Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
This is the exact passage from the Barnum diary dated 11/29/1963, shown in David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"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...."


The second part where it says "this shot not coming out...." is what confuses me. It sounds kind of like a reference to the first theory on the shallow back wound, that the bullet did not make an exit wound but rather barely penetrated the back and then naturally squeezed out of it's own entry hole. But it appears to be referencing one shot which struck "above and to the rear of the right ear". A reference to the mythical "bullet lodged behind the ear" referenced in that FBI memo? Who knows.
Click to expand...

So you admit Barnum got stuff wrong, butchering the findings of the autopsy.

What confuses me is why you then turn around and argue then for the veracity of his claims.

3:12AM is "sometime after midnight".

Isn't it?

How long was Burkley and Barnum at Bethesda? You never did answer. When did this happen? I've asked you this a number of times and you never did answer, ignoring the question each time. I've pointed out you've ignored it a number of times as well, and drew a conclusion from your failure to respond.

Now, if Burkley imparted that info to Barnum at 3:12AM on Saturday morning, that was after the autopsy concluded, was it not? And possibly after Humes phone call to Perry learning of the throat bullet wound?


MicahJava said:
But the Barnum Diary is definitely describing a wound in his "lower neck".
Click to expand...

And there was a wound in the lower neck found in the autopsy. And a wound in the head.

You are presuming Burkley knew all the facts and all the conclusions of the autopsy doctors and relayed them accurately to Barnum, and Barnum heard and understood accurately all the facts that Burkley stated, and recorded them accurately. All while admitting Barnum's account is wrong in places. Make up your mind. Can't be both.


MicahJava said:
We have been over why a "right after the autopsy while the morticians were treating the body" throat wound discovery doesn't work.
Click to expand...

Remind me why it doesn't work.


MicahJava said:
Dr. Humes has even said that he and his children went to a church function before he finally got around to calling Dr. Perry much later in the morning of 11/23/1963. He estimated to was 10-11 AM to the HSCA and 7-9 AM to the ARRB.
Click to expand...

So you're still stuck trying to wedge 15 and 33-year after the round recollections into square holes and try to get them to conform to contemporaneous notes. Uh, no. We've covered recollections extensively in the past, and I even quoted the ARRB's own caution against what you're doing:

The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as "proof" for one theory or another.

You are taking Humes 15- and 33-year after the fact recollections as gospel. And Barnum's hearsay account of what Burkley said as gospel as well.

Sorry, no.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
RoboTimbo, did you read that correctly?
Click to expand...
LOL
Trace amounts of human skin were identified on CE567. Human skin is one of the materials least likely to be found in bullets that have traveled through-an-through a wound. Human skin on CE567 is, however, perfectly compatible with a tangential shot in which a bullet, or a fragment of a bullet, glides along the side-surface of the scalp/skull bone/brain. This leaves more opportunity for contact with those tissues.
Click to expand...
As long as you're ok with having your ass handed to you. I'd be mad at your one CT website that feeds you crap and then doesn't tell you how to extricate yourself if I were you.
 
bknight said:
"Magic" bullet number two, of course.

MJ must have several doctorial thesis pending peer review, GSW to the body, Time dilation, English, finite analysis, Physics, and of course debating.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I'm up to three or four by now from his arguments. By my recollection, he's claimed this bullet did the damage to the EOP, and claimed separate shots for the back wound and throat wound, rather than one bullet causing both.

Now it's only a shot that grazed JFK's head. Trying to nail down a conspiracy theorist on what they think is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Hank
 
Cosmic Yak said:
I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.
Click to expand...

HSienzant said:
I've tried that. You can explain a non-conspiracy point to a CT until you're blue in the face.

Unfortunately, you can't understand said non-conspiracy point for the CT unless they want to understand it.

Or you certainly can't get the CT to admit he understands it but has no rebuttal.

So they resort to either ignoring the point entirely or weak dismissals of any and all points they disagree with claims like the above of incoherence.

Hank
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak said:
Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak said:
Ahem.
Bumped in case you didn't notice it, MicahJava.
Click to expand...

MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.
Click to expand...

Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
Click to expand...

You don't have to run away your entire life, MicahJava. Answer the rebuttals pointing out the fatal flaws in the arguments your CT website feed you.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank MJ intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
Click to expand...

FTFY, any evidence that supports you weak invalid conspiracy beliefs is "incredible" while you continue to hand wave any refutation or ignore facts that disprove any conspiracy.
You are too easily lead astray by disproven comments or ideas.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.
Click to expand...

Nice. Blame me for what you're clearly doing.



MicahJava said:
George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...

Did you really write "incredible"? Thank you for that admission.

INCREDIBLE means "not credible".
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/unbelievable
1. so extraordinary as to seem impossible
2. not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable

More evidence English is not your native tongue. Or an admission by you Barnum's account seems impossible. Take your pick. Those are your options.

Below is the list of (non-inclusive) posts still requiring rebuttal by you. I left some off but can add them back if you ever respond to the below.

We'll wait.

HSienzant said:
Your arguments about Barnum were addressed back when it was warm... in July of this year.

Another fringe reset?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

Brought up again in November:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12062810&postcount=2558

and rebutted again and again since then:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066946&postcount=2650

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067903&postcount=2688

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12068145&postcount=2698

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12073492&postcount=2797

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074224&postcount=2809

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074318&postcount=2812

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074327&postcount=2813

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074513&postcount=2818

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074550&postcount=2824

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074575&postcount=2826

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074783&postcount=2830

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074799&postcount=2834

And so on and on and on...

It appears you have no argument, you understand you have no argument, but you don't want to concede you have no argument, so you keep bringing up old items that were examined months earlier as if they were never addressed.

They were. Your arguments are still toast, no matter how many times you recycle them.

And it's amusing that while you originally claimed Barnum's account was garbled, you're now taking a different approach and pretending it's not: "No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account."
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Too bad literally none of them [Hank's rebuttal posts] can even be considered coherent.
MicahJava said:
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.
Cosmic Yak said:
Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Helpful hint #238 when dealing with Conspiracy Theorists:
Take some time to listen to the crickets chirping.
Always a good way to alleviate stress.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank intentionally misses the point to artificially extend the discussion.

George Barnum's handwritten account should be considered incredible evidence for the early throat wound discovery by the autopsy pathologists.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
Ah man you left off altering he body:rolleyes:
 
bknight said:
Ah man you left off altering he body:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, because that always made sense.

MJ says he spent 5 weeks reading CT books. I spent 5 weeks going through the new JFK documents at the National Archives.

MJ cherry-picks information without acknowledging his sources directly undermine his pet EOP theory completely.

I read as many documents as I can, and come away with the opinion that the FBI and CIA WANTED AND HOPED FOR A CONSPIRACY TO LINK OSWALD TO OUR COLD WAR FOES. The CIA made at least three separate inquiries to their Mexico City sources desperately hoping to link Oswald to Castro. The FBI shook down all of their informants in the Gulf States trying to tie Oswald to someone bigger.

If the autopsy was going to be faked then it would have been to link Oswald to someone, and not to frame him. A second gunman gives the FBI and CIA carte blanche to target everyone on their enemies list in the name of justice.

Both the CIA and FBI went to some real dark places in 1964 while investigating the assassination, and the documents show that after the Warren Commission published their finding there were some in the FBI and CIA who continued to believe Oswald was working with or for someone else. It is quite possible the reason the assassination CT's continued to grow from the mid-60's onward is a direct result of insiders from both agencies running their mouths at parties, or other gatherings where laymen took their CT rants as proof something was afoot in Dallas other than what actually happened.

We saw the same thing after 9-11 with key people in the CIA, and Bush NSC refusing to believe Al Qaeda could have pulled the attacks off alone. That's why they looked to Iraq on 9-12. Smart people can still have problems with the facts when they conflict with their world view.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
We saw the same thing after 9-11 with key people in the CIA, and Bush NSC refusing to believe Al Qaeda could have pulled the attacks off alone. That's why they looked to Iraq on 9-12. Smart people can still have problems with the facts when they conflict with their world view.
Click to expand...

So gullible. Iraq was a fake war staged so the military industrial complex could make money. The fact that the Iraq war happened is worse than if 9/11 was an inside job. Everything about Saddam having WMDs and connections to Al Qaeda was a lie, we should've left Saddam alone, every U.S. Soldier who died in Iraq died for nothing, and everybody knows it.
 
Axxman300 said:
So what you're saying is that it all went down like this:

1 - They get the President onto the exam table.

2- They note the throat wound and immediately identify it as a bullet wound.

3- Turn the body over and discover the rear bullet wound.

4 - Look at the X-rays, find no bullets inside the body.

5 - Discern that the bullet passed through the body.

6 - Lie about it.

7 - Call Parkland to cover their lie.

8 - Then write their conclusion in the autopsy report anyway.

Okay...:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Sounds like you haven't been reading very closely. Just by reading my posts and the information I linked, you should have a better grasp on the JFK autopsy.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.
Click to expand...

Anybody who has a basic grasp of the words on this thread doesn't care about your comments. If you have a question, ask away.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?
Click to expand...

Cosmic Yak said:
MicahJava, I am going to have to assume, with disappointment if not surprise, that your continued silence here is an admission that you did, in fact, fully understand the posts, and that your blithe dismissal of them as 'incoherent' was indeed a cheap ploy to avoid actually addressing them.

You can change all this in a jiffy, if you wish, by simply answering my question.

Your continued silence, on the other hand, will stand as an admission of your guilt.
Click to expand...


Cosmic Yak said:
Wait so now you're saying the posts missed the point? I thought you didn't understand them because they were- to you- incoherent?
I'm struggling to see how both these positions can be simultaneously true.

Can you clarify, please?
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
Anybody who has a basic grasp of the words on this thread doesn't care about your comments. If you have a question, ask away.
Click to expand...

Poor, even by your standards.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt- and I was about the only one here prepared to do that- and all you did was expose your dishonest debating tactics once again.

How this qualifies you as a truthseeker is a mystery.

It appears, then, that you did understand those posts all along, and were just trying to avoid answering them by making various false aspertions about them. Someone here has a sig abut credibility: I suggest you read it.
:rolleyes:
 
MicahJava said:
The new Oswald mock trial's ethics panel features a 3D animation traced over the Zapruder Film which can be considered a rebuttal to Dale Myers. Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88&t=18m1s
Click to expand...

Problem is his built-in bias is showing.

At the 3:36 mark, the bullet points in the video say there was a fourth bullet, based on what he claims were conclusions reached by the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA that three bullets landed in the limousine. He argues the Tague shot was that evidence of a fourth bullet, but apparently never considers whether it could have been the lead core of the head shot that struck Tague.

He also misdates the Warren Commission determination of the single-bullet concept vs. the determination of when Tague was wounded (claiming Tague's wounding caused the WC to develop the single-bullet concept). The single-bullet concept came before Tague testified and came about because of a close study of the Zapruder film and the recreation when compared to the eyewitness testimony, especially that of John Connally. It had nothing to do with Tague.

The Testimony of John Connally was taken on April 21st, 1964.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0055a.htm

The FBI / Secret Service reenactment was done May 24th, 1964.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18286-1964-fbi-re-enactment-color-credit-6th-floor-museum/

Tague's testimony was taken on July 23rd, 1964.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0280b.htm

So his claim in those bullet points that the discovery of the Tague wound led the Commission to decide on a single-bullet concept is false. The Tague wound wasn't the genesis, it was the recreation and the perceived timing of the shots combined with the testimony of the Governor.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

The Wikipedia page on the Single Bullet Theory has much more detail and exposes the claim in the cited video as a falsehood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory

Note particularly the dates in these two paragraphs:
On April 14 and 21, two conferences were held at the Commission to determine when, exactly, the president and governor were struck. Assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg wrote in a memorandum dated April 22 on the first conference that the consensus of those attending was, among other issues, that Kennedy was struck by frames 225–6 and that “the velocity of the first bullet [which struck Kennedy] would have been little diminished by its passage through the President. Therefore, if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him and caused the wounds he sustained in his chest cavity... Strong indications for that this occurred are provided by the facts that... if the first bullet did not strike Governor Connally, it should have ripped up the car but it apparently did not.” However, the memorandum stated, given the relatively undamaged condition of the bullet presumed to have done this, CE 399, the consensus was a separate bullet probably struck his wrist and thigh. While not specifying a precise frame for when it was thought Connally was struck by the same bullet which struck Kennedy, the consensus was “by Z235” as afterwards his body position would not have allowed his back to be struck the way it was.

By the end of April 1964, the Commission had its working theory, the single-bullet theory, to account for the apparent timing discrepancies found in the Zapruder film and the lack of any damage to the limousine from a high-velocity bullet exiting the president's throat. (Impact damage was observed in the limousine, but was indicative of lower-velocity bullets or bullet fragments. For example, a nick on the limousine’s chrome was not from a high-velocity bullet as such a bullet would have pierced the chrome, not merely dented it.)

Tague didn't testify until July. His claims about the genesis of the single bullet concept are false.

I removed the footnoting present in the original.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The new Oswald mock trial's ethics panel features a 3D animation traced over the Zapruder Film which can be considered a rebuttal to Dale Myers. Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88&t=18m1s
Click to expand...

At the 8:13 mark, he's got the bogus alignment of the President and the Governor, with the Governor aligned directly in front of the President, and facing directly forward.

He does this to argue the bullet path must have deviated from a straight line somewhere between the President and the Governor. This is the standard conspiracy strawman argument, pretending this is what the Commission said. They said nothing of the sort.

If the Governor is aligned properly in the limo, slightly lower than the President, slightly inboard of the President, and in the process of turning, as he testified, then the wounds align in a straight line, and there is no deviation in the bullet path.

At the 9:31 mark, he shows an image of the President's jacket on a coat hanger, lying flat, with the entry point noted as nearly six inches down in the jacket. This is a distortion, because JFK wasn't as thin as a coat hanger, and doesn't take into account the fact that images taken along the motorcade route show his jacket was bunched near the top, having the effect of raising the bullet hole in his jacket relative to his body.

Do I really need to go on?

This video simply regurgitates a lot of old conspiracy myths about the assassination, because if conspiracy theorists had to be truthful, they wouldn't have an argument.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:


At the 9:31 mark, he shows an image of the President's jacket on a coat hanger, lying flat, with the entry point noted as nearly six inches down in the jacket. This is a distortion, because JFK wasn't as thin as a coat hanger, and doesn't take into account the fact that images taken along the motorcade route show his jacket was bunched near the top, having the effect of raising the bullet hole in his jacket relative to his body.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how anything looked along the motorcade except for the moment of impact. At the 10:00 mark the Speaker did note that the jacket, no more than 2.5 seconds prior to being hit, was "maybe an inch bowed up at this point" but even that is immaterial, you have to go with facts and Admiral Burkley wrote on the Death Certificate that the wound was located close to the "third thoracic vertebra" which is the back and not the base of the neck. The Admiral was precise, clear and provided a reference point that is quantifiable. Ford (he was not present at the autopsy) who inserted and deleted words of his own Committee chose to purposefully alter the stated location instead of using the verbiage of medical records.

"A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." This was in the final draft and it effectively eliminated the precise location the signed autopsy sheet provided which was verified by the President's personal physician.

The only argument regarding the location of the wound is:

Do you believe multiple medical professionals who were present at the autopsy, signed the Death Certificate and have combined medical education/experience that spans decades or of a politically appointed committee person who was not at the autopsy, completely void of medical training that changed the location of the entry wound... because he could?
 
No Other said:
It doesn't matter how anything looked along the motorcade except for the moment of impact. At the 10:00 mark the Speaker did note that the jacket, no more than 2.5 seconds prior to being hit, was "maybe an inch bowed up at this point" but even that is immaterial...
Click to expand...

No, it's not. For about 51 years now conspiracy theorists have argued the bullet hole in the jacket establishes the wound in JFK was too low to be where the autopsy placed it. But as even you concede, the jacket was bunched all along the parade route, and it's not likely to have unbunched just in time for the shooting. So the bunching of the jacket moves the wound upward relative to JFK's body. Moving it upward due to the bunch, along with the realization that JFK wasn't as thin as a coat hanger, which also gives the impression the wound would be lower in the back than it really was, means the wound was at the level of the shoulders, exactly where the official autopsy report places it. It reads, on page three:

"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper boarder of the scapula there is a 7x4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromium process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process." (The scapula is the shoulder blade, and you can see it extends to the level between the second & third thoracic vertebrae in the image below). It goes on to say in summarizing: "The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissue of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck.



No Other said:
...you have to go with facts and Admiral Burkley wrote on the Death Certificate that the wound was located close to the "third thoracic vertebra" which is the back and not the base of the neck. The Admiral was precise, clear and provided a reference point that is quantifiable.
Click to expand...

Can you count to three? I can. Count down from the top of the vertebrae in red in this image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoracic_vertebrae#/media/File:Thoracic_vertebrae_back3.png

Just above the third vertebrae is "close to the third throracic vertebra" and "just above the upper boarder of the scapula". Do you see that? That puts the wound at about the level of the shoulders.

Pretty much just where this autopsy photo puts it.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/BE5_HI.jpg

Dr. Humes conducted the autopsy. He testified the wound was in the lower neck.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
Commander HUMES - The wound in the low neck of which I had previously begun to speak is now posteriorly--is now depicted in [Commission Exhibits] 385, in 386 and in 388.

The autopsy doctor testified to the wound "in the low neck". Where did the Warren Commission place it? Read on...



No Other said:
Ford (he was not present at the autopsy) who inserted and deleted words of his own Committee chose to purposefully alter the stated location instead of using the verbiage of medical records.
Click to expand...

Untrue. The autopsy language and the testimony of Dr. Humes is above. The final language in the Warren Report is here (pages 86-87):
The President's Neck Wounds
During the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of his spine which provides further enlightenment as to the source of the shots. The hole was located approximately 5% inches (14 centimeters) from the tip of the right shoulder joint and approximately the same distance below the tip of the right mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear. The wound was approximately one-fourth by one-seventh of an inch (7 by 4 millimeters), had clean edges, was sharply delineated, and had margins similar in all respects to those of the entry wound in the skull.



No Other said:
"A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." This was in the final draft and it effectively eliminated the precise location the signed autopsy sheet provided which was verified by the President's personal physician.
Click to expand...

Still untrue. The final version as published borrows liberally from both the autopsy report language and the testimony of Dr. Humes, the autopsy doctor who conducted the autopsy.

And by the way, it's not an autopsy sheet and has nothing to do with the autopsy. It's a part of the death certificate, which can be completed by any qualified person, like a police officer, even. In this case it was completed by the President's personal physician.
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image0.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md6/html/Image1.htm



No Other said:
The only argument regarding the location of the wound is:
Do you believe multiple medical professionals who were present at the autopsy, signed the Death Certificate and have combined medical education/experience that spans decades or of a politically appointed committee person who was not at the autopsy, completely void of medical training
Click to expand...

Both. The language is the Warren Report echoes that of the autopsy report and the testimony of the chief autopsist of JFK, Dr. Humes. All of that agrees with Burkley's claim that the wound was above the scapula and near the third thoracic vertebrae.



No Other said:
that changed the location of the entry wound... because he could?
Click to expand...

You haven't established that. In fact, I just established it wasn't changed, that it uses almost the same language as the autopsy surgeon testified to and the autopsy report he submitted.

Now, what website or book lied to you about Gerald Ford changing the language and raising the wound?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
At the 8:13 mark, he's got the bogus alignment of the President and the Governor, with the Governor aligned directly in front of the President, and facing directly forward.

He does this to argue the bullet path must have deviated from a straight line somewhere between the President and the Governor. This is the standard conspiracy strawman argument, pretending this is what the Commission said. They said nothing of the sort.

If the Governor is aligned properly in the limo, slightly lower than the President, slightly inboard of the President, and in the process of turning, as he testified, then the wounds align in a straight line, and there is no deviation in the bullet path.
Click to expand...

When someone accepts and swallows the totally bogus "magic bullet" nonsense I know there is no reason to take the person who pushes it forward Because it indicates:

1, That the person has been reading far too much conspiracy woo nonsense.

2, That their knowledge of the assassination is at best partial and / or very minimal.

3, And if they are indeed knowledgeable about the assassination then they are arguing in bad faith and deliberately presenting a bogus argument.

Oliver stone presented this "magic bullet" nonsense in his move JFK, despite the fact it can be easily demonstrated to be total ************. I am totally amazed how this falsehood is still believed by so many.
 
Pacal said:
When someone accepts and swallows the totally bogus "magic bullet" nonsense I know there is no reason to take the person who pushes it forward Because it indicates:

1, That the person has been reading far too much conspiracy woo nonsense.

2, That their knowledge of the assassination is at best partial and / or very minimal.

3, And if they are indeed knowledgeable about the assassination then they are arguing in bad faith and deliberately presenting a bogus argument.

Oliver stone presented this "magic bullet" nonsense in his move JFK, despite the fact it can be easily demonstrated to be total ************. I am totally amazed how this falsehood is still believed by so many.
Click to expand...

I go back to the old "sit the passengers in the car" nonsense. You know the claims are ******** when they have JFK and Connolly on the same level, sitting up erect and facing perfectly forward. At no point during the shooting were they ever arranged that way.

And if anyone tries to make a claim based on that arrangement, you know they are either lying or completely incompetent (perhaps both).

This isn't a matter of opinion, this is basic fact. Any analysis of the bullet path is going to have to have the people sitting in the right spots. If they aren't, then you know that it's nonsense. It's a non-starter.
 
MicahJava said:
The new Oswald mock trial's ethics panel features a 3D animation traced over the Zapruder Film which can be considered a rebuttal to Dale Myers. Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88&t=18m1s
Click to expand...

And it can also be considered a rebuttal to the arguments you've advanced here about a bullet entry wound near the external occipital protuberance. Where did he place it again? Oh, that's right, above the location you favor, in agreement with the HSCA pathology panel, which you contend was in error for placing it there.

So why do you bring it up, exactly, since it directly contradicts your primary talking point over the last year or more?

Hank
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I go back to the old "sit the passengers in the car" nonsense. You know the claims are ******** when they have JFK and Connolly on the same level, sitting up erect and facing perfectly forward. At no point during the shooting were they ever arranged that way.

And if anyone tries to make a claim based on that arrangement, you know they are either lying or completely incompetent (perhaps both).

This isn't a matter of opinion, this is basic fact. Any analysis of the bullet path is going to have to have the people sitting in the right spots. If they aren't, then you know that it's nonsense. It's a non-starter.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree!!
 
MicahJava said:
The new Oswald mock trial's ethics panel features a 3D animation traced over the Zapruder Film which can be considered a rebuttal to Dale Myers. Here's a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bH_r1uDCa88&t=18m1s
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are a long list of reasons why his theory doesn't work.

1. He lists the first shot a few frames later than it likely occured.

2. The second shot comes as they pass the freeway sign, and Conally and JFK are both reacting to the same bullet.

3. They found that bullet.

4. They never found more than 2 bullets, and we know the head-shot 6.5x52mm round shattered, some of it struck the inside of the windshield, and it's not inconceivable that some of those fragents exited forward of the limo. There is a large volume of that bullet that was never recovered.

5. The angle from the roof of the proposed building is too high.

6. The video in no way acknowledges the performance of the 6.5x52mm round, nor does it match up with what we know of what happened to the round as it passed through JFK's head.

For even half of that video to be correct one has to ignore too many basic facts, and a lot of ballistic science.:thumbsup:
 
HSienzant said:
And it can also be considered a rebuttal to the arguments you've advanced here about a bullet entry wound near the external occipital protuberance. Where did he place it again? Oh, that's right, above the location you favor, in agreement with the HSCA pathology panel, which you contend was in error for placing it there.

So why do you bring it up, exactly, since it directly contradicts your primary talking point over the last year or more?

Hank
Click to expand...

Everything he's posted in his little Autopsy/Mortician Adventure has directly contradicted everything he has claimed over the past year. He cannot process information, only regurgitate things he find on CT sites.

Example: The mortician time-line CT only matters if one believes that the body was altered to hide all of the wounds coming from the front in order to frame Oswald. Thus, MJ's EOP theory no longer matters as all of JFK's wounds came from the front if you buy into the mortician nonsense. MJ doesn't understand that the author's "research" was all skewed to support the body being altered, and obviously contradictory evidence never makes it into his book. He's done this with other CT works he's tried to cherry-pick in his EOP quest, and each time he ignores the larger body of those works and their conclusions, all of which undermine his theory.

He has yet to demonstrate that he has read any of the new files. I even told him there is an FBI memo, though unsubstantiated, which could help him with his EOP theory, but does he go looking?...Nope.
 
Axxman300 said:
Everything he's posted in his little Autopsy/Mortician Adventure has directly contradicted everything he has claimed over the past year. He cannot process information, only regurgitate things he find on CT sites.

Example: The mortician time-line CT only matters if one believes that the body was altered to hide all of the wounds coming from the front in order to frame Oswald. Thus, MJ's EOP theory no longer matters as all of JFK's wounds came from the front if you buy into the mortician nonsense. MJ doesn't understand that the author's "research" was all skewed to support the body being altered, and obviously contradictory evidence never makes it into his book. He's done this with other CT works he's tried to cherry-pick in his EOP quest, and each time he ignores the larger body of those works and their conclusions, all of which undermine his theory.

He has yet to demonstrate that he has read any of the new files. I even told him there is an FBI memo, though unsubstantiated, which could help him with his EOP theory, but does he go looking?...Nope.
Click to expand...

When I went back in the old thread to dig up the No Other headspace gauge nonsense I note that in October-November of 2016 MJ was riding the same lame headwound horse he's riding now.

In going back in the old thread I can also see where I began to give up on going into detail to rebut some of this nonsense these posters come up with. It's not worth my effort.

I salute the posters who have the wherewithal to rebut the nonsense those posters are married to.
 
HSienzant said:
At the 8:13 mark, he's got the bogus alignment of the President and the Governor, with the Governor aligned directly in front of the President, and facing directly forward.

He does this to argue the bullet path must have deviated from a straight line somewhere between the President and the Governor. This is the standard conspiracy strawman argument, pretending this is what the Commission said. They said nothing of the sort.

If the Governor is aligned properly in the limo, slightly lower than the President, slightly inboard of the President, and in the process of turning, as he testified, then the wounds align in a straight line, and there is no deviation in the bullet path.
Click to expand...

Um, what? The video shows the Zapruder Film overlaid the animation and it appears to fit quite well. Kennedy is sitting at an elevated position above Connally.

SAFZue5.png


Quit making stuff up. And the seat was 2 1/2 inches to the right of the Limousine door, not 6 inches. Friendly reminder that the Single Bullet theory requires Connally's left ass cheek to be hanging over the side of the seat.
 
Pacal said:
When someone accepts and swallows the totally bogus "magic bullet" nonsense I know there is no reason to take the person who pushes it forward Because it indicates:

1, That the person has been reading far too much conspiracy woo nonsense.

2, That their knowledge of the assassination is at best partial and / or very minimal.

3, And if they are indeed knowledgeable about the assassination then they are arguing in bad faith and deliberately presenting a bogus argument.

Oliver stone presented this "magic bullet" nonsense in his move JFK, despite the fact it can be easily demonstrated to be total ************. I am totally amazed how this falsehood is still believed by so many.
Click to expand...

Pacal, did you even see the 3D animation I linked above which can be considered serious evidence against the Single Bullet Theory?
 
HSienzant said:
And it can also be considered a rebuttal to the arguments you've advanced here about a bullet entry wound near the external occipital protuberance. Where did he place it again? Oh, that's right, above the location you favor, in agreement with the HSCA pathology panel, which you contend was in error for placing it there.

So why do you bring it up, exactly, since it directly contradicts your primary talking point over the last year or more?

Hank
Click to expand...

John Orr did not make the animation, he simply presented it in a way that demonstrated his personal theories.
 
MicahJava said:
John Orr did not make the animation, he simply presented it in a way that demonstrated his personal theories.
Click to expand...

And now you are presenting it... and yet it still contradicts your own claims.
Oddly your post failed to address that issue completely. Do you see why this might not convince us that your placement of certain wounds are correct, when the evidence you present relies on the accepted and proven wounds?
 
BStrong said:
When I went back in the old thread to dig up the No Other headspace gauge nonsense I note that in October-November of 2016 MJ was riding the same lame headwound hobby-horse he's riding now.

In going back in the old thread I can also see where I began to give up on going into detail to rebut some of this nonsense these posters come up with. It's not worth my effort.

I salute the posters who have the wherewithal to rebut the nonsense those posters are married to.
Click to expand...

FTFY. Your original post implies he's actually getting somewhere. ;)

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Um, what? The video shows the Zapruder Film overlaid the animation and it appears to fit quite well. Kennedy is sitting at an elevated position above Connally.
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/SAFZue5.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...
Wait, what? What film in 1963 was taken from the angle you show above, and please show that image and how it matches.

And the vertical alignment wasn't the only problem I mentioned.

And there's a deviation in the bullet path as it exits the neck. You didn't notice that unaccounted-for change? Extend the line downward along the original line -- he admits the bullet in question should penetrate flesh without a deviation elsewhere in the video -- and you've got your single bullet hitting both men.


MicahJava said:
Quit making stuff up.
Click to expand...
We could rightfully say that in response to almost any post of yours, but the admonishment would no doubt not be effective.


MicahJava said:
And the seat was 2 1/2 inches to the right of the Limousine door, not 6 inches. Friendly reminder that the Single Bullet theory requires Connally's left ass cheek to be hanging over the side of the seat.
Click to expand...
According to which conspiracy website you frequent? Seriously. Your problem is you're getting your so-called facts from conspiracy authors and conspiracy websites, not legitimate primary sources. So roughly 99% percent of your claims don't track back to anything you can establish, which is why your responses aren't rebuttals of the facts, but simple name-calling. Like this:
MicahJava said:
"I can see you're really acting like a child here."
Click to expand...

We can see that. You might be too close to the problem to see it.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Pacal, did you even see the 3D animation I linked above which can be considered serious evidence against the Single Bullet Theory?
Click to expand...

What part of "Garbage in, Garbage out" in my original post didn't you understand?

I note you didn't respond to any of this:

HSienzant said:
Problem is his built-in bias is showing.

At the 3:36 mark, the bullet points in the video say there was a fourth bullet, based on what he claims were conclusions reached by the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA that three bullets landed in the limousine. He argues the Tague shot was that evidence of a fourth bullet, but apparently never considers whether it could have been the lead core of the head shot that struck Tague.

He also misdates the Warren Commission determination of the single-bullet concept vs. the determination of when Tague was wounded (claiming Tague's wounding caused the WC to develop the single-bullet concept). The single-bullet concept came before Tague testified and came about because of a close study of the Zapruder film and the recreation when compared to the eyewitness testimony, especially that of John Connally. It had nothing to do with Tague.

The Testimony of John Connally was taken on April 21st, 1964.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0055a.htm

The FBI / Secret Service reenactment was done May 24th, 1964.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/18286-1964-fbi-re-enactment-color-credit-6th-floor-museum/

Tague's testimony was taken on July 23rd, 1964.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0280b.htm

So his claim in those bullet points that the discovery of the Tague wound led the Commission to decide on a single-bullet concept is false. The Tague wound wasn't the genesis, it was the recreation and the perceived timing of the shots combined with the testimony of the Governor.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

The Wikipedia page on the Single Bullet Theory has much more detail and exposes the claim in the cited video as a falsehood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory

Note particularly the dates in these two paragraphs:
On April 14 and 21, two conferences were held at the Commission to determine when, exactly, the president and governor were struck. Assistant counsel Melvin Eisenberg wrote in a memorandum dated April 22 on the first conference that the consensus of those attending was, among other issues, that Kennedy was struck by frames 225–6 and that “the velocity of the first bullet [which struck Kennedy] would have been little diminished by its passage through the President. Therefore, if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him and caused the wounds he sustained in his chest cavity... Strong indications for that this occurred are provided by the facts that... if the first bullet did not strike Governor Connally, it should have ripped up the car but it apparently did not.” However, the memorandum stated, given the relatively undamaged condition of the bullet presumed to have done this, CE 399, the consensus was a separate bullet probably struck his wrist and thigh. While not specifying a precise frame for when it was thought Connally was struck by the same bullet which struck Kennedy, the consensus was “by Z235” as afterwards his body position would not have allowed his back to be struck the way it was.

By the end of April 1964, the Commission had its working theory, the single-bullet theory, to account for the apparent timing discrepancies found in the Zapruder film and the lack of any damage to the limousine from a high-velocity bullet exiting the president's throat. (Impact damage was observed in the limousine, but was indicative of lower-velocity bullets or bullet fragments. For example, a nick on the limousine’s chrome was not from a high-velocity bullet as such a bullet would have pierced the chrome, not merely dented it.)

Tague didn't testify until July. His claims about the genesis of the single bullet concept are false.

I removed the footnoting present in the original.
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom