Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
Hank, Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a small laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound. So while Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck and John Stringer suggested that the red spot was just a drop of blood, there is no reason why we shouldn't think the red spot could be a small wound of some signifigance.
Click to expand...

Humes and Finck actually handed the head, Boswell did not. Boswell is on record as confirming the autopsy findings.
 
MicahJava said:
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
Click to expand...

What were the autopsy results, which you've been citing?
 
MicahJava said:
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/gonoy3H.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

If you put JFK's arms down that track becomes straight - back to front.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy (officially) concluded one head shot because the small wound in the skull had internal beveling and the large wound in the skull had external beveling. I am not denying this.
Click to expand...

Good, you can't, it's exactly what happened.


The trajectories, how the (official) brain was damaged, how the (official) X-rays show fragment dispersal or fracture patterns are a totally different issue.
Click to expand...

Why?

You have a longer than average missile which fragmented upon initial impacts, and again at the secondary internal impact on it's way through the skull. This is consistent with the round's performance at the speed and force of impact.

Kennedy's brain was alledgedly not sectioned.
Click to expand...

They didn't need to section the brain in this case. This head wound was straight-forward.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a small laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound.
Click to expand...

So you're going with recollections 15 and 33 years after the fact rather than the autopsy itself that reports only one entry wound in the head.


MicahJava said:
So while Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck and John Stringer suggested that the red spot was just a drop of blood, there is no reason why we shouldn't think the red spot could be a small wound of some signifigance. It's just not THE small wound near the external occipital protuberance.
Click to expand...

So you're still going with recollections 15 and 33 years after the fact rather than the autopsy itself that reports only one entry wound in the head. And still contradicting the autopsy doctors and the autopsy report that concluded only one bullet strike to the head. You think there were two bullets to strike the head. Big deal. You have zero -- ZERO -- qualifications to have your judgment here taken seriously.


MicahJava said:
Autopsy photographs showing views such as the small head wound and Kennedy's right lung have inexplicably gone missing.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. I'm not basing my arguments on missing photos and what they might show... you are. I'm going by the testimony of the autopsists to the Warren Commission, and the determinations of the HSCA forensic pathology panel.

I'll remind you that you're ignoring most all of that, cherry-picking the parts you like out of the dregs of the recollections of the rest of the testimony, and ignoring everything else from those recollections, including the parts that contradict the parts you like.


MicahJava said:
So you are working from the context of an incomplete set of photographs.
Click to expand...

A complaint that is meaningless, as you are working from the same context of an incomplete set of photographs.

However, unlike you, I don't ignore the determination of the HSCA forensic pathology panel with the complaint they weren't trained to read radiographs, then offer my own obviously layman's interpretation of the radiographs.

Unlike you, I don't cherry-pick recollections from the autopsists from 15 or 33 years after the autopsy to contradict the autopsy doctors earliest testimony and the autopsy report which reported only one bullet strike to the head.

Hank

PS: We covered all this ground a year ago. You're just restarting your fringe reset and posting the same disproven arguments all over again.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat.
Click to expand...

No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was the three pathologists at the autopsy who had the body in front of them and the HSCA pathology panel determined that was what it was. They all concluded the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. All of them. Unanimously.

And they have the expertise by dint of training, education, and experience to make that determination. I don't. So I defer to their judgment here.


MicahJava said:
It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
Click to expand...

Now you're contradicting the autopsists who you just cited the recollection of from 15 and 33 years after the autopsy.

You're telling us their recollection is infallible from that long after the fact, but their determination as reported in the autopsy report -- prepared two days after the autopsy -- is very fallible, and very wrong.

That makes no sense.

You're also offering only your own lay opinion of the radiograph to contradict the determination of the HSCA Pathology panel and the original three autopsy doctors.

Sorry, we've covered this ground extensively in the past. You have no standing to offer your opinion. Nobody cares what you think the radiographs indicate. You're not qualified to offer an opinion.

This is still just a fringe reset for you. You are not qualified to render a judgment here. But that's what you're doing, and you expect us to take your word over that of the experts who had the body in front of them, or the experts who studied the extant autopsy materials?

Really?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
Click to expand...

So your claim is that, in order to conceal this second bullet wound, the autopsy specifically mentions it, and then "they", whoever "they" are (and we are all still waiting for you to set out your own theory as to what happened, albeit without much hope, based on your track record of dishonesty and evasion), then remove a photo of Kennedy's right lung:

MicahJava said:
Autopsy photographs showing views such as the small head wound and Kennedy's right lung have inexplicably gone missing. So you are working from the context of an incomplete set of photographs.
Click to expand...

If this mysterious other wound was as you describe, what possible reason could there be for removing this photo? It has no bearing at all on your claimed trajectory.

Just to clarify, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not seen the photos, and therefore cannot say what has or has not been removed. Unless I've got this wrong, and you can cite some evidence for this 'inexplicable' disappearance.
 
MicahJava said:
The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
Since the EOP wound is almost certainly an entrance for a missile, that shot would have to come from behind, and probably above.
Click to expand...

I myself do not have the necessary skills, but, if we know the angle of this supposed wound, and also when in the Zapruder film it was supposedly fired (something I believe MJ has mentioned), then it should be possible to determine the location of this second shooter. This would at least have the advantage of showing whether this shot was even possible (i.e. no obstructions etc.)
This is too close to an actual concrete theory for MJ to attempt, but I was wondering if anyone else would care to give this a try?
 
MicahJava said:
1. I have not seen any photographic evidence that the red spot is situated 4-5 inches above the EOP like the alleged defect on the X-rays. Looking at stereoscopic morphing gifs of the autopsy photographs, the red spot appears to be about 2 inches above the EOP.
Click to expand...

Citing yourself as a source. Nobody asked you what you think.


MicahJava said:
2. While you may doubt that the EOP wound could simply be hiding under a bit of hair on the back-of-head photographs, keep in mind that Kennedy's hair also appears to be obscuring the hole in the right temple described by Tom Robinson.
Click to expand...

So now you're conjecturing yet a THIRD entry wound to the head that these (incompetent or lying) autopsists missed? Yet you continue to cite their recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact as if they are valuable.

You also cite the testimony of John Stringer, the official medical photographer at the autopsy, but you denigrate his ability to take photos that actually show the wounds inflicted and the condition of the victim - the only reason to take photos at the autopsy. You suggest the autopsy photos don't show the actual wounds, and that the area that is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.

That couldn't possibly be a wound entry location. Because Stringer didn't know how to operate a camera nor knew the purpose of autopsy photos? Are you really going with that argument?

You need to make up your mind and stop cherry-picking the evidence. You need to stop clinging to every loose piece of driftwood in the ocean of evidence collected and learn to swim.


MicahJava said:
3. The red spot could be an exit for a fragment (which may very well be possible with a shot from behind, a fragment that flew backwards), in which case the autopsy pathologists would have a motive for not addressing it truthfully.
Click to expand...

So it could be an exit that these (incompetent or lying) autopsists missed? But the one thing it can't be is what these autopsists actually determined it was -- an bullet entry wound inflicted from above and behind President Kennedy?

You dismiss the ability of the autopsy doctors to conduct a valid autopsy suggesting they missed at least two other entry wounds in the head, you dismiss the ability of the autopsy photographer John Stringer to take valid autopsy photographs suggesting the wounds aren't seen in the photographs he took, you suggest my conclusions are invalid because I haven't seen the missing autopsy photographs (but somehow this doesn't apply to your conclusions), you argue that every witness whose testimony contradicts your conclusions is lying or mistaken, you dismiss all attempts to get a reasonable response.

And you think this is 'genuine discourse'?

Hilarious.

Hank

PS: All this was discussed a year ago. You're just in the middle of full fringe reset right now, where you pretend all your arguments weren't previously exposed as nonsense and you just reiterate those bogus arguments anew.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did. This is a difficult crime case. The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head. The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.
Click to expand...

There is one and only one entry wound to the head. You lose again.
 
MicahJava said:
2. While you may doubt that the EOP wound could simply be hiding under a bit of hair on the back-of-head photographs, keep in mind that Kennedy's hair also appears to be obscuring the hole in the right temple described by Tom Robinson.
Click to expand...

MicahJava,

Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?

Hank
 
Last edited:
Steve said:
...Do you have your own theory or is there a specific theory from someone else that accurately reflects you thoughts? All I am asking for is a brief summary, in your own words, of what you think happened that day. Without, of course, any comments on what you do not think happened that day.
MicahJava said:
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did.
Axxman300 said:
Actually it's a huge problem. All that matters is what happened.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There are an infinite number of ways it didn't happen.

Conspiracy Theorists concentrate their energies there - rather than on what did happen - because that gives them an infinite number of ways to criticize the official conclusions, and an infinite number of ways to change the subject and an infinite number of ways to avoid answering questions.

So no overarching theory will be forthcoming from any CT.

Because then we could compare apples to apples and see their apples are all bad apples.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
There are an infinite number of ways it didn't happen.

Conspiracy Theorists concentrate their energies there - rather than on what did happen - because that gives them an infinite number of ways to criticize the official conclusions, and an infinite number of ways to change the subject and an infinite number of ways to avoid answering questions.

So no overarching theory will be forthcoming from any CT.

Because then we could compare apples to apples and see their apples are all bad apples.

Hank
Click to expand...

I know all that. I was just curious to see whether a relatively new voice with a reasonable request might get a reasonable response. I got the response I was expecting.
 
Steve said:
I know all that.
Click to expand...

I knew you did. My post wasn't directed at you (although I quoted you to give a fuller sense of MicahJava's response), but at MicahJava.


Steve said:
I was just curious to see whether a relatively new voice with a reasonable request might get a reasonable response. I got the response I was expecting.
Click to expand...

Understood. He can't answer questions along those lines because he doesn't have any answers. He only has questions and 'issues that need to be addressed'. And the more questions you answer for a CT, the more questions they have. And the more issues you address, the more issues CTs raise.

Hence MicahJava's claim above that "This is a difficult crime case".

It's not.

CTs try to make it appear that way by questioning everything, avoided the expert conclusions, and offering their own speculations and conjectures as to what happened (mostly everyone lied to frame Oswald, is what it amounts to), by selecting the outlier testimony, but they can't come up with a competing scenario that hangs together and explains more of the actual evidence.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
And they are off and running again... Just another fringe reset by you.

We've covered all this. In detail. About a year ago. A reminder: You are now contradicting the very autopsy report and the very autopsy doctors you just cited a few posts above.

Make up your mind. Either the autopsy doctors got it right, or they got it wrong. But you don't get to cite their conclusions when it suits you, and then turn around and disregard their conclusions when it suits you as well.

Now you're just cherry-picking the parts you like.

And your argument doesn't even make sense. You're arguing for a bullet exiting JFK's throat in the Z190-Z224 range, as we've previously established.

That means you think JFK was struck in the brain by a bullet that went through his head, exited the base of the skull (without leaving any discernable damage!) and then exited his throat, and yet JFK still was able to sit upright for at least five seconds, bring his arms up and out, point to his throat wound, and do all this before a second shot to his head blew the top of his skull off.

That theory is bizarre beyond belief, because it now has you arguing that the autopsy doctors missed a second bullet entry wound in the head, a second bullet exit through the base of the skull (that somehow caused NO damage), missed a bullet in the body (that entered the back and didn't exit the throat according to you), and that none of the roughly 500 witnesses in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination saw the other shooter(s) responsible for these other shots. Or heard more than the three fired from Oswald's rifle. So the witnesses were deaf AND blind when it suits your purposes, and the autopsy doctors got everything wrong except the location of the wound on the back of the head.

Good luck recovering from that bizarre theory.

And that's why conspiracy theorists generally don't offer anything but criticism of the established scenario. Because the moment they start getting definitive is the moment their theory unravels completely.



MicahJava said:
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your response completely avoided any of the points I raised, and is just a change of subject (in addition to being a straw-man argument about my actual point).

And still just cherry-picks the parts you like and avoids everything else.
And still ignores the expert opinions and substitutes your own opinion as if that has value.

Yet another example of a punt by you.

Now try advancing the ball by actually addressing the points I raised, or punt yet again.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
If you put JFK's arms down that track becomes straight - back to front.
Click to expand...

1EzCBhP.jpg


gonoy3H.jpg


There is no question about it. The dark squiggly line, which represents a cavity of air within the tissues, is going up into the middle throat area.

It's not as complicated as the skull X-rays.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy results were that the small wound in the near the EOP had internal beveling and the large head wound in the skull had external beveling.
Click to expand...

Besides the wound above the EOP, how many other gunshot wounds were found, according to the autopsy which you've been citing?
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/1EzCBhP.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/gonoy3H.jpg[/qimg]

There is no question about it. The dark squiggly line, which represents a cavity of air within the tissues, is going up into the middle throat area.

It's not as complicated as the skull X-rays.
Click to expand...

Skeleton does not represent muscle structure or movement. All that x-ray shows is the path of the bullet from back to front.

All you've done is confirm Oswald did it.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy results were that the small wound in the near the EOP had internal beveling and the large head wound in the skull had external beveling.
Click to expand...

What is said was the LONE bullet entered through the rear of the skull (beveling inward), and exited out the right front of the skull fracturing the bone (beveling outward as the fragment passed).

One shot from behind and above.
 
Axxman300 said:
Skeleton does not represent muscle structure or movement. All that x-ray shows is the path of the bullet from back to front.

All you've done is confirm Oswald did it.
Click to expand...

The jacket bunched. The shirt bunched. The freaking muscle structure bunched. Don't you get tired of the obvious excuses? The dark cavity is going sharply up into the middle throat area right by the trachea. And it sharply deviates where it meets the first rib.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The jacket bunched. The shirt bunched. The freaking muscle structure bunched. Don't you get tired of the obvious excuses? The dark cavity is going sharply up into the middle throat area right by the trachea. And it sharply deviates where it meets the first rib.
Click to expand...

Can you cite from the autopsy where it states that so we can be assured we aren't relying on a random layman opinion, which is worthless?
 
HSienzant said:
MicahJava,

Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?

Hank
Click to expand...

Yes.

Are all the photographs he described taking in the official autopsy collection today? No.

Has John Stringer expressed a willingness to change his story when informed that his recollections don't match the official story before in the past? Yes.

Do I still trust most of what he says? Yes.

Your point?
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/cMZklPd.jpg[/qimg]

Does that look like a high back wound to you? If you think so, take the mic.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood, apparently deliberately.

I don't want your words, which are worthless. I want you to cite the autopsy report where the people who knew their ass from a hole in the ground say... whatever it is you think they said.
 
HSienzant said:
MicahJava,

Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?

Hank
Click to expand...
MicahJava said:
Yes. ... Your point?
Click to expand...

That if he's qualified to take autopsy photographs, then the autopsy photo in question shows the bullet entry wound at the location you call 'the red spot' because it's:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
That if he's qualified to take autopsy photographs, then the autopsy photo in question shows the bullet entry wound at the location you call 'the red spot' because it's:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.

Hank
Click to expand...

Why don't you quote John Stringer's recollections on each type of photograph he took of the small head wound? Or his reaction upon seeing the existent back-of-head photographs and asked to identify an entry wound?
 
MicahJava said:
Why don't you quote John Stringer's recollections on each type of photograph he took of the small head wound? Or his reaction upon seeing the existent back-of-head photographs and asked to identify an entry wound?
Click to expand...

You were asked several questions. Answer them.
 
HSienzant said:
You're just restarting your fringe reset and posting the same disproven arguments all over again.
Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder, why even bother coming to a message board if one is not willing to engage? Might as well post all the unmitigated nonsense one wishes on a blog, somewhere.
 
HSienzant said:
Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?
Click to expand...
MicahJava said:
Yes. ...Your point?
Click to expand...
HSienzant said:
That if he's qualified to take autopsy photographs, then the autopsy photo in question shows the bullet entry wound at the location you call 'the red spot' because it's:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.
Click to expand...
MicahJava said:
Why don't you quote John Stringer's recollections on each type of photograph he took of the small head wound? Or his reaction upon seeing the existent back-of-head photographs and asked to identify an entry wound?
Click to expand...

Why don't you? We could use the laugh.

So your argument reduces to his recollection from decades after the fact is better than his medical photography skills?

You already admitted he was a qualified autopsy photographer. Remember?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
There is no question about it. The dark squiggly line, which represents a cavity of air within the tissues, is going up into the middle throat area.

It's not as complicated as the skull X-rays.
Click to expand...

And tell us of your training in X-ray interpretation. How many have your looked at and concluded a condition, other than what you read in CT book/webpages?
 
MicahJava said:
The jacket bunched.
Click to expand...

Cool, did they X-ray it too?

The fibers show one bullet entering the back, the shirt shows matching entry in the back, and exiting the front, and the tie shows the same.


The freaking muscle structure bunched.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, I'm going to need a citation showing an abnormal bunching of JFK's upper back and neck muscles before Oswald fired.

Don't you get tired of the obvious excuses?
Click to expand...

Heh, no. I didn't get to necrosis, rigor mortis, and the fact that the line is so faint that NONE of the pathologist put two and two together until AFTER they called Parkland and learned the throat wound was a GSW.

The dark cavity is going sharply up into the middle throat area right by the trachea. And it sharply deviates where it meets the first rib.
Click to expand...

To be clear, 4 pathologists - WHO WERE WORKING WITH THE BODY AND THE ORIGINAL X-RAYS - didn't see an obvious pathway from the 6.5x52mm round...but it's all clear to you...based on a low resolution reproduction of the x-ray...:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Based on what criteria? I have a Canon DSLR, and I'm looking for part-time work.

Are all the photographs he described taking in the official autopsy collection today? No.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant, and also not true.

Has John Stringer expressed a willingness to change his story when informed that his recollections don't match the official story before in the past? Yes.
Click to expand...

John Stringer is not on trial, nor has been accused of committing a crime. Memories fade over time - THIS IS A FACT. The only crime is CTists such as yourself reading malicious intent into the misrememberings of an honest man.
 
Since I do not believe in the occipital blowout, it's kind of a complicated subject, but look at this summary of statements by John Stringer in From Parkland To Bethesda:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cNwUCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT161&lpg=PT161&dq=%22%E2%80%9CCraig+Colgan+reported+Stringer%E2%80%99s+surprise+when+he+heard,+and+positively%22&source=bl&ots=WpANmoK7ZQ&sig=8-VOIVdAjEu6VK6Lj-8dFfKAY3Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIkcnBruDYAhVPdt8KHbqCBKIQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22%E2%80%9CCraig%20Colgan%20reported%20Stringer%E2%80%99s%20surprise%20when%20he%20heard%2C%20and%20positively%22&f=false

See how he appears to understand that he is deliberately contradicting himself in later interviews about where the large head wound was situated.
 
Axxman300 said:
What is said was the LONE bullet entered through the rear of the skull (beveling inward), and exited out the right front of the skull fracturing the bone (beveling outward as the fragment passed).

One shot from behind and above.
Click to expand...

The autopsy report says "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But this could just be the based on the shallow back wound which was angled 45-60 degrees downward. A contemporaneous description of the trajectory through the head is in the 2:00 AM Teletype from Sibert and O'Neill:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md149/html/md149_0001a.htm

...

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL.

...

Suggesting more of an upwards trajectory as if you connected the EOP wound to the top of the head.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy report says "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But this could just be the based on the shallow back wound which was angled 45-60 degrees downward. A contemporaneous description of the trajectory through the head is in the 2:00 AM Teletype from Sibert and O'Neill:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md149/html/md149_0001a.htm

...

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL.

...

Suggesting more of an upwards trajectory as if you connected the EOP wound to the top of the head.
Click to expand...

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that JFK was leaning over toward Jackie so that shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD lines up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom