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 3rd June 2017, 02:09 PM   #201
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Cyril kind of goes back and forth between what he thinks.
That's because he's an opportunist and a media-hound.
OKBob 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, 04:39 PM   #202
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Jeez every combination of words Hank calls an argument is so weak and it's all the same crap but addressed earlier in different posts and in the previous JFK thread. I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof". How many times do the autopsy doctors need to scream from the highest mountains that the wound was lower in the head? It's in the autopsy report. And six other autopsy witnesses corroborate them, including the man who took the photographs. I'm surprised that you haven't gone the route of the HSCA by trying to say that everybody's lying to save their own careers. The goons at the HSCA at least understood that mistakes like that don't happen in real life.
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, 04:47 PM   #203
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Jeez every combination of words Hank calls an argument is so weak and it's all the same crap but addressed earlier in different posts and in the previous JFK thread.
Dodged is a better description.

Quote:
I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof". How many times do the autopsy doctors need to scream from the highest mountains that the wound was lower in the head?
But they're not saying the bullet came from anywhere but the 6th floor of the TSBD, and is a null point because the entry is clear on the Zapruder film.


Quote:
I'm surprised that you haven't gone the route of the HSCA by trying to say that everybody's lying to save their own careers.
That's because everyone is retired or dead by now, and oh yeah, they didn't lie on the report.

Quote:
The goons at the HSCA at least understood that mistakes like that don't happen in real life
Goons? And what do you know about real life detective work or forensics? Any human beings do anything there are mistakes, that's real life.
__________________
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 3rd June 2017, 05:16 PM   #204
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,596
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Jeez every combination of words Hank calls an argument is so weak and it's all the same crap but addressed earlier in different posts and in the previous JFK thread. I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof". How many times do the autopsy doctors need to scream from the highest mountains that the wound was lower in the head? It's in the autopsy report. And six other autopsy witnesses corroborate them, including the man who took the photographs. I'm surprised that you haven't gone the route of the HSCA by trying to say that everybody's lying to save their own careers. The goons at the HSCA at least understood that mistakes like that don't happen in real life.
Are you going from Miles to Dylan? did that line come to you blowing in the wind?

Really?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politi...oom/index.html

A federal air marshal on a transatlantic flight left her loaded service weapon in the airplane's bathroom, where it was discovered by a passenger who gave it to a crew member before it was returned to the federal agent, CNN has learned.

Local story:

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano-...-year-old-boy/

FAIRFIELD — Police have lost a piece of evidence in a pending murder case.

The situation was described in court Tuesday by the prosecutor overseeing the case against Dawn D. Raines-Hewes, a Fairfield grandmother accused of deliberately drowning her 4-year-old grandson, Richard Kite, at a Jefferson Street home on the morning of Dec. 29, 2015.


And another local and state wide issue:

http://extras.mercurynews.com/policeguns/

Nine-hundred and forty-four guns.

From Glocks, Sig Sauers and Remingtons to sniper and assault rifles, some equipped with grenade launchers.

They used to belong to law enforcement officers across California, but a new Bay Area News Group investigation found hundreds of police-issued weapons have been either stolen, lost or can’t be accounted for since 2010, often disappearing onto the streets without a trace.


Given your continuing reluctance to explain how the headwound issue you're pimping so hard measures up with the established evidence you may want a fall-back position of having made an error or omission. Since you seem to be simply CNP'ing here whatever you agree with, there may be an example of it on a CTist website you can use.
__________________
"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

Last edited by BStrong; 3rd June 2017 at 05:19 PM.
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 3rd June 2017, 05:55 PM   #205
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,154
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Jeez every combination of words Hank calls an argument is so weak and it's all the same crap but addressed earlier in different posts and in the previous JFK thread. I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof". How many times do the autopsy doctors need to scream from the highest mountains that the wound was lower in the head? It's in the autopsy report. And six other autopsy witnesses corroborate them, including the man who took the photographs. I'm surprised that you haven't gone the route of the HSCA by trying to say that everybody's lying to save their own careers. The goons at the HSCA at least understood that mistakes like that don't happen in real life.
Aaaannddd.... Jackrabbiting away as fast as his legs can carry him, addressing none of the errors he has made that Hank decimated.

MicahJava, you still don't have any answers for the numerous fatal flaws that you keep parrotting from the one CT site you've read? Aren't you mad at them for not telling you how badly you'd be spanked by reality?
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 3rd June 2017, 06:14 PM   #206
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Addendum: And the devoid cowlick area on the X-rays identified by the HSCA as an entry wound would also have been separated from the skull in order to remove the brain, which would flatly contradict Dr. Finck's repeated statements that he could see the unaffected crater in the intact skull after the autopsy doctors had already removed the brain.

Last edited by MicahJava; 3rd 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 3rd June 2017, 06:17 PM   #207
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Aaaannddd.... Jackrabbiting away as fast as his legs can carry him, addressing none of the errors he has made that Hank decimated.

MicahJava, you still don't have any answers for the numerous fatal flaws that you keep parrotting from the one CT site you've read? Aren't you mad at them for not telling you how badly you'd be spanked by reality?
You have to prove yourself before you start claiming something is "spanked" by anything. About a dozen or so experts say the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Rays is an entry wound, about a dozen or so more looked at the X-rays and didn't identify that area as an entry wound. Guess which ones in my group have members from after the 60's and 70's. So as a layman you're left with nothing but your interpretation of the back-of-head photographs, which nobody from the autopsy shares.

Last edited by MicahJava; 3rd June 2017 at 06:19 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 3rd June 2017, 06:23 PM   #208
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,154
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have to prove yourself before you start claiming something is "spanked" by anything. About a dozen or so experts say the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Rays is an entry wound, about a dozen or so more looked at the X-rays and didn't identify that area as an entry wound. Guess which ones in my group come from after the 60's and 70's. So as a layman you're left with nothing but your interpretation of the back-of-head photographs, which nobody from the autopsy agrees shares.
If I were you, I'd be furious at the one CT site you rely on for your opinions. They've seriously left you out to dry and ripped to sheds to your embarrassment. You should be thanking the people here for educating you. You're welcome.

You really don't have any comprehensive theory about what happened?
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 3rd June 2017, 06:49 PM   #209
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof".
You don't understand what burden of proof is. If you did, you wouldn't "love" it. It's not your friend on these facts.
OKBob 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, 08:30 PM   #210
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,596
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have to prove yourself before you start claiming something is "spanked" by anything. About a dozen or so experts say the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Rays is an entry wound, about a dozen or so more looked at the X-rays and didn't identify that area as an entry wound. Guess which ones in my group have members from after the 60's and 70's. So as a layman you're left with nothing but your interpretation of the back-of-head photographs, which nobody from the autopsy shares.
E G A E G Bb A
__________________
"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 3rd June 2017, 10:00 PM   #211
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Addendum: And the devoid cowlick area on the X-rays identified by the HSCA as an entry wound would also have been separated from the skull in order to remove the brain, which would flatly contradict Dr. Finck's repeated statements that he could see the unaffected crater in the intact skull after the autopsy doctors had already removed the brain.
Fink was the only one of 9 pathologists on that panel who thought he saw anything contradictory. Since no member of the general public has seen, nor can view the original autopsy photos you are stuck with the autopsy as stands.
__________________
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 3rd June 2017, 10:10 PM   #212
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You have to prove yourself before you start claiming something is "spanked" by anything. About a dozen or so experts say the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Rays is an entry wound, about a dozen or so more looked at the X-rays and didn't identify that area as an entry wound. Guess which ones in my group have members from after the 60's and 70's. So as a layman you're left with nothing but your interpretation of the back-of-head photographs, which nobody from the autopsy shares.
In 1968, Ramsey Clark requested four pathologists to review the autopsy photographs and x-rays. They were Doctors: Carnes, Fischer, Morgan, Mortiz.

They all signed off on the bullet entering " above and to the right
of the external occipital protuberance."

The majority of pathologists who have reviewed the materials in the National Archives found nothing amiss with the first autopsy.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2017, 04:01 AM   #213
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Jeez every combination of words Hank calls an argument is so weak and it's all the same crap but addressed earlier in different posts and in the previous JFK thread.
Actually, you have never addressed them. You have only dismissed them, handwaving them frantically away. Like again above. Only a dismissal of the points.

You say these issues have been addressed. They haven't. This one is a good example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=182

You didn't address the original point by RoboTimbo and you didn't address any of the subsequent points raised by me. You never answered the questions in the final two paragraphs.

These two paragraphs:
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?


This is a prime example of what you do repeatedly.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof".
You should. It's one of your most used logical fallacies. And apparently your fallback option when all else fails.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How many times do the autopsy doctors need to scream from the highest mountains that the wound was lower in the head?
You said you agree with the original autopsy, then I pointed out a number of key areas where you disagree. Like on the number of bullet wounds, the autopsy says one bullet, you argue for two; the autopsy says the large wound above the right ear is an exit for the one bullet striking in the rear of the head, you argue for a possible entry at the forehead hairline or a tangential wound; the autopsy says the shots came from above and behind the president, consistent with shots from the TSBD sniper's nest; you argue for some undefined positions and attempted to exclude the TSBD's sniper nest location because JFK's head would 'look like an ant' in the iron sights. Etc. Etc. Etc.

It would be good if you took those arguments against your position seriously. It will not be the last time you see them if you persist in pushing your odd theories about the assassination here.

You disagree with all the conclusions of the original autopsy in some respect, as far as I can see, despite your assertion to the contrary that you are agreeing with the original autopsy.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's in the autopsy report. And six other autopsy witnesses corroborate them, including the man who took the photographs.
Again, how many decades after the assassination (and the autopsy on the night of the assassination) did they first come forward with those "remembered" claims? Given the understanding of how human memory works, why do you rely on the weakest and most rusty links in the chain to hold together your theory, especially when you know other witnesses contradict the very witnesses you cite? And sometimes the witnesses contradicting the witnesses you cite are the very witnesses you cite, in other statements (I'm thinking specifically of Stringer, which we discussed in detail in the prior thread, and compared his statements in 1972 to Lifton with those to the ARRB in 1996). You cited his recollections to the ARRB as one witness for your argument, but you conveniently ignored all those contradictory claims he made at other times. I exposed that nonsense here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...n#post11528597



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I'm surprised that you haven't gone the route of the HSCA by trying to say that everybody's lying to save their own careers.
I'm unaware the HSCA said anything of that sort. And I am not saying anything of that sort. You appear to be raising another straw man argument.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The goons at the HSCA at least understood that mistakes like that don't happen in real life.
Suggestion: if you have to insult the experts ('goons'), you are revealing you don't have their support. That's right, all the forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials concluded that although the original pathologists didn't do an autopsy that was adequate by then present-day standards, they reached the right conclusions. Two shots hit JFK, one in the back and one in the head; and both were fired from a position above and behind the President; and both exited the President's body, one from the throat at the level of the necktie knot and one on the upper right side of the head.

You disagree with those expert pathologists, and cite decades-later recollections to support your arguments. Since you're not a qualified forensic pathologist, your disagreement and alternative conclusions mean nothing; and your citations to cherry-picked recollections from the ARRB (roughly a third of a century after the assassination) have been noted, and dispensed with.

What do you have left?

Nothing.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 4th June 2017 at 05:07 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 4th June 2017, 04:07 AM   #214
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
E G A E G Bb A
Ah. Took some Googling, but I got the reference.

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 4th June 2017, 04:10 AM   #215
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 427
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
E G A E G Bb A
That one went right over my head.
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 4th June 2017, 04:25 AM   #216
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Addendum: And the devoid cowlick area ...
Calling it a 'cowlick' wound is begging the question, and assuming what you need to prove.

As has been noted in the past, and never explained by you, the cowlick (a circular patch of hair) can appear anywhere on the head, and you are simply assuming it's the cowlick and not a parting of the hair made by the autopsy doctors to better expose the wound. You have never explained how you *know* it's a natural cowlick, and not a man-made part to expose the wound to the photographer.

Assuming what you need to prove is never going to be adequate.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
... the devoid cowlick area on the X-rays...
Say what? You can see the cowlick on an X-ray? Really? Who else sees this cowlick on the X-rays? Anyone? I see a purported 'cowlick' wound on some photographs, but not on any X-rays.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...identified by the HSCA as an entry wound
Not by the HSCA itself, which was comprised solely of elected politicians serving in the House of Representatives. It was identified by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel (which was comprised of eminently qualified forensic pathologists) who reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded the wound in the back of the back was an entry wound.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...would also have been separated from the skull in order to remove the brain
According to some anonymous layman (e.g, unqualified) internet poster who posts here as "MicahJava". But to my knowledge, this MicahJava person has never quoted any qualified person who has said that.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...which would flatly contradict Dr. Finck's repeated statements that he could see the unaffected crater in the intact skull after the autopsy doctors had already removed the brain.
How many decades after the fact did Finck make that claim? And why should we rely on on Finck's recollection to overturn the conclusions reached on the night of the autopsy when Finck, Humes, and Boswell had the body in front of them?

Isn't this yet another example of you claiming to agree with the autopsy, but meanwhile attempting to pick holes in it?

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2017, 04:28 AM   #217
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
That one went right over my head.
Mine too. I was never musically inclined.

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 4th June 2017, 04:44 AM   #218
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,007
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.
You are claiming that Cyril is an unreliable witness.
__________________
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 4th June 2017, 07:29 AM   #219
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,378
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Again, how many decades after the assassination (and the autopsy on the night of the assassination) did they first come forward with those "remembered" claims? Given the understanding of how human memory works, why do you rely on the weakest and most rusty links in the chain to hold together your theory, especially when you know other witnesses contradict the very witnesses you cite? And sometimes the witnesses contradicting the witnesses you cite are the very witnesses you cite, in other statements (I'm thinking specifically of Stringer, which we discussed in detail in the prior thread, and compared his statements in 1972 to Lifton with those to the ARRB in 1996). You cited his recollections to the ARRB as one witness for your argument, but you conveniently ignored all those contradictory claims he made at other times. I exposed that nonsense here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...n#post11528597
There's this exchange in Stringer's ARRB deposition:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

Page 15
[20] Q: Other than the subject matter, which would
[21] be presumably closeups of portions of the human
[22] anatomy, how does the technical training for
Page 16
[1] medical photography differ from other forms of
[2] photography?
[3] A: Well, basically, all of the photography is
[4] the same, but you have different uses. In
[5] medicine, you have to show the defect. In portrait
[6] photography, you get away from the defects.


Now, keeping in mind Stringer's bolded response above, where would you say is the defect he is attempting to show in the photo below?



Is it the out-of-focus white substance at the hairline near the edge of the photograph, or is it what you consistently call the "cowlick red spot" that happens to be:
1. In focus
2. In the relative center of the photo
3. Has a ruler next to it.
4. Has the hair apparently parted so as to better reveal the 'red spot'?

What would a person totally unfamiliar with the Kennedy assassination say was the defect in question that the photographer was trying to illustrate? Someone with no axe to grind either way? Where is the defect in question to a neutral party?

"In medicine, you have to show the defect" - autopsy photographer John Stringer

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 4th June 2017 at 07:36 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 4th June 2017, 10:55 AM   #220
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Fink was the only one of 9 pathologists on that panel who thought he saw anything contradictory. Since no member of the general public has seen, nor can view the original autopsy photos you are stuck with the autopsy as stands.
What panel was Finck on? When shown the X-rays, he said that he would rather refer to a professional radiologist to identify the entry wound on the X-rays. The devoid cowlick area on the X-rays didn't ring a bell for him, and the red spot on the photographs didn't either.

And can you stop referring to your theory, the theory in question, as "the autopsy"? Nobody who was there at autopsy agrees with it. If you think the X-rays and photographs support your theory, argue that without being disingenuous. Nobody's falling for that dumb trick.


Quote:
In 1968, Ramsey Clark requested four pathologists to review the autopsy photographs and x-rays. They were Doctors: Carnes, Fischer, Morgan, Mortiz.

They all signed off on the bullet entering " above and to the right
of the external occipital protuberance."

The majority of pathologists who have reviewed the materials in the National Archives found nothing amiss with the first autopsy.
In 1996, the ARRB hired three experts: forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner, and forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick. Neither of them could identify any clear entry wound apparent on the X-rays.

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 4th June 2017, 11:31 AM   #221
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
According to some anonymous layman (e.g, unqualified) internet poster who posts here as "MicahJava". But to my knowledge, this MicahJava person has never quoted any qualified person who has said that.
Don't get scared of big words like "skull" and "brain". The area of skull around the large defect was very brittle and fractured so easily that the doctors had to do "virtually do work with a saw" to remove the pieces of bone. The depressed cowlick fracture was right beside the lower parietal area of the large defect, of course it would have to be separated in the process of removing the brain.

This is also a simple matter of volume. How much wiggle room do you think an unfixed brain has? You remove a human brain, you need to create a big enough opening on the top of the head. It definitely couldn't happen while also keeping the HSCA beveled exit location intact.


Quote:
How many decades after the fact did Finck make that claim? And why should we rely on on Finck's recollection to overturn the conclusions reached on the night of the autopsy when Finck, Humes, and Boswell had the body in front of them?

Isn't this yet another example of you claiming to agree with the autopsy, but meanwhile attempting to pick holes in it?

Hank
Decades? Try fourteen months.

From Dr. Finck's 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."

"THE WOUNDS

The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

The opening of the large head wound, in the right fronto-parieto-occipital region, is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE.
"

Why do I even try?

Last edited by MicahJava; 4th June 2017 at 11:36 AM.
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 4th June 2017, 11:45 AM   #222
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What panel was Finck on? When shown the X-rays, he said that he would rather refer to a professional radiologist to identify the entry wound on the X-rays.
My bad, your stupidity confuses me, got him mix up with someone else you constantly misquote.

Fink signed off on the autopsy, and that ends any argument, plus he was late to the autopsy.


Quote:
The devoid cowlick area on the X-rays didn't ring a bell for him, and the red spot on the photographs didn't either.
So? He was late.

Quote:
And can you stop referring to your theory, the theory in question, as "the autopsy"? Nobody who was there at autopsy agrees with it.
Nobody but the experts who laid hands on the body, and a bunch of other experts you choose to ignore.

It's not my theory, the autopsy is just one piece in a larger puzzle pointing to Oswald's guilt.


Quote:
If you think the X-rays and photographs support your theory, argue that without being disingenuous. Nobody's falling for that dumb trick.
It's not a dumb trick, it's basic logic.

Example: I am not allowed to enter the reactor rooms aboard any US Aircraft Carrier or Submarine, that means I cannot see those reactors for myself, and that means I have to take the Navy's word that the reactors are in there. Not alien technology, not giant hamsters, nuclear reactors.

Therefore, if you have not seen ALL of the x-rays and photographs from the autopsy then you cannot discuss what they show, and when 96% of the pathologists tell you that two bullets killed Kennedy, both from behind, then that should be enough for an intellectually honest person.


Quote:
In 1996, the ARRB hired three experts: forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner, and forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick. Neither of them could identify any clear entry wound apparent on the X-rays.
Neat. Did they determine his head exploded on it's own? Or did they just say the x-rays were inconclusive based on the amount of time they were given with them?

Quote:
Your point?
How about you address Hanks many points instead.
__________________
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 4th June 2017, 11:46 AM   #223
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE"
And how would one accurately describe what you call "the cowlick wound", the one that appears next to a ruler in photographs to be of around 15 x 6mm, on the right hand side of the upper region of the occipital bone?
__________________
@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 4th June 2017, 12:03 PM   #224
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
And how would one accurately describe what you call "the cowlick wound", the one that appears next to a ruler in photographs to be of around 15 x 6mm, on the right hand side of the upper region of the occipital bone?
It's not 15x6mm and it's not within the occipital bone. Since the scalp is being moved in the BOH photos, the red spot appears to be within the upper occipital region, but the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays is within the parietal bone. You are claiming that the doctors used a specific landmark in the occipital bone to describe a defect in the parietal bone.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2017, 12:23 PM   #225
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's not 15x6mm and it's not within the occipital bone. Since the scalp is being moved in the BOH photos, the red spot appears to be within the upper occipital region, but the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays is within the parietal bone. You are claiming that the doctors used a specific landmark in the occipital bone to describe a defect in the parietal bone.
I am not referencing any such landmark. I am stating that the description would be a reasonable one to direct somebody to that "red splotch" with a degree of accuracy. "Occipital region" and a reasonable estimate of size, that matches both the autopsy findings, and the WC, and disagrees with your handwaving dismissals.
__________________
@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 4th June 2017, 12:35 PM   #226
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs. And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
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 4th June 2017, 12:40 PM   #227
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs. And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
Why would we worry about what somebody remembered, when we can see the wound in the photographs?

You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
__________________
@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 4th June 2017, 12:44 PM   #228
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Why would we worry about what somebody remembered, when we can see the wound in the photographs?

You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration related to the large head 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 4th June 2017, 12:50 PM   #229
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,242
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration related to the large head wound.
And what did those bodies conclude?
You offer no evidence for an alternative entry wound.
The wound you are trying to dismiss is the best resolution for the brain damage YOU keep complaining won't fit your unidentified wound.
__________________
@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 4th June 2017, 01:34 PM   #230
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,154
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, surely you would know that Stringer's statements are some of the best evidence for missing autopsy photographs. And he specifically denied that the red spot was the entry wound he remembered.
What were the autopsy conclusions which you've said you agree with? Why do you keep scurrying away from answerng?
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 4th June 2017, 02:01 PM   #231
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
MJ can call it whatever he pleases after staring endlessly at some umpteenth-generation photograph and convincing himself, inexpertly, about cowlicks and EOPs. The fact remains that the experts embodied their conclusions in an autopsy report that has been confirmed by numerous other experts over the years--the late-breaking recollections of some individuals notwithstanding.

And no matter where MJ thinks he discerns autopsy-contradicting splotches of color, the autopsy-supported fact remains that only one smallish hole was found towards the posterior of the skull, with beveling on the inner table, and one large wound in the right temporal-parietal area, with evidence of beveling on the outer table. Therefore, the physical evidence, reliably analyzed by experts, trumps amateur stargazing for splotches.

And lest we now get a breathless lecture from MJ about the questionable science of beveling (even though many more pathologists and forensic anthropologists accept it than question it), bear in mind that the beveling alone does not prove a single bullet wound to JFK's head, but rather the beveling is part of a persuasive cluster, or consilience, of evidence showing a single head-shot.

Consilience may play a local role in a subject (here, the autopsy) as well as a comprehensive role (the whole assassination).

Last edited by OKBob; 4th June 2017 at 03:36 PM.
OKBob 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 4th June 2017, 04:06 PM   #232
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
MJ can call it whatever he pleases after staring endlessly at some umpteenth-generation photograph and convincing himself, inexpertly, about cowlicks and EOPs. The fact remains that the experts embodied their conclusions in an autopsy report that has been confirmed by numerous other experts over the years--the late-breaking recollections of some individuals notwithstanding.

And no matter where MJ thinks he discerns autopsy-contradicting splotches of color, the autopsy-supported fact remains that only one smallish hole was found towards the posterior of the skull, with beveling on the inner table, and one large wound in the right temporal-parietal area, with evidence of beveling on the outer table. Therefore, the physical evidence, reliably analyzed by experts, trumps amateur stargazing for splotches.

And lest we now get a breathless lecture from MJ about the questionable science of beveling (even though many more pathologists and forensic anthropologists accept it than question it), bear in mind that the beveling alone does not prove a single bullet wound to JFK's head, but rather the beveling is part of a persuasive cluster, or consilience, of evidence showing a single head-shot.

Consilience may play a local role in a subject (here, the autopsy) as well as a comprehensive role (the whole assassination).
He has admitted to searching for a conspiracy to embrace in his early posts, even dabbling in 9/11 nonsense before giving up. JFK is the grand daddy of CT with 50 years of endless CT books written about it covering every possible angle. JFK is a gateway CT.
__________________
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 4th June 2017, 04:14 PM   #233
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Blah blah blah! no facts or evidence from OKBob, only spin and BS
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 4th June 2017, 04:17 PM   #234
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Blah blah blah! no facts or evidence from OKBob, only spin and BS
You proudly proclaimed you burned your copy of the Warren Commission, so you aren't interested in evidence.
__________________
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 4th June 2017, 04:25 PM   #235
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You proudly proclaimed you burned your copy of the Warren Commission, so you aren't interested in evidence.
If the Warren Commission had copies, then we would really have a conspiracy. Are you referring to the Warren Commission report? Because I've quoted from the volumes several times in these threads.
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 4th June 2017, 06:01 PM   #236
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,154
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If the Warren Commission had copies, then we would really have a conspiracy. Are you referring to the Warren Commission report? Because I've quoted from the volumes several times in these threads.
Why don't you cite the one CT site you got your opinions from?
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 4th June 2017, 06:29 PM   #237
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 427
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Blah blah blah! no facts or evidence from OKBob MicahJava, only spin and BS
FTFY
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 4th June 2017, 07:22 PM   #238
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 132
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Blah blah blah! no facts or evidence from OKBob, only spin and BS
Please keep your responses civil. And once again: I don't have any burden to produce "evidence" to disprove your speculations. You have the burden to prove whatever you're scraping off the Internet at the moment.

Last edited by OKBob; 4th June 2017 at 07:28 PM.
OKBob 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 4th June 2017, 08:05 PM   #239
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,596
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Blah blah blah! no facts or evidence from OKBob, only spin and BS
Said gazing into the mirror.
__________________
"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 5th June 2017, 09:12 AM   #240
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,402
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
...
You can call it a splotch, you are wrong, it won't convince anybody...
It reminds me of a 9/11 no-planer who liked to refer to the clear image in a video of the plane that hit one of the towers as a "shadow thingy".
CORed 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 08:36 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.