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 HSCA , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 20th April 2017, 05:27 PM   #3121
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy covers it on page four:

"Upon reflecting the scalp multiple complete fracture lines are seen to radiate from both the large defect at the vertex and the smaller wound at the occiput. These vary greatly in length and direction, the measuring approximately 19 cm. These result in the production of numerous fragments which vary in size from a few millimeters to ten centimeters in greatest diameter.

The complexity of these fractures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."

The next line reads: "The brain is removed and prepared for further study following formalin fixation."

Nothing is mentioned about cutting into the skull to remove the brain whatsoever.

FYI - 19 cm = 7.5 inches; 10 cm = 3.9 inches.

In other words, the skull was a mess of criss-crossing fracture lines due to a bullet entering and exiting (each action which would cause fractures) and the head had no strength due to the fractures and was being held together more by the scalp than by anything else.

Reflecting the scalp (cutting it and peeling it back) exposed the brain sufficiently to remove it without having to cut the skull any.

It's right in the autopsy report.

Now you answer one of mine from the dozens I asked and you avoided until now. Because I'm a nice guy, I'll even let you choose the one to answer.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 20th April 2017 at 05:29 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 05:46 PM   #3122
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,110
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, now on to the facts.
From you? you've steered clear of facts so far.

Now What?
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"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 20th April 2017, 05:58 PM   #3123
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Pieces of skull bone from around the original large head wound either naturally chipped off or came off with some sawing. Only then was the cranial opening large enough to remove the brain. I don't know why you have this red herring fixation with whether or not a saw was involved with enlarging the cranial opening. Unlike what Doug Horne says, sawing of the skull is not something the autopsy doctors were trying to hide. It doesn't matter either way. The original large head wound was not large enough to just stick your hands in and remove the brain.

Here is a video demonstrating the consistency of an unfixed human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY&

Here is a video from a real autopsy demonstrating how a brain is removed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y37AhTI1ui8&

Another autopsy video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgsS1DtcLEw
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 20th April 2017, 06:24 PM   #3124
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Pieces of skull bone from around the original large head wound either naturally chipped off or came off with some sawing.
That is not what you were saying previously: "When the scalp was reflected, pieces of bone fragments around the large head wound were naturally coming off, and apparently some bone had to be cut as well to access the brain."

You referenced Humes 33-year-after the fact recollection to the ARRB that "Cmikes, it is a common misconception (even pushed by researchers like Doug Horne) that Dr. Humes claimed that no sawing of the skull was necessary to remove the brain."

Or this: "So I would really like to see somebody argue that the autopsy doctors could've gotten a good sized brain out of a skull cavity which has both the intact cowlick fracture for Dr. Finck to see and the small beveled exit hole in the frontal bone that literally nobody who was there said they saw."


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Only then was the cranial opening large enough to remove the brain. I don't know why you have this red herring fixation with whether or not a saw was involved with enlarging the cranial opening.
It's what you've been arguing for and I've been disputing. Now you're admitting that after the head shot, the skull was extensively fragmented and all it took was reflecting the scalp to gain access to the brain.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Unlike what Doug Horne says, sawing of the skull is not something the autopsy doctors were trying to hide. It doesn't matter either way.
Now you tell us, after arguing for the sawing for pages and pages.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The original large head wound was not large enough to just stick your hands in and remove the brain.
Nobody except you has ever suggested such a thing. Please note you promised to stick to the facts. I simply said no sawing of the skull was necessary. And you're admitting to that, and declaring now 'it doesn't matter either way'.

I guess that's as close to a concession speech we will get.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 20th April 2017 at 07:08 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 Back to Top
Old 20th April 2017, 06:59 PM   #3125
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Dude, you're in outer space. How has it been this long and you still haven't given a cogent answer to my main question? If you see my point about it being a real issue with the cowlick entry theory, then just say.
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 20th April 2017, 07:53 PM   #3126
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why does it matter?

Seriously, who cares? They got it out, so what? How is it even an issue?

What are the medical protocols for removing the brain from a GSW-damaged skull in 1963? What are they now? Did the pathologists deviate or violate those protocols? If so, specifically how?

__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 21st April 2017, 12:04 AM   #3127
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,021
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dude, you're in outer space. How has it been this long and you still haven't given a cogent answer to my main question? If you see my point about it being a real issue with the cowlick entry theory, then just say.
The answers given made sense to me. Your point is still not valid, there is no real issue, unless you distort the evidence through the lens of assuming the "cowlick entry wound" (which is still a dumb name for what is just THE ENTRY WOUND WE HAVE EVIDENCE FOR) being in the wrong place.
__________________
@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 21st April 2017, 05:03 AM   #3128
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,983
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Sure. According to your claims, those are not real.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon 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 21st April 2017, 06:36 AM   #3129
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,110
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dude, you're in outer space. How has it been this long and you still haven't given a cogent answer to my main question? If you see my point about it being a real issue with the cowlick entry theory, then just say.
Really? You can't answer my question, but want to take another poster to task for not responding to your CT noodling that has responded

Let's pretend - we'll pretend your version of the headwound location is correct.

Now what? If you can't answer that question, the discussion about the headwound location doesn't mean anything in the larger context of the established evidence.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"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 21st April 2017, 09:45 AM   #3130
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,645
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
Really? You can't answer my question, but want to take another poster to task for not responding to your CT noodling that has responded

Let's pretend - we'll pretend your version of the headwound location is correct.

Now what? If you can't answer that question, the discussion about the headwound location doesn't mean anything in the larger context of the established evidence.
I predict the answer (if you get one) will sound something like this-

Da da da
Da da da dah
Da da da
Da da!
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest 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 21st April 2017, 10:41 PM   #3131
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure. According to your claims, those are not real.
The open-cranium photos are real.

Those diagrams, however, are not and can not be an accurate representation of Kennedy's head wounds.

Nobody who was there said they saw a semi-circular beveled exit on the margin on the frontal bone.

And again, if we pay attention to Dr. Finck's statements, he always basically said you could see the small head wound in the skull just fine, and he got arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed. Considering that, and how a couple of HSCA staffers even claimed you could see the cowlick entry wound in the same open-cranium photos, we must ask 'just how small was this skull cavity the HSCA thinks the doctors got a good sized brain out of?'.

That question alone should debunk the HSCA's theory on Kennedy's head wounds.

To others here- how do you interpret the open-cranium photos? Do you think they show occipital bone or do you think they show frontal bone? If you think it shows frontal, then how do you think they fit the brain from the official record through such a small cavity?

Last edited by MicahJava; 21st April 2017 at 11:07 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 22nd April 2017, 04:40 AM   #3132
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
So disassembling it and storing it for months unattended in a garage in a blanket on the floor where it was in the way and underneath a bandsaw casting dust on it is one of the appropriate ways to "take care of it" after "he sights it in"?

Is that your argument here?

Michael Paine Testimony:
Mr. PAINE - That is right. I unpacked whatever was remaining in the station wagon to the garage.
So sometime later, I do remember moving about this package which, let's say, was a rifle, anyway it was a package wrapped in a blanket. The garage was kind of crowded and I did have my tools in there and I had to move this package several times in order to make space to work, and the final time I put it on the floor underneath the saw where the bandsaw would be casting dust on it and I was a little embarrassed to be putting his goods on the floor, but I didn't suppose, the first time I picked it up I thought it was camping equipment.


Quit pretending you understand Oswald's motivations. You clearly don't, as your explanations of what he would do with his weapon conflict entirely with what he did do with his weapon.

Hank
So you say that it was collecting dust... but then quote someone who said it was in a package in a blanket, so that is two layers, probably a dustproof layer and then a blanket to protect against bumps. And he trusted this guy enough to work on his house, he probably assumed that the guy wouldn't **** up his stuff or start throwing things around or dropping them? Does that convince you that this argument is petty and lame and you're inventing reasons to question the integrity of the weapon or shall we keep going until we run out of nonsense?
Joey McGee 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 22nd April 2017, 06:24 AM   #3133
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
So you say that it was collecting dust...
No, I quoted Michael Paine who moved it under a bandsaw and said he felt bad about that as it would be casting [saw]dust on the blanket.
Mr. PAINE - ... The garage was kind of crowded and I did have my tools in there and I had to move this package several times in order to make space to work, and the final time I put it on the floor underneath the saw where the bandsaw would be casting dust on it and I was a little embarrassed to be putting his goods on the floor....

Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
but then quote someone who said it was in a package in a blanket, so that is two layers, probably a dustproof layer and then a blanket to protect against bumps.
Just the blanket. No other wrapping. The blanket and the weapon comprised the entirety of the package.


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
And he trusted this guy enough to work on his house
Hilarious. Okay, it's clear you know little to nothing about the circumstances of Oswald's life. Oswald didn't own the house, Michael & Ruth Paine did. It was the Paine's garage, as well. Oswald imposed on them by having some of his stuff left there when Ruth transported Marina from New Orleans to Dallas in September of 1963.


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
he probably assumed that the guy wouldn't **** up his stuff or start throwing things around or dropping them?
Yeah, as a Quaker, I doubt Michael Paine was built that way, so he would avoid doing so if possible. But regardless, Oswald was imposing on the Paines by leaving his possessions in the Paine garage, and Michael did move Oswald's rifle as he saw fit to get it out of his way and finally under a bandsaw when it became an inconvenience for him to move around his own garage with that rifle in the way. Ruth Paine also said if she had known there was a weapon stored in her home, she would have asked Oswald to remove it.


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Does that convince you that this argument is petty and lame and you're inventing reasons to question the integrity of the weapon or shall we keep going until we run out of nonsense?
It convinces me you don't even recall what the argument was about.

LET'S REVIEW HOW WE GOT HERE:
You stated the falsehood and exaggeration that:
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
... this shot has been recreated with the same gun on like 12 million documentary programs
When I pointed out the falsehood (same gun) and exaggeration (12m) by you, you introduced a straw man logical fallacy here:
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
So, just to be clear, you want to have a mathematical argument about how many times it has been successfully recreated vs. the failure rate of the manufacturer at that time on that model?
You then went for the Appeal to Ridicule logical fallacy, and argued that as an ex-marine, he would have used only a weapon that was sighted in:
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Wow Hank you correctly pointed out that 12 million is an exaggeration. The fact that you did that really shows that you take this subject seriously and I respect and appreciate your attention to detail. ... He would clearly take a gun that he hadn't sighted in to kill the President, that's believable.
I pointed out there were witnesses who came forward to say they saw Oswald at a gun range the weekend prior to the assassination, AND regardless of whether he had sighted in the scope, he could have used the iron sights, AND it was his only weapon, and his only opportunity, so he either used the rifle as is, or lost that opportunity entirely.

You ignored all that logic and argument and instead doubled-down on the "Oswald didn't do it because he didn't sight it in and didn't take care of the weapon" argument here:
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
To me, the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that. I am done here, thanks.
I pointed out that 'Beggars can't be choosers', and if Oswald learned as late as the Wednesday before the assassination of his opportunity to assassinate the President, he didn't have an opportunity to sight it in or take better care of it over the preceding months, and therefore it meant using the weapon 'as is' or losing the opportunity entirely.

You then speculated on no evidence whatsoever that:
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
...maybe he liked to clean his gun before he shot it and being disassembled was part of that process? What's so wrong about a blanket?
I pointed out that the weapon had been stored that way for months (it was wrapped within the blanket when transported from New Orleans and not used by Oswald since - per the evidence), so it wasn't a matter of the gun being disassembled for cleaning, it was a matter of it being disassembled for transport and storage. I could also point out that Oswald had all but abandoned the rifle at the Paine garage; it wasn't in his possession most of the time (Oswald lived in a rooming house elsewhere); he typically only visited his wife on weekends; and there's no evidence he accessed the weapon between September and the night before the assassination; and the evidence indicates he only took the weapon back on the morning of the assassination.

I did point out it was disassembled, kept in another man's garage where he had little control over it for months prior to the assassination to destroy your argument that "...the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that."

Somewhere along the line, I also pointed out you were pretending to be a mind-reader, and trying to eliminate Oswald as the shooter based on what you think he would have done, rather than determining whether Oswald was the shooter based on what the evidence says he did do.

You ignored all that.

Clearly, Oswald wasn't taking care of the weapon as you argued he would or should. But that doesn't eliminate him as the shooter, or his rifle as the weapon used to kill the President whatsoever.

And now you try to turn the argument around, and pretend I've been "...inventing reasons to question the integrity of the weapon".

No, I never did that. I did point out that your argument that Oswald would only use a sighted-in weapon that was taken care of to assassinate the President had no basis in fact, as the weapon wasn't well cared for in the months preceding the assassination, and there's scant evidence he sighted it in. Regardless of all that, however, the weapon was determined in tests after the assassination to be as accurate as any then-current U.S.Military rifles in use at the time. And it was the one used to kill the President.

You don't even remember what your initial argument was. Or what arguments you advanced subsequent to that.

Or what facts I've been pointing out to repudiate your claims.

That's funny.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 22nd April 2017 at 08:23 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 07:40 AM   #3134
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dude, you're in outer space. How has it been this long and you still haven't given a cogent answer to my main question? If you see my point about it being a real issue with the cowlick entry theory, then just say.
I answered your questions, multiple times and in spades.

There's quite a few I asked you never gave a response to, just dismissed or ignored altogether.

Your turn to answer one, in detail, citing the evidence.

Go ahead. You can even choose the one to answer from the many you've ignored in the past.

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 Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 11:18 AM   #3135
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The open-cranium photos are real.

Those diagrams, however, are not and can not be an accurate representation of Kennedy's head wounds.
YOU are the one who's been wasting space posting them, plus YOU defended them a dozen pages back as being accurate reproductions, so make up your mind.


Quote:
Nobody who was there said they saw a semi-circular beveled exit on the margin on the frontal bone.
Who cares? It's a sketch.

Quote:
And again, if we pay attention to Dr. Finck's statements, he always basically said you could see the small head wound in the skull just fine, and he got arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed.
And if you pay attention to your own statements you are clearly reading things into Finck's recollections.

Quote:
Considering that, and how a couple of HSCA staffers even claimed you could see the cowlick entry wound in the same open-cranium photos, we must ask 'just how small was this skull cavity the HSCA thinks the doctors got a good sized brain out of?'.
So now we're worried about what unqualified staffers think they saw too?

Quote:
That question alone should debunk the HSCA's theory on Kennedy's head wounds.
This one here, this is the root of at Conspiracy Theorist thinking. No question debunks anything, only an answer. CTers ignore answers, and ask only questions because it's all a game.

Quote:
To others here- how do you interpret the open-cranium photos? Do you think they show occipital bone or do you think they show frontal bone? If you think it shows frontal, then how do you think they fit the brain from the official record through such a small cavity?
The others would tell you that they'd need to see ALL of the autopsy photos to make any informed judgement...like the people who have and agree that the lone headshot came from behind...
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 22nd April 2017, 07:26 PM   #3136
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Quote:
You ignored all that logic and argument and instead doubled-down on the "Oswald didn't do it because he didn't sight it in and didn't take care of the weapon" argument here:
Oswald did it. What the **** are you talking about? You think I'm a twoofer? You completely misunderstood my argument. This could be the stupidest conversation ever had. I quit.
Joey McGee 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 22nd April 2017, 11:05 PM   #3137
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Okay, so I've been Googling literature on the temporary cavitation of bullets for about a day now.

So John Connally was hit in his back to the right of the shoulder, had his fifth rib shattered, and had the missile exit below his right nipple, right? Considering the temporary cavitation of a low-velocity tumbling bullet, how did that not cause serious damage to his liver, which would have been within an inch or so near the fifth rib/exit point? There was never mention of serious damage to Connally's liver.



From Terminal Ballistics: A Text and Atlas of Gunshot Wounds by Malcolm J. Dodd:

(Under Chapter 18: The Internal Organs)

THE MECHANISMS OF CAUSATION OF INJURY

In general terms, and for the sake of prevention of repetition, there are essentially three basic mechanisms of injury.

1. Low Velocity Single Projectiles pass through internal organs by pushing their way through them. There is little in the way of cavitation formation, unless the muzzle is in hard contact position. The organ often cited as an example is the liver. The bullet passes through the liver in an uninterrupted fashion, creating a hole and passage of diameter closely matching that of the projectile. This is also true for organs such as the brain, lung, spleen, and kidney. The internal margins of the track may be somewhat friable and are frequently blood filled. Bullet fragmentation and jacket separation will also modify the track.

2. High Velocity Projectiles, by contrast, literally “smash” their way through. The projectile is travelling at or beyond the speed of sound and will likely cause a temporary cavity to be formed. The physics involved relate to an advancing wave of compressed air. The cavity may be up to 40–60 times the diameter of the projectile and may persist for several milliseconds. The cavity then collapses leaving a ragged irregular defect representing the passage of the projectile. Kinetic energy is expended by causing further dramatic disruption radial to the projectile track. This is especially so in organs such as the liver. The post mortem examination will demonstrate much pulping and fragmentation of the parenchyma. In some cases, a well defined bullet track may not be identified. In hard or near contact shots, there is also the consideration of large quantities of hot gas under extreme pressure. If the bullet is of soft point design, it may fragment almost entirely, creating the classic “lead snow storm” pattern on X-ray. If the projectile is fully jacketed, it may readily exit the body with little if any deviation in direction. Secondary projectiles may be set into motion and may exit independently of the bullet.


A high-velocity bullet just going near your liver can cause serious damage to it. And all of these articles and books say that a tumbling high-velocity bullet can make an even bigger temporary cavity. Meanwhile, a low-velocity (subsonic) bullet may give a better explanation for why Connally wasn't killed.

Last edited by MicahJava; 22nd April 2017 at 11:13 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 23rd April 2017, 03:25 AM   #3138
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,399
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, so I've been Googling literature on the temporary cavitation of bullets for about a day now.
And no doubt you feel that a day's Googling makes you an expert on the subject.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So John Connally was hit in his back to the right of the shoulder, had his fifth rib shattered, and had the missile exit below his right nipple, right? Considering the temporary cavitation of a low-velocity tumbling bullet, how did that not cause serious damage to his liver, which would have been within an inch or so near the fifth rib/exit point?
Your diagram appears to show the liver being close to the left nipple, and nowhere near the right one. Would you like to reconsider your theory at this point?

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 23rd April 2017, 07:14 AM   #3139
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, so I've been Googling literature on the temporary cavitation of bullets for about a day now.

So John Connally was hit in his back to the right of the shoulder, had his fifth rib shattered, and had the missile exit below his right nipple, right? Considering the temporary cavitation of a low-velocity tumbling bullet, how did that not cause serious damage to his liver, which would have been within an inch or so near the fifth rib/exit point? There was never mention of serious damage to Connally's liver.
Which should tell you your non-expert uneducated opinion is wrong. But it likely won't. You will no doubt beat it like you beat JFK's head wound, putting your opinion ahead of all the doctors who examined Connally, ignoring what they concluded, and pretending once more your opinion takes primacy. It does not. We'll give non-expert uneducated opinion all the consideration it is due (none).

You avoided answering any of the questions I asked of you concerning JFK's head wounds, and you are now changing the subject.

Are we supposed to not notice any of this and just continue to play your game of "I've got a question"?

Ok, then let me ask you a few:
  • Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?
  • Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?
  • Or on Connally's stretcher?
  • Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?
  • If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?
  • Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?
  • And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?
  • How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

We'll need this information to determine how much credibility to put into your assessments of the damage the liver should have suffered, and whether a low-velocity bullet was used.

You're not the only one who can ask questions, you know.

Seems like it's your turn to answer a few.

Hank

PS: My prediction is you will ignore all the questions.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 07:21 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 07:30 AM   #3140
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Oswald did it. What the **** are you talking about? You think I'm a twoofer? You completely misunderstood my argument. This could be the stupidest conversation ever had. I quit.
Or you misunderstood mine. Or tried to debate something you know little about.

It sure sounded like you were arguing Oswald didn't do it.

You argued:

"He would clearly take a gun that he hadn't sighted in to kill the President, that's believable."

"To me, the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy [gun] is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that."


Since anyone familiar with the case knows Oswald left his rifle for months stored in the Paine garage in a disassembled state, your arguments above certainly appear to be arguing that Oswald didn't shoot JFK.

I'm not sure how you could misconstrue my arguments, however. I've been here on this thread (and its predecessor threads) for over five years arguing that Oswald was the lone assassin. If there was any question about what I was stating or what point I was making, all you had to do was ask.

For example, what did you think I was arguing when I responded to you with:

Again, it's his only weapon. So if he found out about the motorcade going past his place of work on Wednesday evening (11/20/1963) for instance, he didn't have much of an opportunity to sight in the rifle, did he?

So it was either use the unsighted rifle or none at all. Or if he found out on Sunday morning (11/17/63), then he could have taken that opportunity to take the weapon to a gun range, where some people affirm they saw him.


Does that read like I was arguing for anyone but Oswald?

You started out here by invoking exaggeration and falsehood and graduated to logical fallacies (as I showed in my last post) and your arguments went downhill from there, invoking speculation and more false statements to attempt to make your case.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 08:30 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 09:15 AM   #3141
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And no doubt you feel that a day's Googling makes you an expert on the subject.



Your diagram appears to show the liver being close to the left nipple, and nowhere near the right one. Would you like to reconsider your theory at this point?

Dave
I think you're confusing the liver with the spleen.
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 23rd April 2017, 09:44 AM   #3142
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A high-velocity bullet just going near your liver can cause serious damage to it. And all of these articles and books say that a tumbling high-velocity bullet can make an even bigger temporary cavity. Meanwhile, a low-velocity (subsonic) bullet may give a better explanation for why Connally wasn't killed.
Now that you presume yourself an expert on cavitation, please explain what damage a high powered bullet hitting the back of JFK's head would cause upon exiting the head?

Would it look anything like what we see in the Zapruder film?

Support your answer with evidence.

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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 11:08 AM   #3143
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, so I've been Googling literature on the temporary cavitation of bullets for about a day now.
Oh good lord, a whole day? You must be tuckered out.

Quote:
So John Connally was hit in his back to the right of the shoulder, had his fifth rib shattered, and had the missile exit below his right nipple, right? Considering the temporary cavitation of a low-velocity tumbling bullet, how did that not cause serious damage to his liver, which would have been within an inch or so near the fifth rib/exit point? There was never mention of serious damage to Connally's liver.
I'm no doctor, but for a bullet to cause damage to the liver it needs to hit the liver. You know, the same way my liver wasn't damaged when they took my gallbladder out...because they were careful not to slice into it...

Quote:
A high-velocity bullet just going near your liver can cause serious damage to it. And all of these articles and books say that a tumbling high-velocity bullet can make an even bigger temporary cavity. Meanwhile, a low-velocity (subsonic) bullet may give a better explanation for why Connally wasn't killed.
What do you call a high-velocity round after it hits something?

A low velocity round.


All you are describing is a 6.5x52mm round AFTER it had already passed through ANOTHER HUMAN BODY, which means you're posted cut& paste supports the single bullet theory.

Remember, the bullet had slowed enough to exit the body mostly intact.

Google "painting yourself into a corner"....
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 11:13 AM   #3144
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Which should tell you your non-expert uneducated opinion is wrong. But it likely won't. You will no doubt beat it like you beat JFK's head wound, putting your opinion ahead of all the doctors who examined Connally, ignoring what they concluded, and pretending once more your opinion takes primacy. It does not. We'll give non-expert uneducated opinion all the consideration it is due (none).

You avoided answering any of the questions I asked of you concerning JFK's head wounds, and you are now changing the subject.

Are we supposed to not notice any of this and just continue to play your game of "I've got a question"?

Ok, then let me ask you a few:
  • Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?
  • Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?
  • Or on Connally's stretcher?
  • Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?
  • If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?
  • Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?
  • And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?
  • How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

We'll need this information to determine how much credibility to put into your assessments of the damage the liver should have suffered, and whether a low-velocity bullet was used.

You're not the only one who can ask questions, you know.

Seems like it's your turn to answer a few.

Hank

PS: My prediction is you will ignore all the questions.
Oh yeah, I forgot I should trust the FBI, and trust their totally thorough examination on the night of November 22.

"Late Sunday evening, November 24, the guards were removed from the vehicle and SA Gies and Special Officer Davis and White House Police Officer Hutch began to remove the blood stains and the debris from the car. At that time there were still fragments of bone and hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI search team."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb.../Item%2005.pdf

Yeah right. So at least from a lawyer's argumentative standpoint, there was no thorough examination of the limousine, especially since Fraizer et. al never even tried saying they used a metal detector or magnifying glass. By the way, where are those bone fragments today?

Now on to the science, please.
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 23rd April 2017, 11:18 AM   #3145
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Oh good lord, a whole day? You must be tuckered out.

I'm no doctor, but for a bullet to cause damage to the liver it needs to hit the liver. You know, the same way my liver wasn't damaged when they took my gallbladder out...because they were careful not to slice into it...

If you even bothered to use Google, you would know that a high-velocity bullet just passing near the liver can cause serious damage to it. The bullet itself does not have to touch the liver to have life-threatening injuries from it.

Quote:
What do you call a high-velocity round after it hits something?

A low velocity round.


All you are describing is a 6.5x52mm round AFTER it had already passed through ANOTHER HUMAN BODY, which means you're posted cut& paste supports the single bullet theory.

Remember, the bullet had slowed enough to exit the body mostly intact.

Google "painting yourself into a corner"....
Except, of course, you should know that the single bullet theory posits that it was still traveling much faster than the speed of sound while tumbling when it struck Connally.
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 23rd April 2017, 11:21 AM   #3146
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Now that you presume yourself an expert on cavitation, please explain what damage a high powered bullet hitting the back of JFK's head would cause upon exiting the head?

Would it look anything like what we see in the Zapruder film?

Support your answer with evidence.

Hank
A high-powered rifle bullet? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that would cause more damage than the skull and brain area around the EOP and the base of the head, but of course that's assuming it's a high-powered 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 23rd April 2017, 11:29 AM   #3147
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,399
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I think you're confusing the liver with the spleen.
Ah, you're right. But even so, it seems you're looking at the projection and not taking the third dimension into account. The highest point of the liver may well be only an inch or so below the fifth rib, but that point isn't at the front of the body, so if the bullet's track was downwards, it must have passed well above the liver. And also, we're talking about a bullet that had already passed through Kennedy's throat; how fast was it going after that? It may have been subsonic by the time it hit Connally, or by the time it passed closest to his liver, but that doesn't mean it must have been subsonic at the time it was fired. All you really have here is an appeal to incredulity.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 23rd April 2017, 11:30 AM   #3148
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,399
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Except, of course, you should know that the single bullet theory posits that it was still traveling much faster than the speed of sound while tumbling when it struck Connally.
Citation, please.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 23rd April 2017, 11:37 AM   #3149
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Ok, then let me ask you a few:
  • Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?
  • Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?
  • Or on Connally's stretcher?
  • Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?
  • If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?
  • Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?
  • And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?
  • How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?


PS: My prediction is you will ignore all the questions.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh yeah, I forgot I should trust the FBI, and trust their totally thorough examination on the night of November 22.

"Late Sunday evening, November 24, the guards were removed from the vehicle and SA Gies and Special Officer Davis and White House Police Officer Hutch began to remove the blood stains and the debris from the car. At that time there were still fragments of bone and hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI search team."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisb.../Item%2005.pdf

Yeah right. So at least from a lawyer's argumentative standpoint, there was no thorough examination of the limousine, especially since Fraizer et. al never even tried saying they used a metal detector or magnifying glass. By the way, where are those bone fragments today?

Now on to the science, please.
So exactly as predicted, then. You ignored all the questions, simply to raise a non-issue (exactly what evidence of any value was left in the car? Any bullet fragments? No. Just hair and bone. Any doubt whose hair and bone that was? No - it was JFK's).

And just as clearly, the remaining hair and bone was judged to be of no evidentiary value. Ball in your court - establish the evidentiary value of this remaining hair and bone. So all you did was raise another question you have to answer.

What's your reason for raising this non-issue? Simply to deflect from your inability to answer any of the earlier questions about your latest non-expert opinion.

We are not fooled by that.

You are very predictable - go ahead, ignore the questions you find difficult and simply reiterate your opinion once more. We are on to that. It's nothing new from the CT side.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 11:52 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 12:32 PM   #3150
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Citation, please.

Dave
From Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony:


Mr. FAUNTROY . The bullet left the gun at 2,000 feet . Do you think at the point it would have struck the first body it was going at about 1,700?

Mr. STURDIVAN . 1,700 to 1,800 .

Mr. FAUNTROY . Feet . It would have lost how much going through, you said?

Mr. STURDIVAN . About a 100 . So it is after going through it is perhaps 1,700 feet per second, or a little less, at striking the second body . There it would lose another 400-plus feet per second and exited, say, somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300 feet per second, roughly .

Mr . FAUNTROY . That is velocity at which it is moving?

Mr . STURDIVAN . At the exit of the second target .

Mr . FAUNTROY . Would that be enough velocity to shatter a wrist bone?

Mr . STURDIVAN . Oh, yes . My calculations, rough calculations have shown that when striking the bone it would comminute the bone at anything above about 700 feet per second . So it still has nearly twice that velocity and certainly it would have enough to comminute a bone


Quote:
Ah, you're right. But even so, it seems you're looking at the projection and not taking the third dimension into account. The highest point of the liver may well be only an inch or so below the fifth rib, but that point isn't at the front of the body, so if the bullet's track was downwards, it must have passed well above the liver. And also, we're talking about a bullet that had already passed through Kennedy's throat; how fast was it going after that? It may have been subsonic by the time it hit Connally, or by the time it passed closest to his liver, but that doesn't mean it must have been subsonic at the time it was fired. All you really have here is an appeal to incredulity.
The liver lies somewhat behind the lung. I'm wondering if it's common for the liver to be significantly below the lung, as some diagrams show it, but I get the impression it's just made that way in certain diagrams for the viewer to get a clearer view of the organs. To show the liver behind the lung in a 2D diagram, you would have to show the lung as somewhat transparent.


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 23rd April 2017, 12:51 PM   #3151
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
From Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony:


Mr. FAUNTROY . The bullet left the gun at 2,000 feet . Do you think at the point it would have struck the first body it was going at about 1,700?

Mr. STURDIVAN . 1,700 to 1,800 .

Mr. FAUNTROY . Feet . It would have lost how much going through, you said?

Mr. STURDIVAN . About a 100 . So it is after going through it is perhaps 1,700 feet per second, or a little less, at striking the second body . There it would lose another 400-plus feet per second and exited, say, somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300 feet per second, roughly .

Mr . FAUNTROY . That is velocity at which it is moving?

Mr . STURDIVAN . At the exit of the second target .

Mr . FAUNTROY . Would that be enough velocity to shatter a wrist bone?

Mr . STURDIVAN . Oh, yes . My calculations, rough calculations have shown that when striking the bone it would comminute the bone at anything above about 700 feet per second . So it still has nearly twice that velocity and certainly it would have enough to comminute a bone
So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Doesn't this testimony mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Where's the evidence for the shooter or the bullets?

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

Try answering my questions for a change.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 01:11 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 01:04 PM   #3152
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,399
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Mr. STURDIVAN . About a 100 . So it is after going through it is perhaps 1,700 feet per second, or a little less, at striking the second body . There it would lose another 400-plus feet per second and exited, say, somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300 feet per second, roughly .
Not necessarily supersonic, then; the speed of sound is 1125 feet per second. So at the bottom end of the speed range cavitation wouldn't be expected.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The liver lies somewhat behind the lung.
As in, not at the front. So the bullet passed well above the liver.

You haven't established either of your premises, let alone both.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 23rd April 2017, 01:10 PM   #3153
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Hank
I don't know if it could, but 700 feet per second is well below subsonic at 477 mph. If the pointed bullet discovered on the stretcher was actually involved in the shooting, I also don't know if it could do all of that and remain intact unless somehow that one was solely responsible for the thigh wound.

Meanwhile, you have never answered by most important questions without invoking gibberish.
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 23rd April 2017, 01:18 PM   #3154
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A high-powered rifle bullet? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that would cause more damage than the skull and brain area around the EOP and the base of the head, but of course that's assuming it's a high-powered bullet.
FAIL.

What part of "Support your answer with evidence" did you not understand?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 01:26 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 01:28 PM   #3155
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Not necessarily supersonic, then; the speed of sound is 1125 feet per second. So at the bottom end of the speed range cavitation wouldn't be expected.
Such a drop in speed would be largely due to the fifth rib wounding. The ribs are in front of the lungs and liver.

Quote:
As in, not at the front. So the bullet passed well above the liver.

You haven't established either of your premises, let alone both.

Dave
Not sure what you mean. The human liver is a good sized organ, not thin like a beef liver.

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 23rd April 2017, 01:31 PM   #3156
MicahJava
Graduate Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 1,801
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
FAIL.

What part of "Support your answer with evidence" did you not understand?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head?

Hank
The idea of more than three shots goes hand-in-hand with the idea of subsonic ammunition.

So, did you figure out what you think the autopsy skull photographs show?
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 23rd April 2017, 02:14 PM   #3157
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 24,399
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Such a drop in speed would be largely due to the fifth rib wounding. The ribs are in front of the lungs and liver.
Appealing to your own authority, I see.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Not sure what you mean.
I mean that you haven't established that the bullet passed close enough to the liver at a high enough speed to cause serious liver damage; you've simply speculated on the basis of negligible expertise.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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 23rd April 2017, 03:40 PM   #3158
Axxman300
Graduate Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 1,878
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If you even bothered to use Google, you would know that a high-velocity bullet just passing near the liver can cause serious damage to it. The bullet itself does not have to touch the liver to have life-threatening injuries from it.
1. This assumes ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, which is a lie.

2. This assumes that the governor had no muscles or tendons between his skin and skeleton, which - if he did have musculature & tendons - would have come into play in slowing the bullet further during penetration.

3. This assumes that the governor sat flush against the seat, and that his vital organs were as depicted in a diagram, and that they never move (compress/expand etc as some do).

4. If you left the house more you'd meet people. Then you'd hear stories about how some people survived things that should have killed them, and you'll hear stories about people who died from something ridiculous, and that's because people are different.

Quote:
Except, of course, you should know that the single bullet theory posits that it was still traveling much faster than the speed of sound while tumbling when it struck Connally.
Neat, and I also know that the bullet bled off energy pretty fast once inside the body. I know this because it didn't continue into the Secret Service Agent in front of him.

If you spend more than one day Googling cavitation you'll learn that where a spinning bullet goes once it's in the body is largely random. Fact is there's a 50% chance the bullet destroys the governor's liver and we bury four men in November, 1963 instead of three.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 04:16 PM   #3159
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
What I asked:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Doesn't this testimony mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Where's the evidence for the shooter or the bullets?

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Hank

What you quoted, with no notation showing anything was deleted:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Your sole response:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't know if it could, but 700 feet per second is well below subsonic at 477 mph. If the pointed bullet discovered on the stretcher was actually involved in the shooting, I also don't know if it could do all of that and remain intact unless somehow that one was solely responsible for the thigh wound.

Meanwhile, you have never answered by most important questions without invoking gibberish.

Let's go through your response, sentence by sentence:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't know if it could, but 700 feet per second is well below subsonic at 477 mph.
My questions had nothing to do with subsonic or supersonic. Your response here doesn't approach answering anything I asked. If you're conjecturing this bullet struck Connally at 700 feet per second, would it be able to penetrate Connally's trunk, his wrist, and wound his thigh, given that initial speed?

If not, then:
Doesn't this testimony mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Where's the evidence for the shooter or the bullets?

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If the pointed bullet discovered on the stretcher was actually involved in the shooting...
I asked about Commission Exhibit 399 not at all. That bullet was a high-powered bullet. I asked about the implications stemming from your theory of a low-powered bullet striking Connally. You avoided answering any questions about your theory.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...I also don't know if it could do all of that and remain intact unless somehow that one was solely responsible for the thigh wound.[
I asked about remaining intact not at all. I asked about the high powered round found at Parkland not at all.

Congratulations. You are batting a thousand. I predicted you would answer none of my questions and you're doing your best to ensure that prediction comes true.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Meanwhile, you have never answered by [my]most important questions without invoking gibberish.
Really? What response to what questions did you consider gibberish?

Hank

PS: In case you forgot, you still owe me answers to these questions:
Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?

Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?

Or on Connally's stretcher?

Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?

If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?

Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?

And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?

How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 04:35 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 Back to Top
Old 23rd April 2017, 04:30 PM   #3160
HSienzant
Master Poster
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 2,935
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Now that you presume yourself an expert on cavitation, please explain what damage a high powered bullet hitting the back of JFK's head would cause upon exiting the head?

Would it look anything like what we see in the Zapruder film?

Support your answer with evidence.

Hank
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
FAIL.

What part of "Support your answer with evidence" did you not understand?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head?

Hank

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The idea of more than three shots goes hand-in-hand with the idea of subsonic ammunition.
Yes, I understand that. That's why I asked the questions I did.

You answered my questions not at all.

Where's the evidence of this subsonic ammo being found in the body or in the limo?

Where's the evidence of a second shooter?

Would subsonic ammo cause the large cavitation of JFK's skull as we see in the Zapruder film?

Why did 90% of the witnesses here only three shots, not four or more?

How many subsonic bullets struck Connally in your theory, and why is there no evidence for any of them?

If we trace Connally's wounds back, where is this supposed second shooter firing subsonic ammo located?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head.


Show your work, cite your evidence.

Or keep punting.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So, did you figure out what you think the autopsy skull photographs show?
Did you? I'm not the one doubting the official reports and conclusions. You need to support your opinions with evidence. You have yet to do so, and I have pointed that out repeatedly. Your interpretations of some statement by someone 33 years after the fact is not evidence, and doesn't support your opinion. It's just more of your opinion. Statements by experts is evidence. Asking me what I think about your opinions / theories is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 23rd April 2017 at 05:32 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

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 09:33 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.