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 !MOD BOX WARNING! , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 1st June 2017, 04:42 PM   #161
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,206
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
You are so wrong on that one.

I once had a guy assert that because he had a piece of paper in his hand, he couldn't have committed the criminal act I observed him commit.

That's about a half step away, at best, from citing the soda pop controversy as a discussion point in this thread.
Paper covers rock = Not Guilty.
__________________
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 1st June 2017, 04:48 PM   #162
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't know, maybe you could say what you think about that fragment in the upper neck that Cyril Wecht identified?
Was this "identified" fragment recovered and examined? Or perhaps it may have been a false positive as a fragment? Was Dr. Wecht at the autopsy? or was/is he reviewing all of the evidence that those in attendance witness/observed?
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 1st June 2017, 04:54 PM   #163
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't know, maybe you could say what you think about that fragment in the upper neck that Cyril Wecht identified?
When you feel confident enough to explain what the pin-the-headwound jive you're fixated on means in the larger context of the established evidence there may be a worthwhile debate.

You're coming off like the kid in the guitar store that plays Smoke on the Water over and over and over...
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2017, 04:56 PM   #164
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,206
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't know, maybe you could say what you think about that fragment in the upper neck that Cyril Wecht identified?
Wecht has made a career out of questioning celebrity autopsies, and was the lone dissenter of the 9 pathologist panel for the HSCA.

I'd go with the other 8 instead of a glory hound.
__________________
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 1st June 2017, 04:58 PM   #165
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,206
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Was this "identified" fragment recovered and examined? Or perhaps it may have been a false positive as a fragment? Was Dr. Wecht at the autopsy? or was/is he reviewing all of the evidence that those in attendance witness/observed?
Not at the original autposy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Wecht
__________________
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 1st June 2017, 06:11 PM   #166
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Wecht has made a career out of questioning celebrity autopsies, and was the lone dissenter of the 9 pathologist panel for the HSCA.

I'd go with the other 8 instead of a glory hound.
Cyril Wecht hasn't mentioned this apparent fragment since he reported it in 1974, so I wouldn't stoop to accusing him of fraud just yet, Bucko.

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st June 2017 at 06:18 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2017, 06:17 PM   #167
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
When you feel confident enough to explain what the pin-the-headwound jive you're fixated on means in the larger context of the established evidence there may be a worthwhile debate.

You're coming off like the kid in the guitar store that plays Smoke on the Water over and over and over...
On the contrary, I would compare my postings here to Miles Davis' In A Silent Way. A 4 minute slow part, followed by a more improvisational 12-minute jazz bit characterized by several repetitive takes on the same riff, concluded by the same recording of the beginning 4-minute portion. Redundant, yet an undisputed masterpiece. Any troll can yell "Miles is a Judas" for making the transition to a more electric sound, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism.

Last edited by MicahJava; 1st June 2017 at 07:20 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 1st June 2017, 06:19 PM   #168
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Was this "identified" fragment recovered and examined? Or perhaps it may have been a false positive as a fragment? Was Dr. Wecht at the autopsy? or was/is he reviewing all of the evidence that those in attendance witness/observed?
Do you have a basis for wondering if this was a false positive for a fragment on the X-ray? Maybe a newer, better team of forensic experts should take a look at the originals to clear the cobwebs.
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 1st June 2017, 08:10 PM   #169
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Not at the original autposy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Wecht
The article indicates nothing concerning an "alleged" fragment, another question then arises, has anyone not in the CT camp, neutral objective examiner, concurred with Dr. Wecht's findings?

Quote:
Do you have a basis for wondering if this was a false positive for a fragment on the X-ray? Maybe a newer, better team of forensic experts should take a look at the originals to clear the cobwebs.
Why have further autopsies performed? Was the original one, incomplete, in error, contain false information?
I remember your insistence that the supervising doctor (even though he only witnessed, and did not perform in the autopsy)was an expert.

Last edited by bknight; 1st June 2017 at 08:16 PM. Reason: Added comment
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 2nd June 2017, 06:30 AM   #170
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
On the contrary, I would compare my postings here to Miles Davis' In A Silent Way. A 4 minute slow part, followed by a more improvisational 12-minute jazz bit characterized by several repetitive takes on the same riff, concluded by the same recording of the beginning 4-minute portion. Redundant, yet an undisputed masterpiece. Any troll can yell "Miles is a Judas" for making the transition to a more electric sound, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism.
Swing! and a miss. After all the hardships with addiction and racism, you want to drag Miles into your mess? Hasn't the man suffered enough?

Here's your posting-jam mix:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2017, 09:49 AM   #171
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,206
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Cyril Wecht hasn't mentioned this apparent fragment since he reported it in 1974, so I wouldn't stoop to accusing him of fraud just yet, Bucko.
Wonder why?

*hint, there isn't one*
__________________
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 2nd June 2017, 09:54 AM   #172
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
I don't get the mindset that says "I think the autopsy is putting a wound lower down the back of the head, but that means the damage to the brain is wrong, ergo there was more than one head wound, even if there is no evidence of this", instead of: "I think the entry wound was lower down, but that doesn't match the damage to the brain, so maybe I am wrong and the entry wound is higher up, where the WC placed it, as that will better explain the description of the brain damage better, ergo I may be wrong".
__________________
@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 2nd June 2017, 10:32 AM   #173
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,599
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
I don't get the mindset that says "I think the autopsy is putting a wound lower down the back of the head, but that means the damage to the brain is wrong, ergo there was more than one head wound, even if there is no evidence of this", instead of: "I think the entry wound was lower down, but that doesn't match the damage to the brain, so maybe I am wrong and the entry wound is higher up, where the WC placed it, as that will better explain the description of the brain damage better, ergo I may be wrong".
And the well known human behavior involving errors and omissions is never included in the equation.

Any choice between magic and human error, I vote for the error.
__________________
"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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2017, 05:38 PM   #174
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Wonder why?

*hint, there isn't one*
Because Wecht more or less thinks a missile entered the back and exited the throat? So, of course, how could a fragment in the upper neck have any relation with the back wound as initially described.

Any insight on how "false positives" can give the illusion of dense fragments on X-rays?

Last edited by MicahJava; 2nd June 2017 at 07:27 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 2nd June 2017, 05:39 PM   #175
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
I don't get the mindset that says "I think the autopsy is putting a wound lower down the back of the head, but that means the damage to the brain is wrong, ergo there was more than one head wound, even if there is no evidence of this", instead of: "I think the entry wound was lower down, but that doesn't match the damage to the brain, so maybe I am wrong and the entry wound is higher up, where the WC placed it, as that will better explain the description of the brain damage better, ergo I may be wrong".
At least you're showing signs that you somewhat grasp my words.
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 2nd June 2017, 07:37 PM   #176
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,206
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Because Wecht more or less thinks a missile entered the back and exited the throat? So, of course, how could a fragment in the upper neck have any relation with the back wound as initially described.

Any insight on how "false positives" can give the illusion of dense fragments on X-rays?
Doesn't matter what he thinks, we know where the bullet entered, and where the fragments exited. It's all on film.
__________________
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 2nd June 2017, 10:31 PM   #177
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
At least you're showing signs that you somewhat grasp my words.
Grasping your words isn't an issue. Exactly why your arguments are flawed, and unconvincing has been discussed before.
__________________
@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 2nd June 2017, 10:53 PM   #178
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
And the well known human behavior involving errors and omissions is never included in the equation.

Any choice between magic and human error, I vote for the error.
Yes, human error is a concern. Error in memory from somebody giving testimony, or Micah's error in interpreting data. It's why in the past I have asked about precise measurements in the autopsy, or whatever, to try and work out if Micha has read them himself, or if he relies on what a CT book quotes.
__________________
@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 3rd June 2017, 03:50 AM   #179
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,015
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Because Wecht more or less thinks a missile entered the back and exited the throat?
Which is it? More or less?
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 08:55 AM   #180
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,279
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Which is it? More or less?
Cyril kind of goes back and forth between what he thinks. One day he's giving an interview where he refers to the throat wound as an exit for the back wound, one day he's doing a talk where he makes fun of the idea of Kennedy hunching over to make that trajectory possible.
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 3rd June 2017, 08:58 AM   #181
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Cyril kind of goes back and forth between what he thinks. One day he's giving an interview where he refers to the throat wound as an exit for the back wound, one day he's doing a talk where he makes fun of the idea of Kennedy hunching over to make that trajectory possible.
Well, here's an idea, why don't we ignore any interviews he might be paid for, and restrict ourselves to his input to official documents, or sworn testimony for which purgery or falsehood would have a weight of consequence.
What does he say under those situations?
__________________
@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 3rd June 2017, 09:48 AM   #182
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
MicahJava, don't you have any clue as to how many of Oswald's shots hit Kennedy?
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.
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?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Did I say I thought the body was altered?

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You brought up body alteration by paraphrasing a David Lifton paraphrase of a Dan Rather point, pretending Rather's point didn't make any sense. I had to explain to you how Rather's point made perfect sense.

I note you neither affirm nor deny whether you believe in body alteration. Can you take a stand on that subject now?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I will wait to research that subject when Lifton's Final Charade comes out, but for right now I will just say I find it disturbing that no Parkland witness saw that big red triangle on Kennedy's forehead as shown on the autopsy photos.
So no stand on whether Lifton's claims make a lick of sense to you or not. Which means your bringing up Lifton's point about Rather was in the vein of a diversion only, and you had no intention of answering the original question from RoboTimbo. And, in fact , in your latest response, you not only avoid all the points I made, but the original question, and then finally also introduce a red herring -- a change of subject.

If your objective is to reach a resolution here, you are doing a poor job of advancing the conversation. If your objective is to merely prolong the conversation so it appears you have valid points and have us chase you round the mulberry bush trying to get you to take a stand, you are doing a great job of avoiding advancing the conversation.

You think it's fun playing whack-a-mole with you?

So let's take one more stab at advancing the conversation, and trying to pin down some loose ends on your various theories:

Based on the evidence you're aware of, would conspirators do it Lifton's way, or just shoot JFK from behind and frame Oswald for owning the rifle the gunman shot with? Which makes more sense to you at present? Can you pick one and expound upon why it makes the most sense to you?

How many shots from Oswald's weapon struck Kennedy, in your view?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 09:54 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 10:10 AM   #183
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The JFK autopsy is like Rashomon, everybody remembers it a little differently and each one contradicts the official story.
So why believe any of the witnesses at all and not the hard evidence and the experts who know how to interpret the hard evidence?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I'm just trying to make sense of it all, and of all things you can be sure about, you can be as sure as you'll ever be that there was a small wound low in the head near the EOP.
And in making sense of it all, you can sometimes find yourself reaching erroneous conclusions, like the ancient Greeks concluding heavier objects fall faster than light ones. They too were just following the evidence in that case, right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Nobody has ever shown that the X-rays are incompatible with such a wound...
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Nobody has to show your interpretation is wrong. You need to show your interpretation is correct. You can start by quoting some expert opinion that agrees with your viewpoint.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...so nothing has to be faked for this to be true, unlike a lot of other interpretations of JFK's wounds.
Nobody on this side of the ledger is claiming the X-Rays or autopsy photos are faked, all those claims come from the CT side.

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 3rd June 2017, 10:11 AM   #184
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I've already explained why the scalp is being stretched back in the BOH photographs.
You've explained that's your interpretation. You haven't established that your interpretation is the correct one.

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 3rd June 2017, 10:13 AM   #185
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The small head wound was most likely an entry from behind, and the large head wound was from either direction, it doesn't really matter once you have two head shots.
But the autopsy found only one entry and one exit wound... and evidence of only one head shot.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, my friend, I am the one supporting the autopsy's findings. If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull [sic - gall] the say it.
How can you argue you're the only one accepting the evidence found at the autopsy when you're obviously not accepting the evidence found at the autopsy? The autopsists - and all subsequent forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials - found there was evidence of one shot to the head that entered the rear of the skull and exited the top right of the skull. Quite clearly, you are disagreeing with the autopsy conclusions, but pretending otherwise.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 10:19 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 10:21 AM   #186
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My favorite piece of LN stupidity is when Bugliosi argued that Oswald buying a Coca-Cola on the second floor instead of a Dr. Pepper on the first floor was evidence of his guilt. Meanwhile, the real truth-seekers are wondering if such an encounter between Oswald and Officer Marrion Baker even really happened.
And yet another change of subject. We're supposed to chase you around the mulberry bush and play whack-a-mole with you at your pleasure?

No. What's the evidence the conspiracy theorist you cite is a 'real truth seeker'? You appear to be assuming what you need to prove, and simply begging the question once more.

Even Oswald in custody admitted to the encounter (as quoted in numerous memoranda for the record by his interrogators). Officer Baker both testified to it, and gave a written statement to the incident. Truly did likewise. Arguing it never happened is nonsense, but what else could we expect from conspiracy theorists who fancy themselves "truthers"?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 10:25 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 10:33 AM   #187
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy's location of the entry wound on the back of the head is incompatible with a single gunshot to the head from the sixth floor of the TSBD.
Was that the conclusion of the three qualified pathologists who had the body in front of them on the night of 11/22/63, and you are just agreeing with their conclusions, or are you in fact arguing the autopsists were wrong, wrong, wrong?

You really need to make up your mind about whether the autopsists are right or wrong. As someone earlier advised, "If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull to say it".

Who said that? You did:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, my friend, I am the one supporting the autopsy's findings. If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull [gall] the say it.
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 10:35 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 10:37 AM   #188
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Considering all evidence with the damage to the brain, the pattern of fragments, and the trajectory required, can you try explaining how bullet could have entered the lower EOP location and exit the top-right side of the head? I'm thinking no.
Why does your thinking "no" override the conclusions of the autopsists who reach that precise conclusion on the night of 11/22/63 with the body in front of them? Can you explain?

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 3rd June 2017, 10:41 AM   #189
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The fragments allegedly recovered from Kennedy's head and the limousine is not under discussion. The existence of an additional bullet to the base of the head is.
No, the totality of the evidence is under discussion. You don't get to artificially exclude evidence pointing to Oswald and then pretend there is evidence of "The existence of an additional bullet to the base of the head". I'm unaware of any expert reaching that conclusion. Your conclusions are not evidence. They are argument only.

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 3rd June 2017, 10:42 AM   #190
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif Still no convincing reason to think the red spot on the photographs is an entry wound. https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif
Except that's where all the qualified forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials put the wound.

And the other six or so [EDIT - four] reasons given to you months ago earlier in the predecessor to this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3324

In there, I wrote:
Quote:
I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it

That one, the one that couldn't possibly be a wound entry location (according to you).
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 11:21 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd June 2017, 10:47 AM   #191
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So Oswald is guilty because he (allegedly) drank a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper? Does that sound like something a real truth-seeker would even try to say and write in their book?
Can you quote where Bugliosi actually says that?

Try to avoid straw men and putting words in his mouth.

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 3rd June 2017, 11:00 AM   #192
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... in his book, he literally uses Oswald drinking a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper as evidence of his guilt.
So just quote the sentence where Bugliosi says that. Surely you can do that.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... Meanwhile in reality, we can never know for sure how true the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is.
Right, because all three men -- one accused man, one police officer, and one neutral party -- affirmed its veracity, it must be false. There's CT 'logic' for you in a nutshell.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...Even if the encounter really did happen, the details are so fuzzy that the "Coca-Cola" in Oswald's hands could've really been a Dr. Pepper.
The encounter happened. Live with it. Removing the encounter removes one of the earliest attempts to provide Oswald an alibi. Numerous critics in the mid-1960s argued that Oswald didn't have time to descend from the sixth floor to the second before Truly and Baker arrived -- therefore, Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor firing the rifle at the time of the assassination. Remove the encounter, and you're admitting all the early critics were barking up the wrong tree.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... "Coke" is, after all, a common noun to describe all soft drinks. And both are a brown liquid in a glass bottle with a red label.
And both are manufactured by Coca Cola Bottling Company.

What exactly is your argument? Oswald was holding a Dr. Pepper for the encounter that never happened? How is that germane to who shot Kennedy?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
But either way, who cares?
YOU BROUGHT IT UP! Now you're attempting to argue it doesn't matter either way. Hilarious. If it doesn't matter, why'd you bring it up in any case?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...Bulio probably just put it in his book to justify some of his wasted time spent on tracking down which soft drink machines were on which floor of the TSBD.
So now he is being criticized for being thorough.

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 3rd June 2017, 11:05 AM   #193
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
LNers, on the other hand, don't know to recognize a problem where there is one.
What problem is that? The one a uninformed layman keeps insisting exists, but that none of the expert forensic pathologists to examine the extant autopsy materials ever thought of as a problem? That problem?

Maybe the problem is the uninformed laymen is simply wrong about his interpretations. Are you willing to concede that's a possibility? Or is the only possibility that you'll accept is that all the expert forensic pathologists to examine the extant autopsy materials were wrong -- every single one of them?

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 3rd June 2017, 11:09 AM   #194
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have a basis for wondering if this was a false positive for a fragment on the X-ray? Maybe a newer, better team of forensic experts should take a look at the originals to clear the cobwebs.
You yourself admitted above it was just an 'apparent fragment' that Wecht mentioned once only -- 43 years ago, and never since.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Cyril Wecht hasn't mentioned this apparent fragment since he reported it in 1974....
That seems sufficient as a basis for wondering if it was an actual fragment or just a anomalous artifact on the x-ray. It is only seen in one x-ray showing that area, and not seen in the side view. Correct?

Didn't you quote Wecht as saying just that?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This is Ceril Wecht's description of this fragment:

"There is the appearance of a very small particle on the right side of the mandible near the midline. No density corresponding to this location is seen on the lateral x-ray. Its location could be in the region of the spinal column and thus relate to the President's back wound."
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 11:25 AM. Reason: u
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 3rd June 2017, 11:17 AM   #195
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Cyril kind of goes back and forth between what he thinks. One day he's giving an interview where he refers to the throat wound as an exit for the back wound, one day he's doing a talk where he makes fun of the idea of Kennedy hunching over to make that trajectory possible.
So even more reason to doubt the existence of the apparent fragment Wecht found in 1974 in one x-ray that doesn't appear in any others?

He contradicts himself at times, and has never affirmed the existence of this supposed fragment?

Not sure how you think you're supporting your original argument that this fragment exists, and establishes the low impact entry wound to the head; maybe you don't know either?

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 3rd June 2017, 11:18 AM   #196
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Sorry for the flurry of posts. Been down the Jersey shore for the better part of the past week, and am home only weekends for the next month or so. Hence my only opportunity to respond.

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 3rd June 2017, 01:15 PM   #197
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Sorry for the flurry of posts. Been down the Jersey shore for the better part of the past week, and am home only weekends for the next month or so. Hence my only opportunity to respond.

Hank
There is no internet on the Jersey shore?
Sorry couldn't help myself.
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 3rd June 2017, 01:18 PM   #198
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
There is no internet on the Jersey shore?
Sorry couldn't help myself.
I am old school (see my photo left). Not as old school as Bugliosi, who wrote out his book on legal pads with a pencil, but nonetheless, I am not about to lug my desktop computer down the shore on the shore train on a weekly basis just so I can post in this forum. I like all you guys, but not that much.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 02:52 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 3rd June 2017, 01:32 PM   #199
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My favorite piece of LN stupidity is when Bugliosi argued that Oswald buying a Coca-Cola on the second floor instead of a Dr. Pepper on the first floor was evidence of his guilt.
That doesn't begin to summarize Bugliosi's argument adequately. He established that there was a Coke machine on the second floor (that sold only Coke) and a Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor (that sold other soda pop besides Dr. Pepper).

He cites Wes Frazier as saying that he (Frazier) only saw Oswald with Dr. Pepper. He cites author Jim Bishop as noting "Oswald invariably drank Dr. Pepper". He cites Marina Oswald as saying that after supper, Oswald would walk down the street and buy a newspaper and a Dr. Pepper.

He points out that outside of all the evidence Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at JFK during the assassination, Oswald's "... story about going up to the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense. Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a soft drink machine [with a variety of drinks, including your apparent drink of choice - Hank] on the first floor, the floor you say you are already on..."?

He didn't say it was evidence of his guilt. He said Oswald's claim about what he was doing on the second floor doesn't make sense.

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 3rd June 2017, 01:36 PM   #200
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
When you feel confident enough to explain what the pin-the-headwound jive you're fixated on means in the larger context of the established evidence there may be a worthwhile debate.

You're coming off like the kid in the guitar store that plays Smoke on the Water over and over and over...
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
On the contrary, I would compare my postings here to Miles Davis' In A Silent Way. A 4 minute slow part, followed by a more improvisational 12-minute jazz bit characterized by several repetitive takes on the same riff, concluded by the same recording of the beginning 4-minute portion. Redundant, yet an undisputed masterpiece. Any troll can yell "Miles is a Judas" for making the transition to a more electric sound, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism.
The difference is, of course, Miles Davis wasn't online telling everyone what a genius he was for creating that 'undisputed masterpiece'. Others said that of his work.

Right now, however, you're the only one on this board saying your postings are comparable to an 'undisputed masterpiece', so we know your claims in that regard are nonsense. Nobody gets to self-appoint their works as masterpieces.

But that's exactly what you're doing. Along with ignoring the substance of BStrong's point entirely, and just running away with the analogy.

Got any explanation for how your arguments for this wound you're arguing for fits the larger context of all the known evidence? Like Oswald's weapon being the only one found, like the sixth floor TSBD sniper being the only one seen, like the bullet, shells, and fragments recovered being traceable solely to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 3rd June 2017 at 03:03 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
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 09:08 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.