Continuation JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull after the brain had already been removed", I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer that in a way that isn't completely stupid, otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

To anybody trusting Axxman300 to tell them what to think: this guy thinks you can see the entry wound on the Zapruder Film.

Was there anywhere behind JFK that would have been impossible for the bullet to come from? The question will be there no matter how many times you scurry away from it.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull", I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer it in a way that isn't completely stupid, otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.

What is your comprehensive theory for the JFK assassination?

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Was there anywhere behind JFK that would have been impossible for the bullet to come from? The question will be there no matter how many times you scurry away from it.

Please, Ma'am. Just the facts.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

What is your comprehensive theory for the JFK assassination?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Please, Ma'am. Just the facts.

You're simply lost when your one CT website doesn't tell you what to think. You have no thoughts of your own about a comprehensive theory concerning the assassination?

[Steve]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-06-2015/erNJl5.gif

What the hell is that?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

To anybody trusting Axxman300 to tell them what to think: this guy thinks you can see the entry wound on the Zapruder Film.

You can.

You just need to have seen enough bullets strike their target, and just pay attention when watching the Zapruder Film.

It is the only bullet strike visible in any of the recorded footage.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull after the brain had already been removed", I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer that in a way that isn't completely stupid, otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.

Sure, your question is valid, just as the 50+ answers to your question have been valid.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

You're simply lost when your one CT website doesn't tell you what to think. You have no thoughts of your own about a comprehensive theory concerning the assassination?

He doesn't want to get pinned down and exposed.

He has probably figured out that all of the 2nd gunman theories have been shredded into mist by now, and since there is no viable theory currently he can't ape it. Plus, he's too lazy to advance a murkier CT that leaves LHO as the shooter, but involves shadowy evil-doers.

When I was a JFK-CTer the fabricated mystery of the assassination was a way to pretend I was doing something important for mankind, justice, and history without actually doing anything, but wasting money on books written by hucksters, and fools.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

You can.

You just need to have seen enough bullets strike their target, and just pay attention when watching the Zapruder Film.

It is the only bullet strike visible in any of the recorded footage.

Can you get an image of z313 and draw what you're talking about over it with MS Paint?

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Sure, your question is valid, just as the 50+ answers to your question have been valid.

Like a trophy that says "you tried", maybe.

Originally Posted by Axxman300

He doesn't want to get pinned down and exposed.

He has probably figured out that all of the 2nd gunman theories have been shredded into mist by now, and since there is no viable theory currently he can't ape it. Plus, he's too lazy to advance a murkier CT that leaves LHO as the shooter, but involves shadowy evil-doers.

When I was a JFK-CTer the fabricated mystery of the assassination was a way to pretend I was doing something important for mankind, justice, and history without actually doing anything, but wasting money on books written by hucksters, and fools.

You must have missed a step, because you're not very good at what you do now.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Nope, the photographic team was separate from the acoustics team. They said some heavy activity was happening before Kennedy went behind the sign. Unless you want to say that the level of subterfuge in the HSCA was just that massive, please say so because we can swiftly throw out any "evidence" they presented

Read the dissents by those House Committee members who voted against the findings of conspiracy. Every one of them references the fact that they found the acoustic study unconvincing or inadequate. Not one even mentions the photographic panel's conclusions about evidence for a shot at Z190 or thereabouts. Quite simply, they didn't find evidence in the Zapruder film to buttress the conclusion of a shot at that time wounding both JFK and Connally, and I don't either.

http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hs..._4_Remarks.pdf

The photographic panel, from a 'jiggle / blur analysis' of Zapruder's panning errrors, concluded the second greatest disturbance in panning motion occurred shortly before JFK went behind the sign (the head shot reaction of Zapruder is the greatest disturbance). However, they apparently didn't even consider something as simple as whether Zapruder was trying to decide at that point whether to stop filming or continue filming as the President went behind the sign, and if the latter, whether he should attempt to pan smoothly or jump ahead to the point where the President would emerge from the sign. Any indecision on Zapruder's part - and there must have been some - would affect his panning rate as he tried to decide how to proceed, and would introduce errors into their assumption that panning errors might be tied to gunshots.

The problem is the assumption that Zapruder would react to the sound of gunfire and that a panning motion or film blur analysis would allow them to scientifically determine when shots were fired in the Zapruder film. The greatest blur comes about five frames after the head shot, but that head shot is not just aural to Zapruder, it's visible... JFK's head explodes in a massive cloud of blood, bone, and brain. Of course Zapruder would react to that visual stimulus. But attempting to carry it to other shots where there was little visual reaction by anyone and where Zapruder only heard the sound of gunfire was a mistake, in my view.

Separate from that, the photographic panel also felt they noticed some reaction by President Kennedy by frame 207 to a "severe external stimulus" that they couldn't define.

That severe external stimulus could have been nothing greater than JFK's reaction to the first (missed) shot.

It was the attempt to marry the acoustic analysis conclusion of a 'impulse' at Z190 with the photographic panel's jiggle analysis that led to the conclusion of a shot wounding both men at that time (Z190). That was the only possible conclusion if the acoustic evidence was legitimate because, according to the acoustic panel, the next shot was about six seconds later (about frame 295) -- far too late for a shot to wound JFK and Connally.

So the Committee either had to shoehorn a shot wounding both men in at Z190 or conclude the acoustic analysis was flawed and didn't match what we can observe in the Zapruder film. They chose the former, but further analysis shows they should have chosen the latter.

http://www.history-matters.com/archi...Vol6_0017b.htm

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull after the brain had already been removed"...

We've established the exact opposite of what you claim. It has been answered by the statements of Dr. Finck and Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. And the HSCA forensic panel. Your pretense to the contrary is amusing, but not evidence.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer that in a way that isn't completely stupid...

Logical fallacy of Begging the Question, where you imbed in your point the conclusion you've already reached. This is also an example of you pretending to be your own best expert, as you rely solely on your own interpretations of the evidence and testimony, rather than on what the experts actually said.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

...otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.

And still Begging the Question.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

LOL what's what about the fragments? The trail of fragments is nowhere near the hypothetical cowlick entry, let alone the EOP entry.

Only because you don't know where the cowlick entry is on the x-rays. You drew the circle too low, remember?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Hilarious. Bullets continue going straight after penetrating the head? No.

Cite the evidence to the contrary from the ballistic experiments done with Oswald's rifle by the Army. Reference the testimony of Dr. Olivier and Dr. Light. You don't get to just say 'no' and dismiss the evidence the HSCA forensic panel found important.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

If a bullet entered the cowlick from the east sixth floor, it would probably exit the face unless it deflected from the right.

Cite the evidence for this statement. Or admit you just made it up and you have no evidence for this statement.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

To say otherwise would require a comprehensive study from a team of photographic experts using modern technology.

So you have no evidence you can site, but if I want to object to your conclusion I need to disprove it with "a comprehensive study from a team of photographic experts using modern technology"? Shifting the burden of proof.

You want to claim something contrary to the conclusions of the autopsists and the HSCA forensic panel, you need to post the evidence for it. Ball is still in your court.

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Here you just admit you dogmatically cling to the cowlick theory because it just seems like a beautiful, clean theory to you that, in your mind, must explain everything. Too bad it doesn't fir with the totality of evidence as we know it

The higher (not cowlick, that's just your assumption) wound location does fit the known evidence from start to finish. You got some evidence it doesn't fit? Let's hear it. And it should be able to overturn the evidence indicating shots from the Depository (that's part of the 'totality of evidence') -- like a second weapon found somewhere, and shells or bullets or fragments not traceable to Oswald's weapon. I'd love to hear all about your 'totality of evidence'. Let's hear it.

And just bear in mind it should be something other than your opinion, because your opinion is not evidence.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

What is your comprehensive theory for the JFK assassination?

Originally Posted by MicahJava

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-06-2015/erNJl5.gif

Originally Posted by Steve

What the hell is that?

A song-and-dance routine. Otherwise known as an admission of defeat and a concession he has no evidence.

Hank

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Can you get an image of z313 and draw what you're talking about over it with MS Paint?

Can you draw a picture of your comprehensive theory for how the assassination happened? Surely you can do that with all of your opinions as evidence.

Quote:

Like a trophy that says "you tried", maybe.

If only you would try. When will you be trying to accomplish something after your admission of defeat?

Quote:

You must have missed a step, because you're not very good at what you do now.

You're very good at playing CTist. You parrot what one CT website tells you to think and are then stumped when the discussion doesn't go according to script and you are asked to think for yourself leaving your only option to be running away from questions. As you continually do.

According to the one CT website you parrot, where from behind JFK would it have been impossible for the shot to come?

[bknight]

I'm still waiting for MicahJava to cite autopsy evidence of a second head wound.

[SpitfireIX]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

It's actually 'Yowza".

Like I said - English 101. Check it out.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/yowza
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wowza

Hank

I think the word MJ might have been after is "wowsers", Inspector Gadget's signature exclamation.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

A song-and-dance routine. Otherwise known as an admission of defeat and a concession he has no evidence.

Hank

Thank you. that makes sense.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Can you get an image of z313 and draw what you're talking about over it with MS Paint?

Nope. Not playing your game.

Quote:

You must have missed a step, because you're not very good at what you do now.

In my defense I was a JFK CTist for 32 years, meaning I believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK based on lies, fabricated evidence, out-of-context anecdotal evidence, and all stemming from paranoia about the government.

So I am digging myself out of a deep intellectual hole I dug. The irony is that this hole is being filled in from the dirt you're shoveling while digging your own hole.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

In my defense I was a JFK CTist for 32 years, meaning I believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK based on lies, fabricated evidence, out-of-context anecdotal evidence, and all stemming from paranoia about the government

About 15 years for me (1965-80) or thereabouts. Started with Weisberg, moved to Lane & Meagher, then a host of others, including Groden, Marrs, Lifton, too many to count.

Getting the WC 26 volumes and the HSCA set was the turning point for me. I found out for myself how badly the critics had been twisting the facts and how it was the critics who were keeping the truth from the American public, while accusing the Warren Commission of that very deed, and they were doing it in the name of the almighty dollar.

Hank

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

So I am digging myself out of a deep intellectual hole I dug. The irony is that this hole is being filled in from the dirt you're shoveling while digging your own hole.

Great analogy!

Hank

[bknight]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

...

In my defense I was a JFK CTist for 32 years, meaning I believed there was a conspiracy to kill JFK based on lies, fabricated evidence, out-of-context anecdotal evidence, and all stemming from paranoia about the government.

...

Originally Posted by HSienzant

About 15 years for me (1965-80) or thereabouts. Started with Weisberg, moved to Lane & Meagher, then a host of others, including Groden, Marrs, Lifton, too many to count.

Getting the WC 26 volumes and the HSCA set was the turning point for me. I found out for myself how badly the critics had been twisting the facts and how it was the critics who were keeping the truth from the American public, while accusing the Warren Commission of that very deed, and they were doing it in the name of the almighty dollar.

Hank

I guess I'm different, in that I never believed a conspiracy, and am very skeptical of those writers of books positioning for their point of view on a subject. Or those that post gibberish on the web defending "truth" as they see it. My brush with CT's started with the Moon landing conspiracy and the non scientific/technical buffoonery.

I'm glad that you two have done a great deal of research and can put people like MicahJava down.

[MicahJava]

Hank:

On the ~z190 evidence, the HSCA photographic panel definitely listed more reasons than "jiggle analysis" for believing that those frames showed more than Kennedy moving his arm down from waving.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by bknight

I guess I'm different, in that I never believed a conspiracy, and am very skeptical of those writers of books positioning for their point of view on a subject. Or those that post gibberish on the web defending "truth" as they see it. My brush with CT's started with the Moon landing conspiracy and the non scientific/technical buffoonery.

I'm glad that you two have done a great deal of research and can put people like MicahJava down.

My dad got me into the JFK thing when I was real young, so I was handicapped by an adult I trusted.

I'm not trying to put down anybody, just doing my penance for all of the BS I put into the world.

[HSienzant]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Hank: On the ~z190 evidence, the HSCA photographic panel definitely listed more reasons than "jiggle analysis" for believing that those frames showed more than Kennedy moving his arm down from waving.

Really?

Can you tell us what those other reasons were?

Not looking for these assumptions or their attempt to marry the acoustic data to the Z-film. Please provide these supposed reasons.

Hank

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Really?

Can you tell us what those other reasons were?

Not looking for these assumptions or their attempt to marry the acoustic data to the Z-film. Please provide these supposed reasons.

Hank

Maybe JFK had been replaced by a cyborg replica that malfunctioned in the humidity of Dallas causing its head to explode, so they frame Oswald to keep the secret that the real JFK had been rescued by time travelers to become the POTUS in 2024.

This is a more rational explanation than the President being struck by a silenced .22 round that nobody saw.

[BStrong]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Maybe JFK had been replaced by a cyborg replica that malfunctioned in the humidity of Dallas causing its head to explode, so they frame Oswald to keep the secret that the real JFK had been rescued by time travelers to become the POTUS in 2024.

This is a more rational explanation than the President being struck by a silenced .22 round that nobody saw.

Unless you guys prove me wrong, my comprehensive account of the assassination and the players involved stands...

At least it's funnier than the flights of fancy that CTists insist are true.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Since we've established the validity of my question "How did Dr. Finck see the entry hole in the intact skull after the brain had already been removed", I must remind everyone who still thinks the wound was high in the cowlick area to answer that in a way that isn't completely stupid, otherwise any reasonable person must revert to the original lower EOP location for the entry in the back of the head.

Maybe they cut the top of the skull off above the "cowlick" area.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by HSienzant

Really?

Can you tell us what those other reasons were?

Not looking for these assumptions or their attempt to marry the acoustic data to the Z-film. Please provide these supposed reasons.

Hank

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by physicist Don Olson and criminalist Ralph Turner:

"The Warren Commission believed that frames 225-230 represented the President's reactions to a shot fired somewhere in the interval of Zapruder frames 210-224, while the President was behind the road sign. However, certain observations in the Zapruder film will be noted here to indicate that the first wounding of the President may not have been blocked from the record by the road sign. The transition in the President's appearance between frames 183 and 230 (described above) in fact seems to begin with certain reactions in the intervals of frames 194-206.

First, a general trend in the frames 194-206 may be noted. Beginning as early as frame 194, the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window ledge."

...

"Study of the frames reveals further information. Recalling the descriptions above, it is clear that between frames 183 and 230, two specific changes occurred in the President's position. First, the President turned his head and shoulders back from the crowd until he was facing forward. Also, the President's right arm moved from a position with the elbow below a chrome strip on the outside of the car, into a position with the arm and elbow well inside the car and raised almost to chin level. These frames and motions have been described in such great detail because both of these specific changes in Kennedy can be observed to occur in the "early Zapruder frames," i.e., those before the President disappears from view behind the road sign. In this context, It happens that frame 204 is very important.

On the interval the President's body is seen to narrow somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the Left front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward.

As the President moves and rotates to the left, his right arm is pulled back into the car. While his elbow has been resting outside the car, it comes up noticeably at frame 195. The President's elbow can be seen to cross the chrome strip on the side of the car at frames As President Kennedy disappears from view behind the sign, his right arm seems to he in a particularly unusual position the clearly visible gray of his suit coat indicating that his right arm and elbow have been raised at least to the level of his chin."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb.../Item%2001.pdf



From the 9/12/1978 testimony of Calvin McCamy, spokesman for the HSCA photographic evidence panel:

"...There is considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....d=148&tab=page


From the HSCA photographic evidence panel's final report:

64. (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.

...

70. At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc....Id=22&tab=page


HSCA photographic expert Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s

Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by CORed

Maybe they cut the top of the skull off above the "cowlick" area.

Let's assume the cowlick area of the skull wouldn't naturally separate considering how it was within the fractured radius of the large defect. It would, but let's assume the hypothetical cowlick entry hole is an invincible perforation in the skull bone. If you "cut the top off the skull above the 'cowlick' area, that would make a skullcap opening about half as large as your average skullcap procedure performed to remove a brain. How do you fit that brain through that small of a hole?

Also, according to this webpage from the Vermont University anatomy department, you must have a skull cavity large enough to get your fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain so you can cut the tentorium cerebelli: https://web.archive.org/web/20060615153312/http://cats.med.uvm.edu/cats_teachingmod/gross_anatomy/head_and_neck/head_and_neck_index.html

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

My dad got me into the JFK thing when I was real young, so I was handicapped by an adult I trusted.

I'm not trying to put down anybody, just doing my penance for all of the BS I put into the world.

You went from believing in badge man to believing you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film.

What the difference between you and the badge man guys? The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

Are you saying you have the balls to spell out your comprehensive theory for how JFK was assassinated?

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

You went from believing in badge man to believing you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film.

What the difference between you and the badge man guys? The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

You weren't going to modify this post, were you?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, ...blah, blah, blah.

External stimulus does not automatically mean he got shot, and these evaluations are subjective. Plus at the time none of these "experts" had access to enhanced or stabilized footage like we do today. Another resource we have today is a few thousand videos online of people getting shot.

Nothing in the Zapruder Film looks anything like a gunshot wound until the fatal headshot.

Has anyone ask these guys if they still believe what they stated today?

In the end the President was only struck by two bullets, both from behind, both a 6.5x52mm round.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

You went from believing in badge man to believing you can see the bullet entry on the Zapruder Film.

What the difference between you and the badge man guys? The badge man guys actually had the balls to draw a circle around what they were talking about.

Rule #1: Never explain the obvious.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Let's assume the cowlick area of the skull wouldn't naturally separate considering how it was within the fractured radius of the large defect. It would, but let's assume the hypothetical cowlick entry hole is an invincible perforation in the skull bone. If you "cut the top off the skull above the 'cowlick' area, that would make a skullcap opening about half as large as your average skullcap procedure performed to remove a brain. How do you fit that brain through that small of a hole?

Also, according to this webpage from the Vermont University anatomy department, you must have a skull cavity large enough to get your fingers under the temporal lobes of the brain so you can cut the tentorium cerebelli: https://web.archive.org/web/20060615153312/http://cats.med.uvm.edu/cats_teachingmod/gross_anatomy/head_and_neck/head_and_neck_index.html

Furthermore, you need enough room to sever the brain stem. You can do that by either accessing it from the posterior side of skull cavity, or from the front if you lift the brain. I think I've seen a video where they sever the brain stem by somewhat lifting the brain and reaching underneath, sticking their hands and the necessary tool from the front part, but you still need a skull cavity large enough to facilitate said lifting.

[RoboTimbo]

Originally Posted by RoboTimbo

Are you saying you have the balls to spell out your comprehensive theory for how JFK was assassinated?

So your answer seems to be...?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by MicahJava

Furthermore, you need enough room to sever the brain stem. You can do that by either accessing it from the posterior side of skull cavity, or from the front if you lift the brain. I think I've seen a video where they sever the brain stem by somewhat lifting the brain and reaching underneath, sticking their hands and the necessary tool from the front part, but you still need a skull cavity large enough to facilitate said lifting.

Just pointing out that Humes detailed all of that in the interview I posted.

There is just no mystery.

[MicahJava]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Just pointing out that Humes detailed all of that in the interview I posted.

There is just no mystery.

Can you quote the part you think helps you?