IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 4th November 2016, 11:11 AM   #2001
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
You keep saying "Everybody who saw the body", yet ignore the autopsy, and those who performed it, disagree with you.

But, as has been pointed out before, that doesn't matter.

We can SEE the wound, in the photographs. Despite your bleating something is only a red smear, we can see it is a wound, with depth, exactly where the autopsy places it.
Tomtomkent, what is this?

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrxWL8/VddxAzaNwmI/AAAAAAABHDo/i5zn4ndkzSo/s1600/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif

Last edited by Agatha; 6th November 2016 at 04:57 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 11:14 AM   #2002
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What difference will giving my answer again make? This is the fourth iteration of this thread. The autopsy records have been discussed at length.

At this point, I want to know if you even read the autopsy, so why don't you explain what the autopsy says it is, then give me a viable reason why I should not deffer to the judgement of those who performed the autopsy?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 11:18 AM   #2003
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
What difference will giving my answer again make? This is the fourth iteration of this thread. The autopsy records have been discussed at length.

At this point, I want to know if you even read the autopsy, so why don't you explain what the autopsy says it is, then give me a viable reason why I should not deffer to the judgement of those who performed the autopsy?
Enough silliness. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

What is that thing that looks a lot like a hole in the skull?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 11:30 AM   #2004
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Enough silliness. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.
Are you sure about that?

You keep saying it is silly, but you have yet to state if you read the autopsy document or not.

But hey ho. "Slightly" is a subjective term. Some might suggest the entry wound visible to everybody but you in the photographs is "slightly" above the occiptiat protruberance.

More likely you have read a conspiracy book that insists on the location being relative to the protruberance and not the occipital bone, which would, quite frankly, put it bang on the clearly photographed entry wound.

But by all means... continue to post photographs of a mark you want to squint at and call an alternative hole, without showing any sign that you know where on the skull you are looking at.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 11:38 AM   #2005
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 11:42 AM   #2006
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
I have a new question:

If the autopsy DID describe the entry wound as being "2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance", why is it that so many pathologists seem to read those records and materials so very differently:

The HSCA concluded the autopsy record places the entry wound Four Inches above the protrubence.

The four pathologists Ramsey Clark gave the autopsy records to in the sixties stated it was 25mm to the right of, and 100mm above the protrubence.

And throughout the HSCA discussion of the xrays, the discussion of the occipital defect is places consistently exactly where MichaJava says it wasn't...

Hmm.

One might almost think he has seen a few grainy photographs he is interpreting as a layman and had not read the autopsy itself...
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 11:53 AM   #2007
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
I have a new question:

If the autopsy DID describe the entry wound as being "2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance", why is it that so many pathologists seem to read those records and materials so very differently:

The HSCA concluded the autopsy record places the entry wound Four Inches above the protrubence.

The four pathologists Ramsey Clark gave the autopsy records to in the sixties stated it was 25mm to the right of, and 100mm above the protrubence.

And throughout the HSCA discussion of the xrays, the discussion of the occipital defect is places consistently exactly where MichaJava says it wasn't...

Hmm.

One might almost think he has seen a few grainy photographs he is interpreting as a layman and had not read the autopsy itself...
Probably because the shills realized that such a low hole in the head means Oswald didn't do it. The people who were there know the hole was low in the head.

What exactly do you think that object in the open-cranium photographs is? Why does it look like you can see the edges of the bone?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:00 PM   #2008
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Probably because the shills realized that such a low hole in the head means Oswald didn't do it. The people who were there know the hole was low in the head.
And yet, when we read the autopsy, it appears to be because your interpretation was wrong. So... Did you ever read the autopsy itself?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What exactly do you think that object in the open-cranium photographs is? Why does it look like you can see the edges of the bone?
It may look like you can see the edge of the bone to you but your opinion is worth nothing.

You identified where you think that mark tallies to the colour photographs and there was no wound where you marked, and one where the autopsy places it (oh look, the shills are right...)
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:02 PM   #2009
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Of course, we are not even addressing an obvious question yet:

Does the "wound" MichaJava keeps asking me to identify match to the position he keeps claiming the entry wound should be?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:03 PM   #2010
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Enough silliness. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

What is that thing that looks a lot like a hole in the skull?
You're making the assertion, you tell us.

BTW, your gifl looks like tribbles humping.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:13 PM   #2011
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Of course, we are not even addressing an obvious question yet:

Does the "wound" MichaJava keeps asking me to identify match to the position he keeps claiming the entry wound should be?
No need. S/he don't need no stinking witnesses, why would S/he be concerned with consistency of physical evidence?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:16 PM   #2012
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Of course, we are not even addressing an obvious question yet:

Does the "wound" MichaJava keeps asking me to identify match to the position he keeps claiming the entry wound should be?
The autopsy professionals labled the open-cranium photographs as showing posterior skull.

Since you have a theory that the small head wound was not low in the skull, why was the base of the skull fractured?

Last edited by MicahJava; 4th November 2016 at 12:18 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:25 PM   #2013
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Since you have a theory that the small head wound was not low in the skull, why was the base of the skull fractured?
Well, I am no pathologist, but I would suggest it was the trauma of the gunshot. The pressure of the bullet caused mass ejecta from the exit wound, but all that force would have been spreading out through the skull. What do you expect to happen when it reaches the skull bones?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:30 PM   #2014
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Well, I am no pathologist, but I would suggest it was the trauma of the gunshot. The pressure of the bullet caused mass ejecta from the exit wound, but all that force would have been spreading out through the skull. What do you expect to happen when it reaches the skull bones?
Geez, how much of the skull do you think was destroyed by the bullet?

And I'm guessing you think the open-cranium photo depicts the forehead?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:32 PM   #2015
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There had to be an entry wound, right? If one existed, it existed low in the head.
Nope. You're "working" from bad information.


Quote:
A fountain of blood? This isn't Monty Python. The EOP bullet grazed the brain and smashed the floor of the skull. The blood would've been on the inside of the head.
So when you say you do "research" I'm guessing this does not include looking at any of the hundreds of online videos of people being shot in the head, because if you did you'd begin to understand the depths of your ridiculousness.

I'm also guessing you've never been punched in the nose, because it's a wonderful learning experience about blood pressure as it relates to the head, and how your body works hard to fight gravity by placing large veins to direct a heavy flow of blood in and out of your head.

Bullets, even a .22, are worse than a fist.


Quote:
A lot of blood was indeed reported to be coming out of Kennedy's mouth.
Almost as if the wound in his upper back had hit his windpipe. Weird.

I mean, you seem to not understand that that the brain is sealed in the skull, and a subsonic round won't pass through the skull, and a wound in the back of the head is nowhere near the throat, and while the brain hemorrhages - none of that blood goes anywhere but out of the hole the bullet made coming in.

You're really not good at this.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:34 PM   #2016
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Geez, how much of the skull do you think was destroyed by the bullet?
The entry wound, and the notch on the exit.
The rest was trauma damage.

Your asking suggests you have little idea of how bullet wounds work.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:35 PM   #2017
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Geez, how much of the skull do you think was destroyed by the bullet?
All of that damage came from the Carcano round. It is just that devastating.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:39 PM   #2018
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy professionals labled the open-cranium photographs as showing posterior skull.

Since you have a theory that the small head wound was not low in the skull, why was the base of the skull fractured?
S.F. Chronicle writers stated Hundreds Dead in Huge Quake. 63 people lost their lives. What possible answer that takes the known facts into consideration explains the discrepancy?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:42 PM   #2019
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Axxman - Just google "do gunshots to the head always create a large blood splatter?". You're making things up. And I'm saying the bullet only grazed the brain before smashing the posterior base of the skull. Of course, there's no expectation that any projectile would go in a straight line after this, so something could indeed exit the throat.

Last edited by MicahJava; 4th November 2016 at 12:49 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:49 PM   #2020
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman - Just google "do gunshots to the head always create a large blood splatter?". You're making things up. And I'm saying the bullet only grazed the brain before smashing the posterior base of the skull. Of course, there's no expectation that any projectile would go in a straight line after this, so something from this could indeed exit the throat.
Why do you expect other posters to make your case?

If you can't be bothered to bring facts into evidence why should anyone else?

ETA: someone other than the usual suspect may be interested in learning something about GSW's. This is a good place to start:

http://www.tdcaa.com/sites/default/f...t%20Wounds.pdf
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 4th November 2016 at 12:54 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 12:58 PM   #2021
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
The entry wound, and the notch on the exit.
The rest was trauma damage.

Your asking suggests you have little idea of how bullet wounds work.
So you think the bullet created so much trauma damage that it extended all the way down to the floor of the skull? As in, almost half of the cranium was smashed as a consequence of the bullet?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:01 PM   #2022
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So you think the bullet created so much trauma damage that it extended all the way down to the floor of the skull? As in, almost half of the cranium was smashed as a consequence of the bullet?
How much pressure was required for the massive ejecta seen in the Z film?
What happens when that pressure wave meets other surfaces?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:08 PM   #2023
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
How much pressure was required for the massive ejecta seen in the Z film?
What happens when that pressure wave meets other surfaces?
If the Z film is authentic, I think it probably shows a tangential wound at frame 313.

Nobody who saw the skull said the cracking extended that far down.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Boswell01.JPG

Last edited by Agatha; 6th November 2016 at 05:14 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:08 PM   #2024
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So you think the bullet created so much trauma damage that it extended all the way down to the floor of the skull? As in, almost half of the cranium was smashed as a consequence of the bullet?
Supersonic projectiles tend to do just that.

Brain tissue doesn't peacefully co-exist with any type of penetrating projectile, and even less so w/ a supersonic velocity projectile.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:12 PM   #2025
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If the Z film is authentic, I think it probably shows a tangential wound at frame 313.

Nobody who saw the skull said the cracking extended that far down.

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Boswell01.JPG
1. The film is as authentic as it gets.

2. Your expertise in this subject comes from...where?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:15 PM   #2026
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Supersonic projectiles tend to do just that.

Brain tissue doesn't peacefully co-exist with any type of penetrating projectile, and even less so w/ a supersonic velocity projectile.
That might be a neat idea to entertain if the bullet entered high in the skull.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:16 PM   #2027
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
It is interesting.
"Nobody who saw the skull said..." following so soon after "probably because they are shills who..."

Those who saw the skull when JFK was alive were working on the large exit wound, trying to save his life. They didn't lift the head to be able to examine the damage.

Those who studied the skull after death were apparently untrustworthy shills...

Whom is being referred to?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:18 PM   #2028
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That might be a neat idea to entertain if the bullet entered high in the skull.
About four inches higher than you have been claiming. Where it can be seen in photographs, x-rays, and was recorded by the autopsy?

Wow. What an idea! Let's entertain the actual evidence instead of your unsupported claims!
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:23 PM   #2029
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
It is interesting.
"Nobody who saw the skull said..." following so soon after "probably because they are shills who..."

Those who saw the skull when JFK was alive were working on the large exit wound, trying to save his life. They didn't lift the head to be able to examine the damage.

Those who studied the skull after death were apparently untrustworthy shills...

Whom is being referred to?
Turn a skeptical eye to some of the things the autopsy professionals said, but especially don't trust some johnny-come-lately's moving wounds around for convinence. They never saw the body.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:27 PM   #2030
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
About four inches higher than you have been claiming. Where it can be seen in photographs, x-rays, and was recorded by the autopsy?

Wow. What an idea! Let's entertain the actual evidence instead of your unsupported claims!
You are either confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. The strongest evidence points to the small head wound existing low, near the EOP.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:30 PM   #2031
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Turn a skeptical eye to some of the things the autopsy professionals said, but especially don't trust some johnny-come-lately's moving wounds around for convinence. They never saw the body.
Would you care to show why the timescale of their investigations make their opinions less valid?

And I would love to know how they "moved" the wound?

The photographs, despite your opinion, shows the wound where they claim (what you call the "cowlick" wound for some reason). As does the autopsy report (which I am now convinced you have never read).

You are trying to suggest the wound was described in a different position after the autopsy. Yet it was not.

You said you didn't need witnesses because the autopsy proved the entry wound was "slightly" above the occipital protrubence. It puts it 100mm above.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:32 PM   #2032
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Do you have any person who saw the body and placed the small head wound above the level of the ears?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:32 PM   #2033
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. The strongest evidence points to the small head wound existing low, near the EOP.
No. It does not. You have kept saying that, but you have never been able to show it.

The strongest evidence being the autopsy, the x rays, the photographs, all show the wound 100mm above the protrubence. This has consistently been confirmed, by all experts who look at the records and the material.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:34 PM   #2034
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That might be a neat idea to entertain if the bullet entered high in the skull.
Facts are not required to be entertaining.

Fiction usually must be.

The simple explanation that you wish to hand wave away is that people make mistakes, and the subject under discussion is no different that any other event humans get involved with - folks made mistakes across the board, and in CT land human frailty is not a recognized or accepted phenomenon.

Again, how do we go from "Hundreds" dead to 63 in the '89 earthquake?

Were "Hundreds" dead? was the number covered up later and downsized to 63? was the difference a deliberate act, or could every question be answered by an acknowledgement that humans make mistakes, or guess, or flat out make **** up now and then?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:35 PM   #2035
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
No. It does not. You have kept saying that, but you have never been able to show it.

The strongest evidence being the autopsy, the x rays, the photographs, all show the wound 100mm above the protrubence. This has consistently been confirmed, by all experts who look at the records and the material.
You have nothing except for a skull fracture on the x-ray and a red splotch on the skin which doesn't match any of the information given by the autopsy professionals.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:36 PM   #2036
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have any person who saw the body and placed the small head wound above the level of the ears?
On the level of the ears measured from where.

The autopsy places the wound 100mm (or 4 inches depending on which scale you prefer) above the protrubence. Are you claiming the autopsy was performed without seeing the body? Because you keep saying "nobody who saw the body..." And yet we have their records.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:38 PM   #2037
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have nothing except for a skull fracture on the x-ray and a red splotch on the skin which doesn't match any of the information given by the autopsy professionals.
It doesn't match any information given by the autopsy professionals, except being the focus of the photographs, clearly an entry wound, and measurably where they describe it.

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that you have not read, or have not understood the autopsy. You keep arguing that it says something it simply does not.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:44 PM   #2038
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. The strongest evidence points to the small head wound existing low, near the EOP.
Note to lurkers:

This is what grown-ups call an gratuitous assertion. When you hear someone make a gratuitous assertion, point at them and laugh.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:45 PM   #2039
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
You are confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. If you mean the large head wound being identified as an exit wound, we've already gone over information showing that this could be a revision.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th November 2016, 01:49 PM   #2040
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. If you mean the large head wound being identified as an exit wound, we've already gone over information showing that this could be a revision.
No... we are discussing the entry wound. It is the one 100mm above the protrubence. You said it was "slightly" above the protrubence, but have never offered any evidence of this.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:38 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.