...posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance"?
 
MicahJava said:
So, again, are you guys saying that "1 inch to the right center of the back of the head" in the Ward Death Certificate is referring to the large head wound? Or is that Death Certificate referring to the autopsy report's passage "...posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance"?
Click to expand...

Well, those estimates seem a millimetre out to me.
If you allow a little more leeway for "slightly" than your preferred interpretation, you have two reasonably good descriptions of what you call the "cowlick wound", but what everybody else calls the "entry point" for the single wound in the head, that travels from there to the massive exit.
 
I am an RN and I can definitively say that wounds are labeled sloppily even now in 2017. Everybody uses different nomenclature and landmarks.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think you understand. I am saying that regardless of whether it is compatible with the official evidence like the X-rays, I believe in the EOP wound.
Click to expand...

Well, good for you. Your faith in things unseen must be comforting to you.


MicahJava said:
Unless you can figure out a way for a bullet to enter near the EOP and exit the right side of the head and still be consistent with the official evidence, nobody can state that they know ho the shooting happened.
Click to expand...

You already told us how it could happen. Don't you remember what you posted on the prior pages?

You wrote:
MicahJava said:
"When a bullet encounters a curved portion of the skull, it is likely to deflect. A bullet could have entered near the EOP ... while deflecting downward upward and smashing the base top of the skull."
Click to expand...

I am pointing out you've provided no reason to assume any deflection, let alone solely a downward one. But if you want to suggest a downward deflection is possible, then surely an upward one is at least equally possible. Especially since you also assured us that the deflection
MicahJava said:
"... not only depends on the angle of the shot, but how Kennedy's head was tilted."
Click to expand...

So, treat us to your expertise and tell us why that upward deflection could not have happened. Better yet, share the results of those experiments you conducted that rule out an upward deflection. You wouldn't be just making stuff up as the need requires, would you? It sure reads that way.


MicahJava said:
Did you just miss all of the times I posted evidence for the EOP wound?
Click to expand...

Yes. It may come as a surprise to you, but your opinion of what a doctor meant in his testimony or in the autopsy report is NOT evidence.


MicahJava said:
It's surprising that people even try denying it since it's in the autopsy report.
Click to expand...

Your opinions are not therein. Your opinions are what you're trying to foist on us here.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I don't think you understand. I am saying that regardless of whether it is compatible with the official evidence like the X-rays, I believe in the EOP wound. Unless you can figure out a way for a bullet to enter near the EOP and exit the right side of the head and still be consistent with the official evidence, nobody can state that they know ho the shooting happened. Did you just miss all of the times I posted evidence for the EOP wound? It's surprising that people even try denying it since it's in the autopsy report.
Click to expand...

Once you factor in the 6.5x52mm 160-grain Carcano round all the wounds make sense.
 
MicahJava said:
So, again, are you guys saying that "1 inch to the right center of the back of the head" in the Ward Death Certificate is referring to the large head wound? Or is that Death Certificate referring to the autopsy report's passage "...posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance"?
Click to expand...

Pretty clear they're the same thing.
 
Axxman300 said:
Pretty clear they're the same thing.
Click to expand...

Good. Then the December 1963 Ward Death Certificate is most likely describing the entry wounds in the back and head, not any posited exits.

That is just a small insignificant debate in the face of all of the evidence that the doctors knew about the throat wound.
 
These new documents are Oswald heavy.

Here's one detailing Oswald's Mexico City trip:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10015-10359.pdf

This is the first cable about Oswald's visit to Soviet Embassy. Note they describe the wrong guy when discussing the photograph (there are two cables where the Mexico City station says they just didn't photograph everyone who went inside) :

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10054-10293.pdf

Here the October 11, 1963 CIA cable discussing a phone call from a Lee Oswald to the Soviet Embassy where the agency puts 2 + 2 together as far as Oswald's past, and suggest he should be watched closer should he show up:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10054-10065.pdf

This is 1 of 3 documents generated by the CIA listing reasons they suspect Castro knew the assassination was coming. This plays into the "Oswald was Working with Compromised Anti-Castro Cubans" narrative:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10062-10121.pdf

Loads of JMWAVE files too.
 
MicahJava said:
Good. Then the December 1963 Ward Death Certificate is most likely describing the entry wounds in the back and head, not any posited exits.

That is just a small insignificant debate in the face of all of the evidence that the doctors knew about the throat wound.
Click to expand...

Death Certificate is just a legal document stating someone is dead, and probably cause of death, and time of death (APRX).

It is not an autopsy report, nor would it hold any medical weight as evidence as anything other than JFK is dead.
 
I must say this again:

Based on the recent document release the evidence shows that not only did the FBI and CIA investigate the hell out of the assassination, but it is clear that both were looking for evidence of a conspiracy. The CIA clearly wanted to link Oswald to Castro.

This begs the question, why cover up evidence if the goal was to prove conspiracy? If it was a CIA-Mafia job, why not better implicate actual Cuban spies?

The idea of a conspiracy boggles the mind once you look at the evidence, and the history of that evidence, and look at the rifle realistically.
 
MicahJava said:
Good. Then the December 1963 Ward Death Certificate is most likely describing the entry wounds in the back and head, not any posited exits.

That is just a small insignificant debate in the face of all of the evidence that the doctors knew about the throat wound.
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure this is insignificant to any point you have tried to make. Death certificates are not expected to list every wound in absolute detail. One doctor might list multiple gunshots to cover their bases, while another decided the big obvious gunshot was a cause of death.
At best you can suggest it shows what we already know: a tracheostomy was obscuring an exit wound, and the autopsy scrapped notes and went back to investigate new information.
 
MicahJava said:
I don't think you understand. I am saying that regardless of whether it is compatible with the official evidence like the X-rays, I believe in the EOP wound. Unless you can figure out a way for a bullet to enter near the EOP and exit the right side of the head and still be consistent with the official evidence, nobody can state that they know ho the shooting happened. Did you just miss all of the times I posted evidence for the EOP wound? It's surprising that people even try denying it since it's in the autopsy report.
Click to expand...

Oh, I understand just fine. You have been saying, for what seems like an eternity, that you believe in the existence of another wound in JFK's skull.
I get that.
Now all you have to do is do the maths. Show what kind of gun fired the bullet, show where you think it was fired from, then show the evidence for the existence of bullet, gun and shooter.
Now, an unkind person might comment that you won't do this becuase you can't. You have no additional bullet, no witnesses for a shooter, no plausible location for said gunman, not even an attempt at the identity, motives or fate of said gunman, nothing.
I am not that unkind person. I will assume you have this evidence, and just haven't got round to presenting it yet.
I think now would be a good time. I cannot recall anyone losing a debate as badly as you are. You have literally been wrong about everything, and shown to be so over and over again. You need to remedy this.
The unkind would again predict that you will dodge, deflect and distract, but I have faith. I believe you will rise to this challenge.
Don't make me a disappointed Yak. That would be cruel.
 
MicahJava said:
RN?
Click to expand...

Registered Nurse. It looks like doctors way back when I was less than a month old, I turned 54 on Nov. 2, used both inches and centimeters. I would not be in the least bit surprised if any of them wrote down the wrong units and or the wound location and stuck by whatever they wrote years before either for ego, or faulty memory.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I’m pretty sure this is insignificant to any point you have tried to make. Death certificates are not expected to list every wound in absolute detail. One doctor might list multiple gunshots to cover their bases, while another decided the big obvious gunshot was a cause of death.
At best you can suggest it shows what we already know: a tracheostomy was obscuring an exit wound, and the autopsy scrapped notes and went back to investigate new information.
Click to expand...

And the fact that this Theran Ward death certificate is dated the 6th day of December 1963 pretty much establishes this was only filed to close out a requirement to put something in writing. At the time the death certificate was executed, the body was already in the ground for nearly two weeks and the fact that the certificate mixes claims from Parkland (the treating doctors) and Bethesda (the autopsy doctors) shows it wasn't from anything Ward himself determined by a first-had examination of the wounds. At best he made a couple of phone calls. At worse, he reported what he read in the paper.* (see EDIT)

The wound descriptions can only be hearsay reporting by Ward. MicahJava pretends it is something more than that because he needs it to be something more than that (he needs independent confirmation that the wound in the back in the head is where he wants to believe it is. He therefore pushes this death certificate as that independent confirmation he so desperately needs).

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between hearsay and first-hand evidence, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a recollection from 15 or 33 years after the fact and a contemporaneous record, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between expert testimony and a layman's uninformed opinion.

There's a lot he doesn't understand. But he goes blithely on, treating us to his uninformed theory about the assassination, based on all the worst possible kinds of information.

Hank

EDIT: The death certificate itself lists Evelyn Lincoln as the 'informant'. Clearly all this was obtained from a phone call to the deceased President's former secretary. Since Evelyn Lincoln never viewed the body in Parkland or Bethesda, this is clearly all hearsay at least twice removed from the original source.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vyw18dOu...fHJgCLcB/s2000/JFK-Death-Certificate-Ward.png
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
I must say this again:

Based on the recent document release the evidence shows that not only did the FBI and CIA investigate the hell out of the assassination, but it is clear that both were looking for evidence of a conspiracy. The CIA clearly wanted to link Oswald to Castro.

This begs the question, why cover up evidence if the goal was to prove conspiracy? If it was a CIA-Mafia job, why not better implicate actual Cuban spies?

The idea of a conspiracy boggles the mind once you look at the evidence, and the history of that evidence, and look at the rifle realistically.
Click to expand...

It's just like with 9/11, where the White House is on record scrambling to link the terrorist actions to Iraq - if they are doing that after the fact, they sure as he'll didn't plan it all out in advance.

Conspiracies keep clicking the controller buttons long after the "Game Over" is flashing them in the face.
 
HSienzant said:
It's stuff like "RN?" that convinces me English is not his native tongue.

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove previously moderated content


Hank
Click to expand...

I do not see why I should assume "RN" means "Registered Nurse", but you should also know that I wouldn't post on these boards with you all if I was always sober.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cosmic Yak said:
Oh, I understand just fine. You have been saying, for what seems like an eternity, that you believe in the existence of another wound in JFK's skull.
I get that.
Now all you have to do is do the maths. Show what kind of gun fired the bullet, show where you think it was fired from, then show the evidence for the existence of bullet, gun and shooter.
Now, an unkind person might comment that you won't do this becuase you can't. You have no additional bullet, no witnesses for a shooter, no plausible location for said gunman, not even an attempt at the identity, motives or fate of said gunman, nothing.
I am not that unkind person. I will assume you have this evidence, and just haven't got round to presenting it yet.
I think now would be a good time. I cannot recall anyone losing a debate as badly as you are. You have literally been wrong about everything, and shown to be so over and over again. You need to remedy this.
The unkind would again predict that you will dodge, deflect and distract, but I have faith. I believe you will rise to this challenge.
Don't make me a disappointed Yak. That would be cruel.
Click to expand...

Do you have to solve a mystery to prove that there is one? It looks like one of the biggest mysteries in the assassination right now is what happened to the projectile that created the EOP wound.

Or are you referring to the large head wound being created by a separate, tangential shot? Well, why are there trace amounts of metal (presumably bullet lead) on the OUTER SURFACE of the harper fragment right next to the external beveling?
 
Okay, so my understanding is that it was pretty much a government secret that JFK had a bullet wound in his back by November 29, 1963. All the public knew back then was that Kennedy had a small wound in his throat and a large wound on his head.

If Barnum's story from his 11/29/1963 diary is untrue, that after the autopsy Dr. Burkley personally described the nature of Kennedy's gunshot wounds to him and his crew, then why does it say "...The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out..."
 
Axxman300 said:
Death Certificate is just a legal document stating someone is dead, and probably cause of death, and time of death (APRX).

It is not an autopsy report, nor would it hold any medical weight as evidence as anything other than JFK is dead.
Click to expand...

Okay, then it's settled. The Death Certificates cannot be used as evidence that the doctors were telling the truth about only discovering the tracheotomy was incised over a bullet wound after the autopsy.
 
HSienzant said:
And the fact that this Theran Ward death certificate is dated the 6th day of December 1963 pretty much establishes this was only filed to close out a requirement to put something in writing. At the time the death certificate was executed, the body was already in the ground for nearly two weeks and the fact that the certificate mixes claims from Parkland (the treating doctors) and Bethesda (the autopsy doctors) shows it wasn't from anything Ward himself determined by a first-had examination of the wounds. At best he made a couple of phone calls. At worse, he reported what he read in the paper.* (see EDIT)

The wound descriptions can only be hearsay reporting by Ward. MicahJava pretends it is something more than that because he needs it to be something more than that (he needs independent confirmation that the wound in the back in the head is where he wants to believe it is. He therefore pushes this death certificate as that independent confirmation he so desperately needs).

He doesn't seem to understand the difference between fact and opinion, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between hearsay and first-hand evidence, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a recollection from 15 or 33 years after the fact and a contemporaneous record, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between expert testimony and a layman's uninformed opinion.

There's a lot he doesn't understand. But he goes blithely on, treating us to his uninformed theory about the assassination, based on all the worst possible kinds of information.

Hank

EDIT: The death certificate itself lists Evelyn Lincoln as the 'informant'. Clearly all this was obtained from a phone call to the deceased President's former secretary. Since Evelyn Lincoln never viewed the body in Parkland or Bethesda, this is clearly all hearsay at least twice removed from the original source.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Vyw18dOu...fHJgCLcB/s2000/JFK-Death-Certificate-Ward.png
Click to expand...

I know the 12/6/1963 Ward death certificate is too vague, but it's written description "he came to his death as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the back of the head" is almost certainly based on information obtained from the autopsy, with the back wound and small head wound.
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, then it's settled. The Death Certificates cannot be used as evidence that the doctors were telling the truth about only discovering the tracheotomy was incised over a bullet wound after the autopsy.
Click to expand...

Which doctors are you talking about?

The Parkland doctors knew, the Pathologists didn't figure it out until later. None of this is news, nor is it relevant.
 
MicahJava said:
Do you have to solve a mystery to prove that there is one? It looks like one of the biggest mysteries in the assassination right now is what happened to the projectile that created the EOP wound.
Click to expand...

The same thing that happens to all fairy bullets fired by unicorns and Sasquatch. It went back to fairy bullet land where it now owns a giftshop near the rainbow beach.

Or are you referring to the large head wound being created by a separate, tangential shot? Well, why are there trace amounts of metal (presumably bullet lead) on the OUTER SURFACE of the harper fragment right next to the external beveling?
Click to expand...

He's talking about the one and only GSW to the head.
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, so my understanding is that it was pretty much a government secret that JFK had a bullet wound in his back by November 29, 1963. All the public knew back then was that Kennedy had a small wound in his throat and a large wound on his head.

If Barnum's story from his 11/29/1963 diary is untrue, that after the autopsy Dr. Burkley personally described the nature of Kennedy's gunshot wounds to him and his crew, then why does it say "...The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out..."
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what some guy wrote after the fact who was not in the autopsy room. What he wrote, and what he heard, and what he understood are open to question.
 
Axxman300 said:
The same thing that happens to all fairy bullets fired by unicorns and Sasquatch. It went back to fairy bullet land where it now owns a giftshop near the rainbow beach.



He's talking about the one and only GSW to the head.
Click to expand...

How does a bullet lead fragment smear itself on the outer surface of the skull near the margin of the outwardly beveled "exit"?
 
MicahJava said:
Do you have to solve a mystery to prove that there is one? It looks like one of the biggest mysteries in the assassination right now is what happened to the projectile that created the EOP wound.

Or are you referring to the large head wound being created by a separate, tangential shot? Well, why are there trace amounts of metal (presumably bullet lead) on the OUTER SURFACE of the harper fragment right next to the external beveling?
Click to expand...

Bolded: Begging the question. You haven't shown there was an EOP wound.

Italics: And in fact there is no mystery to solve. We know what happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head. It shattered his skull, blew out the top right, and left a lead trail pointing back to the entry wound. Two large fragments of that bullet were found in the limousine, and traceable to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Underscored: The only person referring to a tangential shot to the head in the last year or so has been you.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, so my understanding is that it was pretty much a government secret that JFK had a bullet wound in his back by November 29, 1963. All the public knew back then was that Kennedy had a small wound in his throat and a large wound on his head.

If Barnum's story from his 11/29/1963 diary is untrue, that after the autopsy Dr. Burkley personally described the nature of Kennedy's gunshot wounds to him and his crew, then why does it say "...The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out..."
Click to expand...

You still don't understand the limitations of hearsay.

You are attempting to put into Burkley's mouth the words written down by Barnum a week after the assassination.

We already covered that. In detail.

Numerous times:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067903&postcount=2688
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010
Your argument is still wrong.

I pointed out months ago (March of 2017, November of 2016) that David Lifton did in fact trace the information from the FBI report of the autopsy and the Bethesda autopsy itself.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11775019&postcount=2865
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11592659&postcount=2200

You said you now have a copy of the book. You haven't read it yet?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
You still don't understand the limitations of hearsay.

You are attempting to put into Burkley's mouth the words written down by Barnum a week after the assassination.

We already covered that. In detail.

Numerous times:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067903&postcount=2688
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010
Your argument is still wrong.

I pointed out months ago (March of 2017, November of 2016) that David Lifton did in fact trace the information from the FBI report of the autopsy and the Bethesda autopsy itself.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11775019&postcount=2865
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11592659&postcount=2200

You said you now have a copy of the book. You haven't read it yet?

Hank
Click to expand...

Maybe you can fill me in. Did the autopsy findings of Kennedy's back wound come out by 11/29/1963?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom