ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events 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 JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 28th May 2017, 02:54 PM   #41
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Which of those marking is above the EOP?

Does "slightly above" as you oft cited now mean "beneath"?
On the model skull, the circle initialed by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell appears to be exactly on the level of the EOP, neither above nor below it. There's a 15 x 6mm wiggle room, first of all.

There was an incident where Humes and Boswell were being interviewed by the HSCA staffers, and when Humes was shown a poor-quality darkened version of one of the BOH photographs, Humes identified the area around the white spot as the entry wound, and said it was located "slightly BELOW" the EOP. I think this was a mistake based on Humes being confused by the BOH photograph(s), especially considering the versions of the official autopsy photos they were shown were of low quality and too dark (some bootleg versions reprinted in books are much brighter and clearer). According to HSCA staffer Dr. Purdy in his interview with the ARRB, Humes was then pulled to the side by Dr. Petty and verbally berated for not agreeing that the red spot was the true wound. This account was confirmed by HSCA staffer Dr. Michael Baden in a 2/20/2000 speaking event.

This "below the EOP" incident shows two very important things:

1. This contradicts cowlick theorists like Bugliosi who say that the autopsy doctors merely lied about the wound being low to cover their own "mistaken" placement in the official autopsy report. Dr. Humes could've consulted the official autopsy report before his interview which clearly said the wound was slightly above the EOP, but for whatever reason he chose to say it was slightly below the EOP in this specific instance.

2. Dr. Humes would've rather said the wound was a bit lower than say the wound was much higher.

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th May 2017 at 02:56 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 02:58 PM   #42
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Oops, nope, the shot was easy. Why are JFK CT claims and people wrong and unable to get the simple things correct.

I could hit the head with a tomato...
Beachnut, where do you think the entry wound (or "small head wound) was located? EOP or Cowlick?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 02:59 PM   #43
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 27,591
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Beachnut, where do you think the entry wound (or "small head wound) was located? EOP or Cowlick?
Did Oswald not shoot JFK?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 04:01 PM   #44
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Did Oswald not shoot JFK?
And if not, who did? And what's the evidence for another shooter?

Name the witnesses who came forward on 11/22/63 that saw another shooter anywhere else in the Plaza.

Name the officers that found another weapon or discarded shells in the Plaza on 11/22/63.

Name the FBI agents that found ballistic evidence not traceable to Oswald's weapon.

Surely you must have something.

Don't you?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 04:53 PM   #45
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
According to HSCA staffer Dr. Purdy in his interview with the ARRB, Humes was then pulled to the side by Dr. Petty and verbally berated for not agreeing that the red spot was the true wound. This account was confirmed by HSCA staffer Dr. Michael Baden in a 2/20/2000 speaking event.
You'd be better off not believing everything you read on a conspiracy site.

What's the source of this claim and how many decades after the fact did Purdy "remember" this supposed 'verbal berating' of Humes? What was Purdy's precise words in describing this scene? And where's the evidence of it in the transcript of the interview of Humes in 1978?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2017 at 05:20 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 05:04 PM   #46
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,730
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Beachnut, where do you think the entry wound (or "small head wound) was located? EOP or Cowlick?
How many years have you wasted pushing BS about JKF, more than the BS on 9/11, or less?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 05:42 PM   #47
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So you're saying there are missing autopsy photographs which exist, or once existed, but are currently not available in the official record?
No, I'm saying there are 40+, 35mm photos still in the archives.

The ones publicly available are a small set of 120 film, taken in addition to the official 35mm stock. I am saying there are higher resolution photos that only a handful of exerts have seen, and those experts all say they support the final autopsy.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 05:45 PM   #48
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
According to HSCA staffer Dr. Purdy in his interview with the ARRB, Humes was then pulled to the side by Dr. Petty and verbally berated for not agreeing that the red spot was the true wound. This account was confirmed by HSCA staffer Dr. Michael Baden in a 2/20/2000 speaking event.
Humes says this never happened.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 05:52 PM   #49
bknight
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So you're saying there are missing autopsy photographs which exist, or once existed, but are currently not available in the official record?
Jumping to conclusions without evidence in hand again?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 06:40 PM   #50
bknight
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...
4. the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated to frame a certain trajectory for a single shot to the back of the head....
You of course have evidence to back up this statement?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:07 PM   #51
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,916
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You of course have evidence to back up this statement?
How can you possibly doubt him? He spent an entire day part of a day a couple hours googling something about guns and is now the world's leading authority on something.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:08 PM   #52
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You'd be better off not believing everything you read on a conspiracy site.

What's the source of this claim and how many decades after the fact did Purdy "remember" this supposed 'verbal berating' of Humes? What was Purdy's precise words in describing this scene? And where's the evidence of it in the transcript of the interview of Humes in 1978?

Hank
I've pointed this out before. It was my understanding that this information was shocking enough that you'd remember it, but oh well.

www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_interviews/audio/ARRB_Purdy.htm

At 31:29 of part 1: http://www.history-matters.com/archi...B_Purdy_S1.mp3

Purdy: "During the course of that meeting, as I think the transcript shows, when they were- in fact, somebody said 'this shouldn't- we shouldn't even be recording this'. And I think it was Petty who took, I believe it was Humes, out of the room to basically set him straight. Basically 'you're just wrong, you're just clearly wrong, this is not something evidentiary'... And that's why they keep things on- is the whole thing altered or whatever. It's like Humes is lying, we don't even have to. Or he's mistaken, or he's being overly firm about something that doesn't have evidentiary signifigance. And unless he takes his stupid, incompetent position, which is the lower thing's the entrance hole. I mean, we're practically- he's practically down to the shirt."

It is not clear exactly when this verbal berating happened, but obviously it was off the record.

From Pat Speer's website: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Quote:
In September 1977, when the HSCA forensic pathology panel showed Dr. Humes a photo displaying what they believed was the actual entrance hole on the back of the head, the small oval shape in the cowlick, Dr. Humes, who’d led the autopsy of President Kennedy and had repeatedly asserted that the hole was near the President’s hairline, responded “I don’t know what that is. Number one, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood…it certainly was not any wound of entrance.

Well, this was not what the panel wanted to hear.

In 1996 HSCA counsel Andy Purdy told the ARRB that after Humes made his comments about the panel's presumed bullet hole being nothing but "clotted blood," Dr. Charles Petty took Humes outside and yelled at him. And this wasn't just Purdy's fantasy. In a 2-20-2000 meeting with researchers, Dr. Michael Baden not only confirmed Purdy's story, but built upon it. He re-constructed Petty's words to Humes for dramatic effect, and had Petty call Humes a "God-damned jackass."

This is most intriguing. Was Humes a "jackass," to Petty's eye, because he'd been unwilling to admit he'd made a horrendous mistake, and had placed the entrance wound on Kennedy's skull four inches from its actual location, on the wrong bone? Or was Humes a "jackass," to Petty's eye, because his refusal to acknowledge this supposed mistake was sure to open doors neither Petty nor Humes wanted opened--namely, that there had been a government-ordered cover-up of the medical evidence? That Petty's instincts were to obfuscate is supported, moreover, by a 1993 letter published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. In this letter, Petty defended Humes, and even claimed "There were no bullet defects other than those described by Humes in his report." Hmmm... Petty had either forgotten that he'd previously claimed Humes had made one of the biggest blunders in medico-legal history, or had thought this information better left unsaid in a trade mag sure to be read by his fellow pathologists.

In any event, Humes' problems extended way beyond his being yelled at by Petty. His subsequent problems would, in fact, make those problems look--eegads--petty in comparison. In his 1998 book Real Answers, HSCA Counsel Gary Cornwell admits that, as a result of Humes' failure to agree with the new and improved entrance location, he was all set to treat Humes as a hostile witness and aggressively question him about the problems with the autopsy during his September 1978 testimony before the committee. (Cornwell believed that Humes, "in an apparent attempt to cover up his own mistakes" had "not told the truth" to the Warren Commission, and that he--Cornwell--could "prove it".) Cornwell then explains that his plans were thwarted after the "committee's doctor" (most probably Dr. Baden, but possibly a reference to Petty) went behind his back, and warned Humes of Cornwell's plans, essentially telling Humes that if Humes agreed to pretend the entrance wound was in the cowlick he could survive Cornwell's questioning with his reputation intact.

Baden's (or Petty's) plan was successful. A year after Dr. Humes called the supposed entrance in the cowlick "clotted blood" he testified that he had been mistaken and that he now thought it was the entrance wound described in the autopsy report.

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th May 2017 at 07:09 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:10 PM   #53
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
You of course have evidence to back up this statement?
Notice it's placement in the list of scenarios I consider most likely.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:24 PM   #54
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No, I'm saying there are 40+, 35mm photos still in the archives.

The ones publicly available are a small set of 120 film, taken in addition to the official 35mm stock. I am saying there are higher resolution photos that only a handful of exerts have seen, and those experts all say they support the final autopsy.
By "final autopsy", are you referring to the revisions to history written by a dozen or so Johnny-come-latelys? Because their ideas never clicked with the experts who were there with the body, even when they themselves examined the photographs and X-rays. By the way, how many times does a high-profile murder case get a second "autopsy" with radically different conclusions? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:25 PM   #55
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 27,591
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
By "final autopsy", are you referring to the revisions to history written by a dozen or so Johnny-come-latelys? Because their ideas never clicked with the experts who were there with the body, even when they themselves examined the photographs and X-rays. By the way, how many times does a high-profile murder case get a second "autopsy" with radically different conclusions? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!
So how many of Oswald's shots do you think hit Kennedy?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:34 PM   #56
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Notice: autopsy witness Dennis David has recently passed away.

More information: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...-dennis-david/

edit: typo

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th May 2017 at 08:17 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:38 PM   #57
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 27,591
MicahJava, don't you have any clue as to how many of Oswald's shots hit Kennedy?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:44 PM   #58
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
MicahJava, don't you have any clue as to how many of Oswald's shots hit Kennedy?
Your yapping, much like the little dog in your icon, reminds me of a paraphrased quote by Dan Rather, upon seeing some of David Lifton's filmed interviews with the autopsy witnesses: But since Oswald assassinated the President, there would be no need to alter 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:45 PM   #59
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I've pointed this out before. It was my understanding that this information was shocking enough that you'd remember it, but oh well.

Purdy: "During the course of that meeting, as I think the transcript shows, when they were- in fact, somebody said 'this shouldn't- we shouldn't even be recording this'. And I think it was Petty who took, I believe it was Humes, out of the room to basically set him straight."

It is not clear exactly when this verbal berating happened, but obviously it was off the record.
I remember it well. Perhaps you need the reminder.

You have no evidence of this happening whatsoever. Just a recollection by Purdy two decades after the fact and Purdy doesn't remember who berated who about what, and his recollection isn't corroborated by anything in the original transcript. Hardly the definitive declaration you initially pretended it was.

And I pointed out previously - and you obviously forgot all about it or choose to ignore it and just repost the discredited info all over again - the meaning of the phrase "We shouldn't be recording this" [IN CONTEXT], something that you ignore and pretend never happened. Nobody was trying to silence Humes or get him to alter his testimony. On the contrary, the record shows that they were saying the HSCA forensic panel should shut up and let Humes and Boswell talk.

As I quoted in the below link:
Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions, but to get his [Humes] opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles [Dr. Charles Petty] and Joe [Dr. Joe Davis] talking like mad in the damn record, and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry..


Petty and Davis were two members of the Forensic panel, and Loquvam and Baden are telling them to shut up and let Humes talk. Gee, that sounds nothing like your version of events, does it?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1738

Pretend some more that Purdy's two-decade later recollection takes precedence over the transcript of the actual statements by all concerned.

Like I cautioned you above, you'd be better off not believing everything you read on a conspiracy site.

How many more times will your repeat the Purdy recollection as if it's evidence, I wonder.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2017 at 08:08 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:47 PM   #60
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 27,591
MicahJava, you also had no clue how a "gun" works?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:49 PM   #61
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 27,591
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your yapping, much like the little dog in your icon, reminds me of a paraphrased quote by Dan Rather, upon seeing some of David Lifton's filmed interviews with the autopsy witnesses: “But since Oswald assassinated the President, there would be no need to alter the body.
Calm down. Don't get mad at me for reality taking a dump on your head if you're choosing to stand in the basement of the outhouse.

Last edited by RoboTimbo; 28th May 2017 at 07:51 PM.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 07:51 PM   #62
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
By "final autopsy", are you referring to the revisions to history written by a dozen or so Johnny-come-latelys? Because their ideas never clicked with the experts who were there with the body, even when they themselves examined the photographs and X-rays. By the way, how many times does a high-profile murder case get a second "autopsy" with radically different conclusions? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!
As you just noted, Humes himself was all over the map where the entrance head wound in the rear of the head was.

And there was a entrance wound there, right? Destroying your prior argument that a shooter from the closest building couldn't hit JFK in the head from 88 yards away. That was the argument you were advancing before you went back to arguing about the precise location of that entrance wound in the rear of the President's head, wasn't it?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 08:09 PM   #63
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Notice: autopsy witness Dannis David has recently passed away.

More information: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/in...-dennis-david/
Nobody by that name was at the autopsy of JFK.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 08:16 PM   #64
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Hank, not only are you ignoring Baden's confirmation of this in the 2/20/2000 conference, you are singling in on a red herring ("I don't think this discussion belongs in this record") that I only transcribed to give Prudy's quote a full context. And you use Purdy's filler words "I think" and "I believe" as evidence that he had a faulty memory and dreamed such a memorable incident. Very dishonest. Meanwhile, I'm always surprised at the stories elderly people remember from when they were way younger.

And, of course, you ignore that Gary Cornwell outright admitted in his book that Humes was coerced. Hilarious. Do you really think that nobody else is going to read the very post above that you're responding to?

How about answering the question about the scalp in the BOH photographs?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 08:20 PM   #65
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your yapping, much like the little dog in your icon, reminds me of a paraphrased quote by Dan Rather, upon seeing some of David Lifton's filmed interviews with the autopsy witnesses: “But since Oswald assassinated the President, there would be no need to alter the body.
And we know from the evidence that Oswald was the person responsible. It was his weapon, his shells, his fragments of bullets recovered from the limo.

So there is no need to alter the body. Lifton painted himself into a corner - and he explains exactly how in his book - by refusing to accept what the evidence was telling him -- nay, screaming out to him. And Lifton then invented a elaborate shell game to retain his beliefs... that all the evidence, including the President's body, was altered to frame Oswald for shooting the President from behind.

Why go to the elaborate nonsense of shooting the President from the front and then altering the body? And planting a gun, and shells, and fragments, and a nearly whole bullet at Parkland? And then plant Oswald's prints on the rifle later? All this is part of Lifton's bizarre theory.

Why not just shoot the President from behind using Oswald's gun?

Why didn't the conspirators think of that?

Wouldn't that have been much simpler?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2017 at 08:21 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 08:31 PM   #66
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, not only are you ignoring Baden's confirmation of this in the 2/20/2000 conference, you are singling in on a red herring ("I don't think this discussion belongs in this record") that I only transcribed to give Prudy's quote a full context.
NO, the actual transcript gives the full context you're ignoring. And I'd love to see you cite Baden's supposed confirmation for Purdy's two-decade later recollection. Last time I asked, you cited a conspiracy theorist who didn't provide a source of the claim.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1746



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And you use Purdy's filler words "I think" and "I believe" as evidence that he had a faulty memory and dreamed such a memorable incident. Very dishonest. Meanwhile, I'm always surprised at the stories elderly people remember from when they were way younger.
How is it dishonest to point out the qualifiers, and how you know they are "filler words", and not Purdy's attempt to be as precise as possible? Aren't you guilty of assuming what you need to prove? That's the logical fallacy of begging the question. Keep it up. It makes my job of shooting down your arguments easier. And in what way are you surprised by the stories old people tell? Do you really believe your grandfather had to walk 12 miles to school and back each day, and it was uphill -- both ways? Or are you just guilty of assuming their recollections are spotless and infallible? Science shows us that's a faulty assumption on your part.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And, of course, you ignore that Gary Cornwell outright admitted in his book that Humes was coerced. Hilarious. Do you really think that nobody else is going to read the very post above that you're responding to?
I think everyone will note that claims in a book don't have the force of a sworn statement, and can't of necessity be presumed to be 100% accurate... especially when you're not quoting those words, but simply summarizing them. We saw how well you summarized Purdy's two-decade after the fact recollection, and how you failed to compare his recollection to the actual transcript, to reveal the real meaning of the disclaimer, "This shouldn't be in the record". But citing Purdy's recollection, instead of the transcript, you turned the actual words totally upside down and made it into an attempt to silence Humes, instead of an attempt to silence the other members of the forensic panel and let Humes talk. Your claims about what transpired are based on Purdy's recollection, and of course, as you note, this supposed berating of Humes has no evidence to support it (it was supposedly 'off the record'). Of course it was. Either that, or it never happened.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How about answering the question about the scalp in the BOH photographs?
You mean your loaded question, where you imbed your assumption in the question? I don't do loaded questions. You'd know that if you followed the thread when Robert Harris was here.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2017 at 09:00 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 08:43 PM   #67
bknight
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Notice it's placement in the list of scenarios I consider most likely.
That avoided answering the question, do you proof that the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 09:10 PM   #68
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,708
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And if not, who did? And what's the evidence for another shooter?

Name the witnesses who came forward on 11/22/63 that saw another shooter anywhere else in the Plaza.

Name the officers that found another weapon or discarded shells in the Plaza on 11/22/63.

Name the FBI agents that found ballistic evidence not traceable to Oswald's weapon.

Surely you must have something.

Don't you?

Hank

MicahJava, Still waiting...
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 10:02 PM   #69
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,893
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
HUMES: "...The second wound was found in the right posterior portion of the scalp. This wound was situated approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occiptal protuberance which is a bony prominence situated in the posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above that point..."

"...Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to..."

And there is some discussion of the validity of the Rydberg drawings, which show the small head wound in it's low location, slightly above the EOP.
So no, it does not match the placement beneath the EOP then?

But the wound you are dismissing DOES penetrate the occipital region, damaging as it does the occipital bone, and IS above the EOP.

The only argument you actually have is that your subjective interpretation of "slightly ". If you can quibble that, you should be quibbling if it is above or beneath, but obviously you won't apply the same standard to stuff that is convenient to you.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 10:17 PM   #70
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,661
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
By "final autopsy", are you referring to the revisions to history written by a dozen or so Johnny-come-latelys? Because their ideas never clicked with the experts who were there with the body, even when they themselves examined the photographs and X-rays. By the way, how many times does a high-profile murder case get a second "autopsy" with radically different conclusions? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!
There was only one autopsy.

Everything else you just wrote is JFKCT talking-points woo.

You have no evidence to dispute the autopsy. You ignore the Zapruder film that shows only one gunshot wound to the head, and you can see where it enters...right where they say it did.

Humes had the autopsy photographed at every step, in full detail partially so he wouldn't have to "remember" anything, and instead refer back to the photographs. These are the photographs that no CT loon has ever seen, and are the same photographs that the pathologists present have confirmed at least twice to be the originals.

Again, you are not going to find a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza. Oswald shot the President all by his lonesome.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 11:26 PM   #71
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,893
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post

You have no evidence to dispute the autopsy. You ignore the Zapruder film that shows only one gunshot wound to the head, and you can see where it enters...right where they say it did.
.
This is something important.

MichaJava has been repeating the same few quotes on a cycle. I doubt a few posts back he followed my link to the full testimony, or if he read the whole autopsy report for context. He has a snippet or two, out of context, and he acts like that is ALL that was said on the subject.

At best, it is a misunderstanding of the full evidence.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 04:41 AM   #72
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,857
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
Based on what level of experience? There are quite a few shooters on this site - many of whom have more then sufficient experience to tell you that it is not a particularly difficult shot - with a scope or with iron sights.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 05:36 AM   #73
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,893
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
On the model skull, the circle initialed by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell appears to be exactly on the level of the EOP, neither above nor below it. There's a 15 x 6mm wiggle room, first of all.
So not above it, as made clear in the transcript to the WC.
Clearly then, human memory alone is not accurate.

We will have to keep to the measurements in that pesky autopsy you keep trying to dismiss as "a later draft" or whatever.

Clearly objective evidence, despite your opinion, is more reliable.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:40 AM   #74
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And we know from the evidence that Oswald was the person responsible. It was his weapon, his shells, his fragments of bullets recovered from the limo.

So there is no need to alter the body. Lifton painted himself into a corner - and he explains exactly how in his book - by refusing to accept what the evidence was telling him -- nay, screaming out to him. And Lifton then invented a elaborate shell game to retain his beliefs... that all the evidence, including the President's body, was altered to frame Oswald for shooting the President from behind.

Why go to the elaborate nonsense of shooting the President from the front and then altering the body? And planting a gun, and shells, and fragments, and a nearly whole bullet at Parkland? And then plant Oswald's prints on the rifle later? All this is part of Lifton's bizarre theory.

Why not just shoot the President from behind using Oswald's gun?

Why didn't the conspirators think of that?

Wouldn't that have been much simpler?

Hank
Did I say I thought the body was altered?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:42 AM   #75
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
That avoided answering the question, do you proof that the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated.
I do no proof of photographic manipulation, nor did I ever argue it.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:46 AM   #76
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So no, it does not match the placement beneath the EOP then?

But the wound you are dismissing DOES penetrate the occipital region, damaging as it does the occipital bone, and IS above the EOP.

The only argument you actually have is that your subjective interpretation of "slightly ". If you can quibble that, you should be quibbling if it is above or beneath, but obviously you won't apply the same standard to stuff that is convenient to you.
The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-ray is in the parietal bone. So you must think the doctors and other witnesses described and remembered the location of the small head wound by a specific landmark in the occipital bone while it wasn't even within the occipital 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 09:58 AM   #77
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,548
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So not above it, as made clear in the transcript to the WC.
Clearly then, human memory alone is not accurate.

We will have to keep to the measurements in that pesky autopsy you keep trying to dismiss as "a later draft" or whatever.

Clearly objective evidence, despite your opinion, is more reliable.
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. I'm saying the small head wound was slightly above the EOP, and it has been repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly. Dr. Humes only budged from his position when he once claimed that it was slightly lower than that, then he went back to saying it was slightly above. That's more of an expected wiggle room from the memory of someone who spent hours handling the President's 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 10:55 AM   #78
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,893
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-ray is in the parietal bone. So you must think the doctors and other witnesses described and remembered the location of the small head wound by a specific landmark in the occipital bone while it wasn't even within the occipital bone.
What they remembered is less important than what was recorded and photographed.

And yes, wounds on one bone can be described in relation to others.

Do you understand why records are photographed, and measurements recorded in the autopsy record?
Do you understand why doctors don't simply rely on their memory?
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 11:03 AM   #79
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,893
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others.
No. I am neither of those things.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I'm saying the small head wound was slightly above the EOP
Yes. But you ignore "slightly" is a subjective term and ignore any evidence that disagrees with your interpretation.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
and it has been repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly.
No. It has been claimed by you, and those claims have been rebutted.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dr. Humes only budged from his position when he once claimed that it was slightly lower than that, then he went back to saying it was slightly above.
And you posted two pictures showing the apparent wound locations BENEATH the EOP.

You seem not to notice that this is a great illustration of why we don't rely on witness memory, and corroborate with objective evidence.

You however are ignoring better evidence in favour of a moving wound.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That's more of an expected wiggle room from the memory of someone who spent hours handling the President's body.

Yes. It is also why you should be considering more accurate evidence.
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2017, 11:04 AM   #80
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 7,893
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I do no proof of photographic manipulation, nor did I ever argue it.
Other than scalps being stretched and the like...
__________________
@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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

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 12:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.