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 14th January 2018, 07:06 PM   #3481
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a small laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound. So while Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck and John Stringer suggested that the red spot was just a drop of blood, there is no reason why we shouldn't think the red spot could be a small wound of some signifigance.
Humes and Finck actually handed the head, Boswell did not. Boswell is on record as confirming the autopsy findings.
__________________
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 14th January 2018, 07:06 PM   #3482
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
What were the autopsy results, which you've been citing?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 07:08 PM   #3483
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.

https://i.imgur.com/gonoy3H.jpg
If you put JFK's arms down that track becomes straight - back to front.
__________________
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 14th January 2018, 07:09 PM   #3484
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
I see you edited your post after it had been replied to.

Please state your qualifications to interpret the xray.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2018, 07:15 PM   #3485
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy (officially) concluded one head shot because the small wound in the skull had internal beveling and the large wound in the skull had external beveling. I am not denying this.
Good, you can't, it's exactly what happened.


Quote:
The trajectories, how the (official) brain was damaged, how the (official) X-rays show fragment dispersal or fracture patterns are a totally different issue.
Why?

You have a longer than average missile which fragmented upon initial impacts, and again at the secondary internal impact on it's way through the skull. This is consistent with the round's performance at the speed and force of impact.

Quote:
Kennedy's brain was alledgedly not sectioned.
They didn't need to section the brain in this case. This head wound was straight-forward.
__________________
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 14th January 2018, 07:24 PM   #3486
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a small laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound.
So you're going with recollections 15 and 33 years after the fact rather than the autopsy itself that reports only one entry wound in the head.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So while Dr. Humes, Dr. Finck and John Stringer suggested that the red spot was just a drop of blood, there is no reason why we shouldn't think the red spot could be a small wound of some signifigance. It's just not THE small wound near the external occipital protuberance.
So you're still going with recollections 15 and 33 years after the fact rather than the autopsy itself that reports only one entry wound in the head. And still contradicting the autopsy doctors and the autopsy report that concluded only one bullet strike to the head. You think there were two bullets to strike the head. Big deal. You have zero -- ZERO -- qualifications to have your judgment here taken seriously.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Autopsy photographs showing views such as the small head wound and Kennedy's right lung have inexplicably gone missing.
Hilarious. I'm not basing my arguments on missing photos and what they might show... you are. I'm going by the testimony of the autopsists to the Warren Commission, and the determinations of the HSCA forensic pathology panel.

I'll remind you that you're ignoring most all of that, cherry-picking the parts you like out of the dregs of the recollections of the rest of the testimony, and ignoring everything else from those recollections, including the parts that contradict the parts you like.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So you are working from the context of an incomplete set of photographs.
A complaint that is meaningless, as you are working from the same context of an incomplete set of photographs.

However, unlike you, I don't ignore the determination of the HSCA forensic pathology panel with the complaint they weren't trained to read radiographs, then offer my own obviously layman's interpretation of the radiographs.

Unlike you, I don't cherry-pick recollections from the autopsists from 15 or 33 years after the autopsy to contradict the autopsy doctors earliest testimony and the autopsy report which reported only one bullet strike to the head.

Hank

PS: We covered all this ground a year ago. You're just restarting your fringe reset and posting the same disproven arguments all over again.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 14th January 2018 at 07:30 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 14th January 2018, 07:42 PM   #3487
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat.
No, that wasn't my argument. My argument was the three pathologists at the autopsy who had the body in front of them and the HSCA pathology panel determined that was what it was. They all concluded the bullet that entered JFK's back exited his throat. All of them. Unanimously.

And they have the expertise by dint of training, education, and experience to make that determination. I don't. So I defer to their judgment here.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
Now you're contradicting the autopsists who you just cited the recollection of from 15 and 33 years after the autopsy.

You're telling us their recollection is infallible from that long after the fact, but their determination as reported in the autopsy report -- prepared two days after the autopsy -- is very fallible, and very wrong.

That makes no sense.

You're also offering only your own lay opinion of the radiograph to contradict the determination of the HSCA Pathology panel and the original three autopsy doctors.

Sorry, we've covered this ground extensively in the past. You have no standing to offer your opinion. Nobody cares what you think the radiographs indicate. You're not qualified to offer an opinion.

This is still just a fringe reset for you. You are not qualified to render a judgment here. But that's what you're doing, and you expect us to take your word over that of the experts who had the body in front of them, or the experts who studied the extant autopsy materials?

Really?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 14th January 2018 at 07:44 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 Yesterday, 01:59 AM   #3488
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
So your claim is that, in order to conceal this second bullet wound, the autopsy specifically mentions it, and then "they", whoever "they" are (and we are all still waiting for you to set out your own theory as to what happened, albeit without much hope, based on your track record of dishonesty and evasion), then remove a photo of Kennedy's right lung:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Autopsy photographs showing views such as the small head wound and Kennedy's right lung have inexplicably gone missing. So you are working from the context of an incomplete set of photographs.
If this mysterious other wound was as you describe, what possible reason could there be for removing this photo? It has no bearing at all on your claimed trajectory.

Just to clarify, it has been repeatedly pointed out to you that you have not seen the photos, and therefore cannot say what has or has not been removed. Unless I've got this wrong, and you can cite some evidence for this 'inexplicable' disappearance.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 Yesterday, 05:45 AM   #3489
Cosmic Yak
Graduate Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 1,905
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Since the EOP wound is almost certainly an entrance for a missile, that shot would have to come from behind, and probably above.
I myself do not have the necessary skills, but, if we know the angle of this supposed wound, and also when in the Zapruder film it was supposedly fired (something I believe MJ has mentioned), then it should be possible to determine the location of this second shooter. This would at least have the advantage of showing whether this shot was even possible (i.e. no obstructions etc.)
This is too close to an actual concrete theory for MJ to attempt, but I was wondering if anyone else would care to give this a try?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak 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 Yesterday, 06:47 AM   #3490
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. I have not seen any photographic evidence that the red spot is situated 4-5 inches above the EOP like the alleged defect on the X-rays. Looking at stereoscopic morphing gifs of the autopsy photographs, the red spot appears to be about 2 inches above the EOP.
Citing yourself as a source. Nobody asked you what you think.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
2. While you may doubt that the EOP wound could simply be hiding under a bit of hair on the back-of-head photographs, keep in mind that Kennedy's hair also appears to be obscuring the hole in the right temple described by Tom Robinson.
So now you're conjecturing yet a THIRD entry wound to the head that these (incompetent or lying) autopsists missed? Yet you continue to cite their recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact as if they are valuable.

You also cite the testimony of John Stringer, the official medical photographer at the autopsy, but you denigrate his ability to take photos that actually show the wounds inflicted and the condition of the victim - the only reason to take photos at the autopsy. You suggest the autopsy photos don't show the actual wounds, and that the area that 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
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described.


That couldn't possibly be a wound entry location. Because Stringer didn't know how to operate a camera nor knew the purpose of autopsy photos? Are you really going with that argument?

You need to make up your mind and stop cherry-picking the evidence. You need to stop clinging to every loose piece of driftwood in the ocean of evidence collected and learn to swim.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
3. The red spot could be an exit for a fragment (which may very well be possible with a shot from behind, a fragment that flew backwards), in which case the autopsy pathologists would have a motive for not addressing it truthfully.
So it could be an exit that these (incompetent or lying) autopsists missed? But the one thing it can't be is what these autopsists actually determined it was -- an bullet entry wound inflicted from above and behind President Kennedy?

You dismiss the ability of the autopsy doctors to conduct a valid autopsy suggesting they missed at least two other entry wounds in the head, you dismiss the ability of the autopsy photographer John Stringer to take valid autopsy photographs suggesting the wounds aren't seen in the photographs he took, you suggest my conclusions are invalid because I haven't seen the missing autopsy photographs (but somehow this doesn't apply to your conclusions), you argue that every witness whose testimony contradicts your conclusions is lying or mistaken, you dismiss all attempts to get a reasonable response.

And you think this is 'genuine discourse'?

Hilarious.

Hank

PS: All this was discussed a year ago. You're just in the middle of full fringe reset right now, where you pretend all your arguments weren't previously exposed as nonsense and you just reiterate those bogus arguments anew.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 07:54 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 Yesterday, 07:22 AM   #3491
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did. This is a difficult crime case. The damage to Kennedy's head was not caused by single shot from the Depository entering 4-5 inches above the EOP and exiting the top of the head. The lower wound right next to the EOP must be accounted for.
There is one and only one entry wound to the head. You lose again.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 07:39 AM   #3492
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
2. While you may doubt that the EOP wound could simply be hiding under a bit of hair on the back-of-head photographs, keep in mind that Kennedy's hair also appears to be obscuring the hole in the right temple described by Tom Robinson.
MicahJava,

Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 07:52 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:04 AM   #3493
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
...Do you have your own theory or is there a specific theory from someone else that accurately reflects you thoughts? All I am asking for is a brief summary, in your own words, of what you think happened that day. Without, of course, any comments on what you do not think happened that day.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I don't think there's any problem with determining what didn't happen rather than what did.
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Actually it's a huge problem. All that matters is what happened.
There are an infinite number of ways it didn't happen.

Conspiracy Theorists concentrate their energies there - rather than on what did happen - because that gives them an infinite number of ways to criticize the official conclusions, and an infinite number of ways to change the subject and an infinite number of ways to avoid answering questions.

So no overarching theory will be forthcoming from any CT.

Because then we could compare apples to apples and see their apples are all bad apples.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 08:05 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 Yesterday, 08:28 AM   #3494
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,152
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
There are an infinite number of ways it didn't happen.

Conspiracy Theorists concentrate their energies there - rather than on what did happen - because that gives them an infinite number of ways to criticize the official conclusions, and an infinite number of ways to change the subject and an infinite number of ways to avoid answering questions.

So no overarching theory will be forthcoming from any CT.

Because then we could compare apples to apples and see their apples are all bad apples.

Hank
I know all that. I was just curious to see whether a relatively new voice with a reasonable request might get a reasonable response. I got the response I was expecting.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve 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 Yesterday, 08:49 AM   #3495
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I know all that.
I knew you did. My post wasn't directed at you (although I quoted you to give a fuller sense of MicahJava's response), but at MicahJava.


Originally Posted by Steve View Post
I was just curious to see whether a relatively new voice with a reasonable request might get a reasonable response. I got the response I was expecting.
Understood. He can't answer questions along those lines because he doesn't have any answers. He only has questions and 'issues that need to be addressed'. And the more questions you answer for a CT, the more questions they have. And the more issues you address, the more issues CTs raise.

Hence MicahJava's claim above that "This is a difficult crime case".

It's not.

CTs try to make it appear that way by questioning everything, avoided the expert conclusions, and offering their own speculations and conjectures as to what happened (mostly everyone lied to frame Oswald, is what it amounts to), by selecting the outlier testimony, but they can't come up with a competing scenario that hangs together and explains more of the actual evidence.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 09:13 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 Yesterday, 08:57 AM   #3496
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
And they are off and running again... Just another fringe reset by you.

We've covered all this. In detail. About a year ago. A reminder: You are now contradicting the very autopsy report and the very autopsy doctors you just cited a few posts above.

Make up your mind. Either the autopsy doctors got it right, or they got it wrong. But you don't get to cite their conclusions when it suits you, and then turn around and disregard their conclusions when it suits you as well.

Now you're just cherry-picking the parts you like.

And your argument doesn't even make sense. You're arguing for a bullet exiting JFK's throat in the Z190-Z224 range, as we've previously established.

That means you think JFK was struck in the brain by a bullet that went through his head, exited the base of the skull (without leaving any discernable damage!) and then exited his throat, and yet JFK still was able to sit upright for at least five seconds, bring his arms up and out, point to his throat wound, and do all this before a second shot to his head blew the top of his skull off.

That theory is bizarre beyond belief, because it now has you arguing that the autopsy doctors missed a second bullet entry wound in the head, a second bullet exit through the base of the skull (that somehow caused NO damage), missed a bullet in the body (that entered the back and didn't exit the throat according to you), and that none of the roughly 500 witnesses in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination saw the other shooter(s) responsible for these other shots. Or heard more than the three fired from Oswald's rifle. So the witnesses were deaf AND blind when it suits your purposes, and the autopsy doctors got everything wrong except the location of the wound on the back of the head.

Good luck recovering from that bizarre theory.

And that's why conspiracy theorists generally don't offer anything but criticism of the established scenario. Because the moment they start getting definitive is the moment their theory unravels completely.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Your only argument was that the air cavity on the X-ray COULD be a bullet track from the back to the throat. It's actually very apparent that the dark cavity goes up into the middle-neck area. Not the upper back.
Your response completely avoided any of the points I raised, and is just a change of subject (in addition to being a straw-man argument about my actual point).

And still just cherry-picks the parts you like and avoids everything else.
And still ignores the expert opinions and substitutes your own opinion as if that has value.

Yet another example of a punt by you.

Now try advancing the ball by actually addressing the points I raised, or punt yet again.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 09:28 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 Yesterday, 11:00 AM   #3497
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,340
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
If you put JFK's arms down that track becomes straight - back to front.




There is no question about it. The dark squiggly line, which represents a cavity of air within the tissues, is going up into the middle throat area.

It's not as complicated as the skull X-rays.
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 Yesterday, 11:03 AM   #3498
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,340
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What were the autopsy results, which you've been citing?
The autopsy results were that the small wound in the near the EOP had internal beveling and the large head wound in the skull had external beveling.
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 Yesterday, 11:20 AM   #3499
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy results were that the small wound in the near the EOP had internal beveling and the large head wound in the skull had external beveling.
Besides the wound above the EOP, how many other gunshot wounds were found, according to the autopsy which you've been citing?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:16 PM   #3500
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://i.imgur.com/1EzCBhP.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/gonoy3H.jpg

There is no question about it. The dark squiggly line, which represents a cavity of air within the tissues, is going up into the middle throat area.

It's not as complicated as the skull X-rays.
Skeleton does not represent muscle structure or movement. All that x-ray shows is the path of the bullet from back to front.

All you've done is confirm Oswald did it.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 12:19 PM   #3501
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy results were that the small wound in the near the EOP had internal beveling and the large head wound in the skull had external beveling.
What is said was the LONE bullet entered through the rear of the skull (beveling inward), and exited out the right front of the skull fracturing the bone (beveling outward as the fragment passed).

One shot from behind and above.
__________________
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 Yesterday, 01:03 PM   #3502
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,340
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Skeleton does not represent muscle structure or movement. All that x-ray shows is the path of the bullet from back to front.

All you've done is confirm Oswald did it.
The jacket bunched. The shirt bunched. The freaking muscle structure bunched. Don't you get tired of the obvious excuses? The dark cavity is going sharply up into the middle throat area right by the trachea. And it sharply deviates where it meets the first rib.

Last edited by MicahJava; Yesterday at 01:06 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 Yesterday, 01:09 PM   #3503
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The jacket bunched. The shirt bunched. The freaking muscle structure bunched. Don't you get tired of the obvious excuses? The dark cavity is going sharply up into the middle throat area right by the trachea. And it sharply deviates where it meets the first rib.
Can you cite from the autopsy where it states that so we can be assured we aren't relying on a random layman opinion, which is worthless?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:14 PM   #3504
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,340
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Can you cite from the autopsy where it states that so we can be assured we aren't relying on a random layman opinion, which is worthless?


Does that look like a high back wound to you? If you think so, take the mic.
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 Yesterday, 01:17 PM   #3505
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,340
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
MicahJava,

Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?

Hank
Yes.

Are all the photographs he described taking in the official autopsy collection today? No.

Has John Stringer expressed a willingness to change his story when informed that his recollections don't match the official story before in the past? Yes.

Do I still trust most of what he says? Yes.

Your point?
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 Yesterday, 01:22 PM   #3506
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://i.imgur.com/cMZklPd.jpg

Does that look like a high back wound to you? If you think so, take the mic.
You misunderstood, apparently deliberately.

I don't want your words, which are worthless. I want you to cite the autopsy report where the people who knew their ass from a hole in the ground say... whatever it is you think they said.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:42 PM   #3507
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
MicahJava,

Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?

Hank
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yes. ... Your point?
That if he's qualified to take autopsy photographs, then the autopsy photo in question shows the bullet entry wound at the location you call 'the red spot' because it's:

(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
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described
.

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 Yesterday, 04:38 PM   #3508
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,340
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That if he's qualified to take autopsy photographs, then the autopsy photo in question shows the bullet entry wound at the location you call 'the red spot' because it's:

(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
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described
.

Hank
Why don't you quote John Stringer's recollections on each type of photograph he took of the small head wound? Or his reaction upon seeing the existent back-of-head photographs and asked to identify an entry wound?
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 Yesterday, 05:10 PM   #3509
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why don't you quote John Stringer's recollections on each type of photograph he took of the small head wound? Or his reaction upon seeing the existent back-of-head photographs and asked to identify an entry wound?
You were asked several questions. Answer them.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:23 PM   #3510
Wolverine
Centered and One
 
Wolverine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,711
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You're just restarting your fringe reset and posting the same disproven arguments all over again.
Which makes me wonder, why even bother coming to a message board if one is not willing to engage? Might as well post all the unmitigated nonsense one wishes on a blog, somewhere.
Wolverine 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 Yesterday, 08:33 PM   #3511
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,449
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Was John Stringer qualified to take autopsy photographs?
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yes. ...Your point?
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
That if he's qualified to take autopsy photographs, then the autopsy photo in question shows the bullet entry wound at the location you call 'the red spot' because it's:

(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
(e) is relatively elliptical, like the autopsy report described
.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why don't you quote John Stringer's recollections on each type of photograph he took of the small head wound? Or his reaction upon seeing the existent back-of-head photographs and asked to identify an entry wound?
Why don't you? We could use the laugh.

So your argument reduces to his recollection from decades after the fact is better than his medical photography skills?

You already admitted he was a qualified autopsy photographer. Remember?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; Yesterday at 08:37 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 Yesterday, 08:35 PM   #3512
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 448
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

There is no question about it. The dark squiggly line, which represents a cavity of air within the tissues, is going up into the middle throat area.

It's not as complicated as the skull X-rays.
And tell us of your training in X-ray interpretation. How many have your looked at and concluded a condition, other than what you read in CT book/webpages?
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 Yesterday, 09:11 PM   #3513
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The jacket bunched.
Cool, did they X-ray it too?

The fibers show one bullet entering the back, the shirt shows matching entry in the back, and exiting the front, and the tie shows the same.


Quote:
The freaking muscle structure bunched.
Uh, yeah, I'm going to need a citation showing an abnormal bunching of JFK's upper back and neck muscles before Oswald fired.

Quote:
Don't you get tired of the obvious excuses?
Heh, no. I didn't get to necrosis, rigor mortis, and the fact that the line is so faint that NONE of the pathologist put two and two together until AFTER they called Parkland and learned the throat wound was a GSW.

Quote:
The dark cavity is going sharply up into the middle throat area right by the trachea. And it sharply deviates where it meets the first rib.
To be clear, 4 pathologists - WHO WERE WORKING WITH THE BODY AND THE ORIGINAL X-RAYS - didn't see an obvious pathway from the 6.5x52mm round...but it's all clear to you...based on a low resolution reproduction of the x-ray...
__________________
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 Yesterday, 09:25 PM   #3514
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,266
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yes.
Based on what criteria? I have a Canon DSLR, and I'm looking for part-time work.

Quote:
Are all the photographs he described taking in the official autopsy collection today? No.
Irrelevant, and also not true.

Quote:
Has John Stringer expressed a willingness to change his story when informed that his recollections don't match the official story before in the past? Yes.
John Stringer is not on trial, nor has been accused of committing a crime. Memories fade over time - THIS IS A FACT. The only crime is CTists such as yourself reading malicious intent into the misrememberings of an honest man.
__________________
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
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 04:47 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.