Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
Sandy Larsen on the JFK education forum posted these accusing Oswald's marine corps teeth of being different from Oswald's corpse exhumation teeth.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/

Marine corpse dental records:

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_dark_tooth.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_jawbone.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_tipped.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_fit_tooth.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_root_spread.jpg

1981 exhumation dental records:

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/teeth_side_numbered.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/teeth.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray_jawbone.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray_tipped.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray_fit_tooth.jpg

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/kXFn0LF.png[/qimg]

I wanted to know if teeth can naturally shift like that. Usually there's an easy simple solution to things like this, but when I google "teeth naturally straightening" I only get bogus home remedies for home dental care.
Click to expand...

Fringe resit/deflection/flinging poo

Also a huge lie.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, Finck said the small wound was intact within the open cranium, as an undisturbed perforation in the occipital bone. He specifically denied exactly what you are trying to state as fact. And also, leaving skull fragments attached to the scalp after reflection and while removing the brain could damage the brain. Such an idea is a mockery of a very delicate procedure. And the autopsy doctors specifically denied doing that. And is that even physically possible? Nevermind, don't bother answering, we know it's wrong either way.
Click to expand...

We covered this, you ignored it.

Humes cut the skull with a saw around the undamaged left, and carefully cut -where necessary - on the shattered right side. The 6.5x52mm Carcano round took care of the rest.

This is one of your top-5 weakest arguments based on your inability to understand medical terminology, or just do thorough research.
 
Axxman300 said:
2.5cm= 0.9842520in

So the hole is the better part of an inch, which is why nobody takes you seriously.
Click to expand...

Just a reminder that Axxman is the same dude who thought the passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm" meant that the wound itself was 2.5 centimeters (or almost one inch). This is your skeptic, people. He should know this stuff by heart, but apparently not.

I think another poster here once confused centimeters with millimeters regarding the 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision, I forgot if it was BStrong or TomTomKent or someone else.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I wonder if it was from the corpse itself drying out and "shrinking" anatomical locations. Marine Oswald's teeth do look messed up compared to exhumed Oswald, with one of his molars almost digging into the other. Exhumed Oswald has straight molars.
Click to expand...

Rotate your fact du jour to your heart's content but you're not getting anywhere.
 
MicahJava said:
Is anybody on this forum a dentist?
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
Sandy Larsen on the JFK education forum posted these accusing Oswald's marine corps teeth of being different from Oswald's corpse exhumation teeth.
Click to expand...

Better yet, is "Sandy Larsen" a dentist?

If not, why would you waste any time reading about the lay opinions of "Sandy Larsen"?

Why would you post them here?

And why should we read about the lay opinions of "Sandy Larsen"?

Here's what you can read:
Norton report: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm

It was done by experts, including two expert odontologists.

They determined the guy buried in Lee Harvey Oswald's grave had teeth that matched the Marine Corps records of the guy who served in the Marine Corps as Lee Harvey Oswald.

They concluded they were one and the same individual.

Let me know when "Sandy Larsen" gets his or her dental degree.

Hank
 
Last edited:
BStrong said:
Rotate your fact du jour to your heart's content but you're not getting anywhere.
Click to expand...

If you think there was an entry wound 4-5 inches above the EOP, state your case. Hank tried stating his case using an out-of-context interpretation of the autopsy photographs that the autopsy pathologists themselves disagreed with, including the photographer himself.

You know what says the wound was right next to the EOP? The autopsy report, the face sheet diagram, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Francis X. O'Neill, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey. No person who saw the body claimed to see an entry wound on the top of the head. That's just a theory pushed by Johnny-come-latelys.
 
MicahJava said:
If you think there was an entry wound 4-5 inches above the EOP, state your case. Hank tried stating his case using an out-of-context interpretation of the autopsy photographs that the autopsy pathologists themselves disagreed with, including the photographer himself.

You know what says the wound was right next to the EOP? The autopsy report, the face sheet diagram, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Francis X. O'Neill, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey. No person who saw the body claimed to see an entry wound on the top of the head. That's just a theory pushed by Johnny-come-latelys.
Click to expand...

What was the red spot, MicahJava? Point out the entrance wound in those pics, MicahJava. Answer the questions, MicahJava. Don't run away your whole life.
 
RoboTimbo said:
What was the red spot, MicahJava? Point out the entrance wound in those pics, MicahJava. Answer the questions, MicahJava. Don't run away your whole life.
Click to expand...

And you've resorted to literally posting the same comments over and over again. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the one reporting me for everything too.
 
MicahJava said:
If you think there was an entry wound 4-5 inches above the EOP, state your case. Hank tried stating his case using an out-of-context interpretation of the autopsy photographs that the autopsy pathologists themselves disagreed with, including the photographer himself.
Click to expand...

Huh? Quote me. Then show the proper context that you accuse me of taking anything out of. We'll wait.


MicahJava said:
You know what says the wound was right next to the EOP? The autopsy report, the face sheet diagram, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Francis X. O'Neill, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey.
Click to expand...

According to who? Why, according to MicahJava. These are all your interpretations of the documents and testimony and recollections.


MicahJava said:
No person who saw the body claimed to see an entry wound on the top of the head. That's just a theory pushed by Johnny-come-latelys.
Click to expand...

You're right. In fact, I'll go one further. Nobody claimed that. Ever. Until just now, when you introduced it as a strawman argument.

I'm aware that the HSCA forensic panel and the Warren Commission put the exit wound on the top of the head. And the Z-film and the autopsy x-rays and photographs show this EXIT wound on the top of the head.

I'm not aware of anyone putting the one entry wound that was seen at autopsy on the top of the head. That's just you making up stuff as you go along.

Even the images of the markings on the skull YOU PROVIDED show the HSCA entry wound is on the back of the head, not the top of the head.

Is English not your primary language?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Try reading over the later half of the last thread and the entirety of this thread and you will see why the people here get desperate.
Click to expand...

Answer the questions asked of you, MicahJava. What was the red spot? Point out the entrance wound in the pics. I accept your admission that the answers destroy your fantasy land dream, otherwise.
 
Axxman300 said:
What I said was:




Which was a reply to your unrealistic version of the autopsy.

The whole is where they said it is, and there isn't another bullet hole.
Click to expand...

The wound itself was approximately 15 x 6mm. It was anatomically located an inch to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. For more information on what "slightly" means, consult the testimonies of the autopsy pathologists or just (somebody else's) common sense.
 
MicahJava said:
The wound itself was approximately 15 x 6mm. It was anatomically located an inch to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. For more information on what "slightly" means, consult the testimonies of the autopsy pathologists or just (somebody else's) common sense.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Oswald behind JFK, MicahJava?
 
MicahJava said:
The external occipital protuberance basically marks the area between Kennedy's long hairs and short hairs in the back of his head, so it could be hidden by a lock of hair, as photographer John Stringer suggested. After all, if there was a small hole in the right temple as Tom Robinson said, then that wound would also be covered by locks of hair in the autopsy photos.
Click to expand...

Here's a neat little back-and-forth which shows exactly how MicahJava raises an issue, then drops the subject entirely to avoid the logical conclusion. Then brings it up again. The first post below is on page 88 in this thread. It was posted January 14th.

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...

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...

HSienzant said:
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?
Click to expand...

At this point MicahJava dropped discussing John Stringer and Tom Robinson and never responded to my point.

Ten pages later (yesterday, February 4th), he brought up the RECOLLECTIONS of John Stringer and Tom Robinson AGAIN, as if the preceding exchange never happened.

MicahJava said:
The external occipital protuberance basically marks the area between Kennedy's long hairs and short hairs in the back of his head, so it could be hidden by a lock of hair, as photographer John Stringer suggested. After all, if there was a small hole in the right temple as Tom Robinson said, then that wound would also be covered by locks of hair in the autopsy photos.
Click to expand...

He brought up an issue, saw it destroyed, waited 21 days and brought it up again.

This is the very definition of a fringe reset.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
If you think there was an entry wound 4-5 inches above the EOP, state your case. Hank tried stating his case using an out-of-context interpretation of the autopsy photographs that the autopsy pathologists themselves disagreed with, including the photographer himself.

You know what says the wound was right next to the EOP? The autopsy report, the face sheet diagram, Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, Dr. Finck, John Stringer, Chester Boyers, Francis X. O'Neill, Roy Kellerman, and Richard Lipsey. No person who saw the body claimed to see an entry wound on the top of the head. That's just a theory pushed by Johnny-come-latelys.
Click to expand...

You continue to believe that your interpretation of the inconsistencies in descriptions of the headwound add up to conspiracy.

The only thing that inconsistencies add up to is the well established human predilection for making mistakes.

Aside from inconsistencies we have some quite nice hard evidence to examine, which lead in one direction only but you consistently ignore or evade addressing any question related to the hard evidence.

The fact that you don't have the ability to honestly examine what real evidence is at hand is your problem, not anybody else's. It's also not anyone else's responsibility to "prove" that you're wrong. I know you've been advised of that several times over the years but maybe at some point you'll finally understand it.

Go back to your post about the "upwards" trajectory of the headwound. You don't even understand enough of the actual science of ballistics and characteristics of GSW's to know up from down but you want to argue the point.

The bottom line here is really very simple. You don't know anything about the sciences involved, you don't know anything about human nature as it relates to the variables in perception across a sample of different individuals and you're unwilling to examine the established evidence in anything other than from a conspiratorial world view. You continually look for validation of your POV not in evidence but in citing other CTist sources that don't have any better grasp of science or the documented evidence as you do.

Add that to your established M.O. of refusing to address the hard evidence in hand while chasing after imaginary shooters, weapons and now LHO's *********** teeth it should be no surprise that your posts are generally regarded as nonsense.
 
MicahJava said:
The wound itself was approximately 15 x 6mm. It was anatomically located an inch to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. For more information on what "slightly" means, consult the testimonies of the autopsy pathologists or just (somebody else's) common sense.
Click to expand...

So we're back to accepting the official autopsy result?

That means Oswald acted alone.

This is what you are stating with this post.
 
HSienzant said:
Here's a neat little back-and-forth which shows exactly how MicahJava raises an issue, then drops the subject entirely to avoid the logical conclusion. Then brings it up again. The first post below is on page 88 in this thread. It was posted January 14th.


At this point MicahJava dropped discussing John Stringer and Tom Robinson and never responded to my point.

Ten pages later (yesterday, February 4th), he brought up the RECOLLECTIONS of John Stringer and Tom Robinson AGAIN, as if the preceding exchange never happened.

He brought up an issue, saw it destroyed, waited 21 days and brought it up again.

This is the very definition of a fringe reset.

Hank
Click to expand...

All you did was post your old comments and assert that I never replied to it. I did. Just go back a couple of pages.
 
MicahJava said:
Hank, Finck said the small wound was intact within the open cranium, as an undisturbed perforation in the occipital bone.
Click to expand...

Quote him saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passage in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what he meant out of it.


MicahJava said:
He specifically denied exactly what you are trying to state as fact.
Click to expand...

Quote him saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passage in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what he meant out of it.


MicahJava said:
And also, leaving skull fragments attached to the scalp after reflection and while removing the brain could damage the brain. Such an idea is a mockery of a very delicate procedure.
Click to expand...

Quote a recognized authority saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passage in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what he meant out of it.



MicahJava said:
And the autopsy doctors specifically denied doing that.
Click to expand...

Quote them saying that. Provide a link. Cite the passages in context. Leave your lay interpretations of what they meant out of it.


MicahJava said:
And is that even physically possible?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the autopsy report says is done.

This was discussed with you about a year ago.


MicahJava said:
Nevermind, don't bother answering, we know it's wrong either way.
Click to expand...

We know nothing of the sort. We have a series of allegations by you, each undocumented. We'll await your documentation. Or your logical fallacy, whichever comes first.

Thanks,

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
All you did was post your old comments and assert that I never replied to it. I did. Just go back a couple of pages.
Click to expand...

Provide the link or the response. Otherwise this is just par for your course, another unproven assertion by you.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Provide the link or the response. Otherwise this is just par for your course, another unproven assertion by you.

Hank
Click to expand...

All you do is quote your own posts and say "you didn't respond to this!" even though I did. That does't make you look good.
 
MicahJava said:
All you did was post your old comments and assert that I never replied to it. I did. Just go back a couple of pages.
Click to expand...

Hank proved what most everybody knows.

And I'm sure that a guy that doesn't know up from down in a GSW might not realize that there are posters here that have adult attention spans - we remember other poster's greatest hits and worst misses.

You're problem is that you're heavily weighted in the latter.
 
RoboTimbo said:
Answer the questions asked of you, MicahJava. What was the red spot? Point out the entrance wound in the pics. I accept your admission that the answers destroy your fantasy land dream, otherwise.
Click to expand...

Get in line.

I'm still waiting for him to address the points I made on page 88, as just one example. Or even acknowledge their existence:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12146759&postcount=3486

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12146776&postcount=3487

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12147218&postcount=3490

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12147402&postcount=3496

Or the first five on the prior page, starting with this one:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12145394&postcount=3441

Hank
 
Last edited:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
Click to expand...

There are a few errors of fact in the story. Most are minor:

"he made up an easily contradicted story that the manager of the Depository brought a rifle to the building" - in fact, Roy Truly testified that Warren Caster, an employee of the Depository, brought in a rifle on Wednesday, 11/20/63. It's more than likely Oswald simply misunderstood whose weapon it was. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly2.htm

"bullets that had slammed into Walker’s wall were consistent with Oswald’s gun" - only one bullet was fired.

"Oswald was already a left-winger at the age of thirteen when he distributed pro-Rosenberg material in New York" - he was handed pro-Rosenberg material in New York which helped to convert him. He admitted this in the Soviet Union upon his attempted defection.

"For nearly 30 years, platoons of conspiracists have concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling might-have-beens, unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful. They have refused to let go of any shred of their earliest suspicions, even when these have been demolished by decisive scientific findings." - this is wholly accurate, and describes pretty accurately what MicahJava has been doing on this thread for the past year. And it was written a quarter-century BEFORE MicahJava started posting here.

Overall, the article is a very good summary of Stone's JFK, the criticisms leveled by critics, and the facts uncovered by the Warren Commission and the HSCA that establish the critics are wrong.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
There are a few errors of fact in the story. Most are minor:

Overall, the article is a very good summary of Stone's JFK, the criticisms leveled by critics, and the facts uncovered by the Warren Commission and the HSCA that establish the critics are wrong.
Click to expand...

You would agree though that as far as being an evidence based account of what happened in Dealey Plaza, it pretty much has everything covered, and clearly shows that Oswald acted alone in the killing of JFK?
 
smartcooky said:
You would agree though that as far as being an evidence based account of what happened in Dealey Plaza, it pretty much has everything covered, and clearly shows that Oswald acted alone in the killing of JFK?
Click to expand...

I could have written it - except for the few errors mentioned, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. I think my posts here over the past six-plus years establish exactly what I believe.

Did you read the fourth highlighted remark in blue and my commentary, or did you just skim those errors I pointed out?

Here it is again:

"For nearly 30 years, platoons of conspiracists have concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling might-have-beens, unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful. They have refused to let go of any shred of their earliest suspicions, even when these have been demolished by decisive scientific findings." - this is wholly accurate, and describes pretty accurately what MicahJava has been doing on this thread for the past year. And it was written a quarter-century BEFORE MicahJava started posting here.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
All you do is quote your own posts and say "you didn't respond to this!" even though I did.
Click to expand...

Again, quote or cite your response to this post:

HSienzant said:
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?
Click to expand...

You never did respond.

You dropped the discussion at that point only to bring up Stringer and Robinson again three weeks later.

Hank
 
smartcooky said:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
Click to expand...

Good reads, thanks!
 
HSienzant said:
I could have written it - except for the few errors mentioned, it pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject. I think my posts here over the past six-plus years establish exactly what I believe.

Did you read the fourth highlighted remark in blue and my commentary, or did you just skim those errors I pointed out?

Here it is again:

"For nearly 30 years, platoons of conspiracists have concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling might-have-beens, unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful. They have refused to let go of any shred of their earliest suspicions, even when these have been demolished by decisive scientific findings." - this is wholly accurate, and describes pretty accurately what MicahJava has been doing on this thread for the past year. And it was written a quarter-century BEFORE MicahJava started posting here.

Hank
Click to expand...

I've often commented that this-or-that piece of CTist jive goes back (X - whatever) years and it's no more true now than it was then.

New gen CTists find something they think is new and incredible but don't know it's 20 or 30 years old and was found false in the same time frame.
 
smartcooky said:
Just a note about how I extricated myself from the rabbit hole.

As I said earlier, I was once a believer in the "second gunman" conspiracy theory. Then, some time in the early 1990s, I read an article in the very early days of the internet (on a Bulletin Board actually) and it got me to thinking, so I started to check out some of the things the article said, and sure enough, everything I looked for was verifiable from other independent sources. However, I forgot the name of the article and the name of the author until recently, I found this article..

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/will-we-never-be-free-of-the-kennedy-assassination/

... and I suddenly realised this was the same author who had written the earlier one, so I did a quick search on that site, and sure enough, here it is. THE article that started my turnaround.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/yes-oswald-alone-killed-kennedy/
Click to expand...

Given that until today you thought the red blob on the Zapruder film was brain tissue, I would suggest staying in the rabbit hole to gather more facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom