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!

Closed Thread
Old 6th February 2018, 11:22 PM   #41
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
smartcooky, if you don't realize it, there's a difference between "next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP in the parietal bone". You seem to be open to the possibility that a single 6.5 round entered next to the EOP and exited the side of Kennedy's head.
I don't know how many times I am going to be expected to repeat this.

I am open only to facts supported by evidence. I do not make my own lay interpretation of the evidence; that is for pathologists and ballistics experts to do. I base my understanding on their interpretations.

The facts and the evidence show that a single 6.5v52mm round, fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, entered JFK's head at the point where the autopsy photos show that it entered.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
...you seem to be mistaken about the official exit wound. Your straight line entering slightly above Kennedy's EOP would exit Kennedy's face or the right temple.
No, no, no!! Not at all. There was no bullet exit wound as such. The yellow line is the trajectory that the bullet may have travelled had it survived the impact intact

The facts and the evidence show that this single 6.5v52mm round, fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, did not exit as an intact bullet, but rather its impact caused it to fragment (as full metal jacket high velocity bullets are designed to do when they strike a hard material such as bone) and is so doing created a pressure cavity that blew the top right side of JFK's brain case open.

__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

Last edited by Agatha; 11th February 2018 at 02:56 PM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 01:28 AM   #42
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,409
Since this is the latest extended thread, here's the info on the Carcano rifle and Round:

Caliber is 6.5x52mm.
160 grains.
2,700fps.

Rifle:

Italian made.
Barrel has a high gain twist ratio of 1.8 (M-16, for example, as at twist ratio of 1.7).
The book says accurate out to 1,000 yards, but I've only seen it tested at 650, and it's lethal.

Because of the twist ratio and the size of the round, the 6.5x52mm is considered "over stabalized", meaning that the round has above average penetration ability, and in extensive testing after the assassination they found the bullet didn't deflect after passing through a target leaving plenty of energy to penetrate a second (as we see with the neck shot).

The Carcano became popular with big game hunters after WWI because the 6.5x52mm could penetrate the thick skulls of elephants.

Conclusion:

The Carcano was not an M-1 or M-14, but was and is an elephant gun on a budget.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 01:41 AM   #43
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Since this is the latest extended thread, here's the info on the Carcano rifle and Round:

Caliber is 6.5x52mm.
160 grains.
2,700fps.

Rifle:

Italian made.
Barrel has a high gain twist ratio of 1.8 (M-16, for example, as at twist ratio of 1.7).
The book says accurate out to 1,000 yards, but I've only seen it tested at 650, and it's lethal.

Because of the twist ratio and the size of the round, the 6.5x52mm is considered "over stabalized", meaning that the round has above average penetration ability, and in extensive testing after the assassination they found the bullet didn't deflect after passing through a target leaving plenty of energy to penetrate a second (as we see with the neck shot).

The Carcano became popular with big game hunters after WWI because the 6.5x52mm could penetrate the thick skulls of elephants.

Conclusion:

The Carcano was not an M-1 or M-14, but was and is an elephant gun on a budget.
My understanding is that it is this penetration power that defines the head shot. The bullet passes from skull bone to jelly like brain, and the resulting trauma shatters the bullet. The trauma wave balloons out, and the ejects we see is not a linear path of the bullet, but the skull giving way to the pressure wave.

By contrast, the claims that a bullet his closer to the EOP does not provide any evidence of an alternate wound path. A layman can speculate that it exited the throat, but we see none of the expected damage to the spine, or skull, between the EOP and the throat, or any sign of trauma damage to the stem of the brain indicative of a lower path.

This mystery of what happens beyond a lower entry wound is precisely the strongest evidence against the lower entry.

That is before asking what kind of bullet is capable of the creating the exit wound damage with a glancing blow, leaving no other trace.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 02:16 AM   #44
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
My understanding is that it is this penetration power that defines the head shot. The bullet passes from skull bone to jelly like brain, and the resulting trauma shatters the bullet. The trauma wave balloons out, and the ejects we see is not a linear path of the bullet, but the skull giving way to the pressure wave.
Exactly.

If you look at this image (this was one that was prepared for the Warren Commission)...



... you can see that the bullet trajectory is at the bottom of the gaping hole in the skull, and if you watch this video of a bullet fragmenting as it blasts a path through ballistic gelatin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFVtNqBNmC0

... you can understand why that is.

NOTE: setting the speed to .25 helps to see what happens with the fragmentation.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 02:24 AM   #45
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Exactly.

If you look at this image (this was one that was prepared for the Warren Commission)...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...trajectory.jpg

... you can see that the bullet trajectory is at the bottom of the gaping hole in the skull, and if you watch this video of a bullet fragmenting as it blasts a path through ballistic gelatin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFVtNqBNmC0

... you can understand why that is.

NOTE: setting the speed to .25 helps to see what happens with the fragmentation.
It is also the most visible factor to the “back and to the left” thing. Simple reaction to that large an explosion of matter.

This alone calls into question the idea of a simple skull cap removal to inspect the brain. The damage to the skull would mean it could only be partially cut, before folding open.

As opposed to the “magic” bullet making shorter passes through more layers, to slow it, preserving much of the shape through less traumatic wounds.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 02:36 AM   #46
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,409
The 6.5x52mm Carcano round seals Oswald's guilt, certainly proves it was his gun. It is not only an over-powered, large round, it was unfamiliar to most Americans. For the hundreds of GSW's Parkland received every month, I doubt any were the 6.5x52mm.

The funny thing is that the 6.5 round his becoming the hip new thing for distance shooting (if I judge my gun magazine cover drool factor), so maybe in the future the bullet won't be such a mystery for people...not that this changes CTist's minds.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 03:57 AM   #47
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's open to interpretation whether the red spot is actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, or somewhat lower.
Then why do you describe it consistently as 4-5 inches above the EOP?

Like here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3844

Instead, why not consistently admit you can't place it accurately?

And the actual distance from the EOP is subject to interpretation?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
An easy way to describe the location of the EOP is "no higher than the level of the ears".
Nobody is disputing the location of the EOP. It's the location of the head entry wound that you're disputing.

And it was asked and answered when you admitted John Stringer was qualified to take autopsy photos.

See the back-and-forth on this here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3899

You never responded to the final post in the chain. You dropped the subject entirely only to raise it again three weeks later.

You dispute the wound location where the hair is parted, where the image is in focus, where the 'red spot' (the entry wound) is in the center of the image, the one that has a ruler next to it, and is relatively elliptical.

Instead, using the photo-interpretative skills of a man who has none (Pat Speers), you now claim that Stringer didn't know an F-stop from a bus stop, couldn't take a in-focus picture of the wound, didn't know how to center the wound in the viewfinder, the autopsists didn't know enough to part the hair around the wound to better expose the wound, Stringer didn't know enough to take a photograph perpendicular to the wound or to provide sufficient light on the wound to highlight the wound, couldn't put a ruler next to the wound to provide scale...

In short, you're ignoring everything the image itself tells you about the wound location and substituting another conspiracy theorist's lay interpretations of the image for the image itself. And he as well ignores everything about the wound location the image itself tells him.

No. That dodo won't fly.

You yourself admitted Stringer was qualified to take autopsy photos.

The photo itself tells you where the wound was. CT "interpretations" aside.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 7th February 2018 at 04:26 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 05:39 AM   #48
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
I’m not entirely sure how measurements can be open to interpretation.
“Slightly” is a word that is subjective. As my day job uses miles and chains, tens of yards can be “slightly” up or down of a milepost for me.

For a doctor anywhere on the occipital bone can be slightly above the EOP, or adjacent bones.

A measurement is by nature exact, and those who reviewed the extant autopsy materials all seem to agree on a set location, not a wandering spot, one judged by scale and experience.

There is a clear answer of how many mm above the EOP, on record.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 05:46 AM   #49
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
You have failed to meet my repeated requests to cite a precise measurement for the wound placement you try to debunk.
I'll just let you re-read this part you wrote here.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 05:55 AM   #50
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I'll just let you re-read this part you wrote here.
Which bit confuses you?
You claim the known wounds are wrong.
You claim they can not be the ones described in the autopsy, or by testimony.
You have to first show you understand what that wound is, before your opinion it is wrong has any weight.

Or are you literally claiming an argument from ignorance?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 05:57 AM   #51
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I don't know how many times I am going to be expected to repeat this.

I am open only to facts supported by evidence. I do not make my own lay interpretation of the evidence; that is for pathologists and ballistics experts to do. I base my understanding on their interpretations.

The facts and the evidence show that a single 6.5v52mm round, fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, entered JFK's head at the point where the autopsy photos show that it entered.





No, no, no!! Not at all. There was no bullet exit wound as such. The yellow line is the trajectory that the bullet may have travelled had it survived the impact intact

The facts and the evidence show that this single 6.5v52mm round, fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, did not exit as an intact bullet, but rather its impact caused it to fragment (as full metal jacket high velocity bullets are designed to do when they strike a hard material such as bone) and is so doing created a pressure cavity that blew the top right side of JFK's brain case open.
Smartcooky, there's a difference between "right next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP".

Last edited by Agatha; 11th February 2018 at 02:57 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:00 AM   #52
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Smartcooky, there's a difference between "right next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP".
And which, if either of those is stated in the autopsy? Shown in the X-rays? Shown on photographs?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:02 AM   #53
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Serious question for MicahJava: if you have a problem citing a specific measurement for “four or five inches” WHY do you keep mentioning it in your posts?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:05 AM   #54
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Smartcooky, there's a difference between "right next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP".
Hilarious. You're arguing again that the HSCA placement is "4-5 inches above the EOP" after admitting that's not necessarily the correct measurement:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's open to interpretation whether the red spot is actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, or somewhat lower.
You never did explain how you got the "4-5 inches" figure anywhere.

You also falsely put the entry wound on the top of the head, not the back of the head.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3894

You never responded to that point whatsoever - one of your trademarks.

Then you posted an image showing the wound in the back of the head, not the top of the head.

Http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1&postcount=31

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 7th February 2018 at 07:03 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:26 AM   #55
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,372
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Smartcooky, there's a difference between "right next to the EOP" and "4-5 inches above the EOP".
What was the red spot, every other CTist? The red spot that looks like an entrance wound?
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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:35 AM   #56
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Here is some history behind who saw what on the X-rays regarding a purported defect 4-5 inches above the EOP.


http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18%3Ax-rayspecs

Quote:



Lateral X-ray/HSCA Trajectory Comparison

When one compares the lateral x-ray to the trajectory drawings of the skull prepared for the HSCA trajectory analysis, one finds that not only is the supposed trajectory far below the purported “trail of fragments” but that the supposed outshoot, as discussed earlier, appears to be below the cluster of fragments, on bone. If this is true, of course, this means that the trajectory analysis plotted an in-shoot where there was no in-shoot, to an outshoot where there was no outshoot. I’m not kidding.

When one looks at the purported in-shoot near the cowlick on the trajectory drawing one can see that although the in-shoot was supposedly only 1.8 cm from the middle of the back of Kennedy’s head, this would still project slightly inwards from the back of Kennedy’s head when viewed laterally, due to the rounded nature of the skull. When one looks at the x-ray, however, one sees that there is no clear-cut entrance at this location. That this entrance was hard for even trained experts to locate can be revealed by reading the various reports written for the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission, HSCA, and ARRB. To put it mildly, they lack consensus. Here is a brief summary...

February, 1968. Dr. Russell H. Morgan, the radiologist on the Clark Panel notes in its report that "On one of the lateral films of the skull, a hole measuring approximately 8 mm in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed." This places the hole in a section of parietal bone that presumably fell to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors claimed to have seen a beveled entrance. Morgan also notes that "embedded in the outer table of the skull close to the lower edge of the hole, a large metallic fragment" can be observed and that "on the antero-posterior film" this fragment "lies 25 mm to the right of midline." This suggests the fragment is in the depressed bone below the entrance. He then notes "This fragment as seen in the latter film is round and measures 6.5 mm in diameter." As the ammunition found in the assassination rifle measured 6.5 mm, this suggests the fragment was a cross-section of the bullet. Morgan then offers that "Immediately adjacent to the hole on the internal surface of the skull, there is localized elevation of the soft tissues. Small fragments of bone lie within portions of these tissues and within the hole itself."

January, 1972. Dr. John Lattimer, a urologist, becomes the first independent examiner of the autopsy photos and x-rays. He would later be asked to testify for the Rockefeller Commission. In his article on his examination, published in the May 1972 issue of Resident and Staff Physician, Lattimer presents his conclusions. These conclusions are not truly independent, however. In the article, he admits that a "top roentgenologist, Dr. Russell H. Morgan," had previously reviewed the x-rays, and had "issued a technical report about them, couched in proper medical terms." This is a reference to the report of the Clark Panel. Lattimer then adds "The author wishes to fully acknowledge this report by forensic experts." Throughout the article, moreover, Morgan's influence is obvious. In his depiction of Kennedy's wounds, Lattimer depicts a bullet entrance high on the back of the head and notes "The ovoid 'wound of entry' was fairly high up on the back of the skull, well above the hairline, where the skull was starting to curve forward, and about 10 cm above the occipital tuberosity... The bone at the lower margin of the hole was depressed slightly and the wound in the inner table was characteristically larger than the wound in the outer table (cone shaped), exactly as one would expect from a 'wound of entrance' into the back of the skull." He then asserts "A (6.5 mm diameter) fragment of the bullet had been shaved off by the sharp edge of the thick bone of the skull and was embedded in the margin of the wound of entrance." That Lattimer was simply regurgitating the Clark Panel's report is suggested, moreover, by the fact Lattimer changed his opinion late in life, and ended up believing the bullet entrance on the back of the head was low on the head, as proposed in the autopsy report.

August, 1972. Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, becomes the first independent forensic pathologist to view the autopsy photos and x-rays. He would later testify for the Rockefeller Commission and function as a member of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. As reported by writer David Lifton, who accompanied Dr. Wecht to the Archives, Wecht can't find a bullet entrance on the back of the head on the x-rays. For his April 1974 article on his examination, however, Wecht appears to take a cue from Dr. Lattimer, and defers to Dr. Morgan. On Wecht's depiction of Kennedy's skull, as viewed from the side, he presents "a sizable fragment" on the back of the head "at the lower margin of the hole of presumed bullet entry." In the text he then claims that from viewing the autopsy photos and x-rays "one entry wound is definitely identifiable...high on the rear of the skull." That Dr. Wecht was not an expert on x-rays, and was simply deferring to Morgan, is supported, moreover, by the fact Wecht later co-wrote an article with Dr. David Mantik in which they claimed that the small fragment on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays was too small to be the large fragment on the A-P x-ray.

April, 1975. Dr. Werner Spitz, a forensic pathologist closely associated with the Clark Panel's Dr. Fisher, and a member of both the Rockefeller Commission Panel and HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the autopsy materials. In his report, he notes "The missile which struck the right side of the President's head penetrated approximately 10 cm above the occipital protuberance and 2 1/2 cm to the right of the midline." These are the exact measurements offered by the Clark Panel. As a result, it seems more than likely Spitz was yet another deferring to Morgan's opinion regarding the wound location. Even so, it's interesting that in Spitz's 6 page report for the Rockefeller Commission he never mentions the large fragment apparent on the x-rays. Instead, he claims, weakly, that "Nothing in the evidence which I have viewed tends to conflict with my opinion that the two shots which struck the president could have come" from the sniper's nest.

April, 1975. Dr. Richard Lindenberg, a neuropathologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, and another close associate of Dr. Fisher's, views the autopsy materials. He appears to have been yet another to rely on Fisher's and Morgan's conclusions, and notes in his report that a "circumscribed defect in the posterior parietal bone which has the characteristic of an entrance hole" is apparent on the lateral x-ray. He then claims a bullet "hit the right side of the head of the president approximately 2.5 cm from the midline and 10 cm above the occipital protuberance." He notes further that the "bullet became somewhat deformed when it entered the skull and lead was squeezed out of its base. One larger fragment lies outside and next to the lower margin of the entrance wound." Apparently, he felt Lattimer's conclusion the fragment had been "shaved" from the bullet was inaccurate.

April, 1975. Dr. Fred Hodges, the sole radiologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, views the materials. He notes that, although a bullet entrance is not "readily detected," many "linear fracture lines converge" on the site of the "small round hole...described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone." He notes further that "one large metallic fragment is flattened against the outer table of the occiput." He concludes that "The x-rays and photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity." By concluding there was a bullet entrance in the location "described in the autopsy report", Hodges appears to reject the conclusions of Dr. Morgan and the Clark Panel. Still, perhaps he was just playing it safe. Perhaps he wrote "described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone" so he could get around admitting it was not in the occipital bone. But why would he do that when the autopsy doctors' supposed mistake had long been made public?

April, 1975. Dr. Robert McMeekin, a forensic pathologist on the Rockefeller Commission's Panel, views the autopsy materials. He is quite vague about what he observes, however. He reports simply that "The evidence presented is consistent" with the fatal bullet's being fired from the sniper's nest. He then notes that from studying the Zapruder film, he concludes that "The motion of the President's head is inconsistent with the shot striking him from any direction other than the rear." Note that he fails to say the medical evidence says as much. Note that he fails to support the wound location and fragment location offered by the Clark Panel. From this it seems reasonable to assume McMeekin believed the Clark Panel and/or the original autopsists had made some mistakes, but didn't want to get in the middle of it. Intriguingly, the man running the Rockefeller Commission's investigation, former Warren Commission counsel David Belin, had presented the members of its medical panel with fourteen points that should be addressed in their reports. Not among them was the actual location of the entrance on Kennedy's skull. Not among them was the actual location of the large fragment on the A-P x-ray. Apparently, Belin had no interest in solving these mysteries.

April, 1975. Dr. Alfred Olivier, a veterinarian, and a consultant on wound ballistics to both the Warren Commission and Rockefeller Commission, is shown the autopsy materials. His report on his examination is also vague, and notes merely that "It appears that the President was struck by two separate bullets that came from behind, somewhat to the right and above." He offers no clear support for the entrance wound location offered by the original autopsists, nor the one offered by the Clark Panel, but suggests he supports the former. When discussing the head wound he asserts "When that bullet entered the head the nose of the bullet erupted on the skull and expended a tremendous amount of energy. This caused what is known as a temporary cavity. Apparently, this cavity was nearer the side of the head so that it buried in that area, and say, took the path of least resistance. If the bullet path had been near the top of the head it could have burst through the top.” The so-called cowlick entrance, we should recall, is closer to the top of the head than to the side of the head. Olivier never mentions the mysterious fragment readily identifiable on the A-P x-ray.

October, 1977. Dr, Lawrence Angel, a forensic anthropology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the autopsy materials. In his report on his examination he notes that the fatal bullet's entrance "appears to have been just below obelion and 18 mm to the right of midline." Obelion is a point on the posterior parietal bone along the sagittal suture for which Angel gives no measurements. Angel also notes a "radiopaque lump behind obelion with which cracks appears to mark entry." In other words, he, like Hodges, does not see an entrance on the back of the head, but assumes the presence of one due to the fragment and fractures on the back of the skull. By claiming the entrance was below obelion and that the fragment was behind obelion, moreover, Angel also suggests that the fragment was above the bullet entrance, the opposite of what was suggested by Morgan and the Clark Panel.

February, 1978. Dr. Norman Chase, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, is interviewed by an HSCA investigator. The memo on this interview asserts that while viewing the x-rays, Chase notes that "The lateral skull x-ray indicated that the missile 'blew the top of the head off,' striking with enormous power. The wound was massive, not the kind he would expect for a single, jacketed bullet hitting straight on; it was possibly tumbling or hit on an angle. The entry point was visible on the upper rear head." He reportedly claims further that a "large metal fragment" is "prominent" on the A-P x-ray, and that he "believes it corresponds to the metal fragment in the rear of the head as evidence on the lateral view." Hmmm... Chase's observation that the bullet was possibly tumbling or hit on an angle suggests that he did not see the hole on the back of the head described by Morgan. Chase seemed hesitant, for that matter, to even say the large metal fragment was on the back of the head.

February, 1978. Dr. William Seaman, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, is interviewed by an HSCA investigator. The memo on this interview asserts that while viewing the x-rays, Seaman notes a "possible defect" in the "upper rear skull," and that it "could be an entrance wound and could not be a missile exit wound," but can not detect "beveling of the skull at that point." This beveling was not only supposedly detected by Morgan and the Clark Panel, it was measured down to the millimeter, and cited as proof the wound was an entrance wound. And that's not all... Seaman was a colleague of Dr. Lattimer's at Columbia University, and had assisted Lattimer in some of his experiments regarding the Kennedy assassination. (This was acknowledged in the May 1972 issue of Resident and Staff Physician, in an article on Lattimer accompanying Lattimer's article on the Kennedy medical evidence.) It seems quite likely, then, that Seaman was not an entirely unbiased party, as one should expect, but one who knew full well he was supposed to find an entrance at the "upper rear skull." And yet he only found a "possible defect." In the short report on the investigator's discussion with Seaman, for that matter, the large fragment is never mentioned.

March, 1978. Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at Kennedy's autopsy, is finally released from a military order of silence handed down within days of the autopsy. A March 9, 1978 AP article (found in the Reading Eagle) on an interview with Ebersole reports that he now admits "I would say unequivocally the bullet came from the side or back...There is no way that I can see on the basis of the x-rays that the bullet came from anywhere in the 180-degree angle to the front, assuming Kennedy was facing forward. It looked to me like an almost right to left shot from the rear." When, during his March 11, 1978 testimony before the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, Ebersole is shown Kennedy's x-rays and asked if he can identify an entrance location for a bullet, moreover, Ebersole responds "In my opinion it would have come from the side on the basis of the films. I guess that is all that can be said about the films at this time... I would say on the basis of those x rays and x rays only one might say one would have to estimate there that the wound of entrance was somewhere to the side or to the posterior quadrant." By saying that the x-rays only showed that the bullet came from the side or behind, Ebersole was acknowledging that he was unable to note a bullet entrance on the back of the head in the x-rays.

August, 1978. Dr. G.M. McDonnel, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the enhanced images of the x-rays. He had previously viewed the originals. In his report on these examinations, he fails to note a bullet hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Instead, he notes a depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the EOP. He also notes a metallic fragment 1 cm below this fracture, on the outer table of the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP, that is "nearly spherical" on the enhanced A-P image. As he proceeds to describe this fragment as a "spherical shaped contoured metallic fragment" it seems clear he either had trouble finding it on the lateral view, and just named it in accordance with its appearance on the A-P view, or that he thought he saw a corresponding "spherical shaped" fragment on the back of the head in the lateral view. No one else, of course, has claimed to see such a thing.

August, 1978. Dr. David O. Davis, a radiology consultant to the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, views the enhanced images of the x-rays. In his report on his examination, he fails to note a bullet hole on the back of the skull, but says radiating fractures "seem to more or less emanate from" an "imbedded metallic fragment" 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of the skull. He then notes that "On the frontal view, this metallic fragment is located 2.5 cm to the right of midline, and on the lateral view, it is approximately 3-4 cm above the lambda." As he later says the central point of the skull fractures is 3 cm from midline, this means that, in Davis' analysis, the large bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance.

1979. The Report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel does not note an entrance hole apparent on the x-rays, but notes a depressed fracture as a “sharp disruption of the normal smooth contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which places it higher than in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). The report also mentions “suggested beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. In its section on the course of the bullet through the head, moreover, it notes that "embedded within the lower margin of this defect is a radiopaque shadow which, in the opinion of the panel, is a fragment of the missile. This shadow is 10 cm above the external occipital protuberance and 2.5 cm to the right of the midline" in the A-P x-ray. (If one is to assume they shared the trajectory panel's belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line, this means the Pathology Panel felt the bullet fragment ended up to the right and below the bullet's entrance.) The report then notes that "one surface of this fragment...is round. The maximum diameter of the fragment measures .65 centimeter." This last measurement was not provided by any of the panel's radiology consultants, nor was it mentioned in the testimony of the panel's spokesman, Dr. Michael Baden, before the committee. As a result, one can only assume it was added into the report at the last second, and was taken from the findings of Dr. Morgan and the Clark Panel.

1979. The Report of the HSCA Trajectory Panel claims the entrance high on the back of Kennedy's head was 1.8 cm to the right of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. This places the entrance 1 cm below the depressed fracture observed by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and on intact bone. This also contradicts the conclusions of the Clark Panel.

January, 1996. Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, a forensic anthropologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the AARB. The report on this interview claims that "No entry wound could be located anywhere on the A-P x-ray" by Ubelaker. It notes further that he "could not locate any entry wound to the head on the lateral x-rays," and that he noted a large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray, but "could not find this object anywhere on the lateral x-rays of the head."

February, 1996. Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the ARRB. The report on this interview claims that "No entry wound was seen on the A-P x-ray" by Fitzpatrick. It notes further that he also claims "No entry wound can be found on the lateral head x-rays." It also reports that Fitzpatrick admits he's "puzzled by the fact that the large radio-opaque object in the A-P skull x-ray could not be located on the lateral skull x-rays."

April, 1996. Dr. Robert Kirschner, a forensic pathologist, is shown the autopsy materials and interviewed by the ARRB. The report on this interview notes that "No entrance wound could be located on either the two lateral x-rays, or the single-A-P x-rays..." by Kirschner. It then claims that he wonders if the supposed large fragment embedded on the back of the head was instead "a plug of bone forced forward into the skull by an entering bullet." This confirms that Kirschner saw no sign of this fragment or plug on the back of the head in the lateral x-rays.


He has a whole other section dedicated just for Michael Baden elsewhere on his website.

Last edited by MicahJava; 7th February 2018 at 06:38 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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:42 AM   #57
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Dr. Peter Cummings is a case of one forensic pathologist who believes the X-rays suggest a single missile striking slightly above the EOP and exiting the top-right side of the head!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...CyJ/story.html

Again, any concept that there is a "consensus" of an entry 4-5 inches above the EOP is a myth. The cowlick entry theory is almost entirely based on an interpretation of the back-of-head photographs favoring the red spot as an entry wound rather than it being lower in the hair.

It would be nice to see a large new batch of experts on x-rays who have an understanding of the same portable equipment used at the autopsy interpret them.

Last edited by MicahJava; 7th February 2018 at 06:44 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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:45 AM   #58
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Hilarious. You're arguing again that the HSCA placement is "4-5 inches above the EOP" after admitting that's not necessarily the correct measurement:



You never did explain how you got the "4-5 inches" figure anywhere.

You also falsely put the entry wound on the top of the head, not the back of the head.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3894

You never responded to that point whatsoever - one of your trademarks.

Then you posted an image showing the wound in the back of the head, not the top of the head.

Hank
This claim it was at the top of the head?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12173196

It was rather confusing. Along with the variable claims it was, or not within the hairline (despite a “cowlick” of hair being parted to reveal it?)

I will admit it often seems like MicahJava has a... unique interpretation of the theory he argues against, and it is growing more difficult to offer the benefit of the doubt that the confusion is genuine, and not deliberate straw men.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:51 AM   #59
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dr. Peter Cummings is a case of one forensic pathologist who believes the X-rays suggest a single missile striking slightly above the EOP and exiting the top-right side of the head!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/re...CyJ/story.html

Again, any concept that there is a "consensus" of an entry 4-5 inches above the EOP is a myth. The cowlick entry theory is almost entirely based on an interpretation of the back-of-head photographs favoring the red spot as an entry wound rather than it being lower in the hair.

It would be nice to see a large new batch of experts on x-rays who have an understanding of the same portable equipment used at the autopsy interpret them.
Still no citation for there being a consensus of four to five inches?

That would be the measurement you never managed to source, yet keep repeating as something to be debunked? Care to be more accurate about the wound you are trying to disprove? Or is this a source you approach from ignorance?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 06:54 AM   #60
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Still waiting for MicahJava to provide an accurate citation of a wound “right next to” the EOP.
Still waiting for him to identify that wound location consistently on the x-rays and photographs.
Still waiting for CONTEMPORARY evidence that the autopsy surgeons disagreed with the autopsy finding or their presentation in the WC.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:08 AM   #61
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dr. Peter Cummings is a case of one forensic pathologist who believes the X-rays suggest a single missile striking slightly above the EOP and exiting the top-right side of the head!
You mean the very thing you argued previously wasn't possible - is possible?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1254
"...a trajectory from the EOP to the top of the head almost certainly can't be true"

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 7th February 2018 at 07:24 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:10 AM   #62
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You mean the very thing you argued previously wasn't possible - is possible?

Hank
I think it's more of an indicator that there is no obvious beveled entrance wound on the x-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:16 AM   #63
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I think it's more of an indicator that there is no obvious beveled entrance wound on the x-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP.
What about where the autopsy photos, WC and HSCA show the entrance wound?
*takes of sun glasses*
*electric guitars scream*
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:18 AM   #64
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I think it's more of an indicator that there is no obvious beveled entrance wound on the x-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Doesn't matter. You just blew your own argument out of the water.

Admitting to an EOP entrance wound and a top of the head exit wound means you no longer have an argument.

It doesn't matter where on the back of the head the entry is. It doesn't imply a second shooter, and it doesn't imply a conspiracy.

You just assured us of that.

So now you're reduced to arguing with the autopsists that there was more than one bullet strike to the head - the same autopsists you cited as part of your Gish gallop earlier.

And Cummings - like every other pathologist - found only one entry and one exit? Further evidence you will cite anything to support your argument du jour even if it destroys another part of your argument (there were two different bullet strikes to the head, you told us).

Buh-bye.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 7th February 2018 at 07:35 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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:23 AM   #65
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Doesn't matter. You just blew your own argument out of the water.

Admitting to an EOP entrance wound and a top of the head exit wound means you no longer have an argument.

It doesn't matter where on the back of the head the entry is. It doesn't imply a second shooter, and it doesn't imply a conspiracy.

You just assured us of that.

Buh-bye.

Hank
We all know a CT will laid a source for their speculation, but not respect a counter conclusion. That a bullet may have entered lower than the accepted wound will matter more than any evidence contrary to a second shot, or for that matter, a complete absence of suggestion of any wound path other than the known exit.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 08:10 AM   #66
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance. And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile. To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance. The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it. So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
That's lot of words to say you don't have a theory that fits the evidence. You would think at this point, that would be pretty important. Here's the thing, even if you are right about one of these details, it still doesn't mean that Oswald is not the lone assassin. You need to be able to put it all together into something coherent.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 08:33 AM   #67
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,152
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
That's lot of words to say you don't have a theory that fits the evidence. You would think at this point, that would be pretty important. Here's the thing, even if you are right about one of these details, it still doesn't mean that Oswald is not the lone assassin. You need to be able to put it all together into something coherent.
That is the elephant in the room that he will not acknowledge.
__________________
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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 09:35 AM   #68
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
This claim it was at the top of the head?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6#post12173196
Yes, that one. I cited my response (which includes his claim) rather than his claim directly.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3894

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 09:36 AM   #69
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,654
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Exactly.

If you look at this image (this was one that was prepared for the Warren Commission) House Select Committee on Assassinations [HSCA]...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...trajectory.jpg

... you can see that the bullet trajectory is at the bottom of the gaping hole in the skull, and if you watch this video of a bullet fragmenting as it blasts a path through ballistic gelatin...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFVtNqBNmC0

... you can understand why that is.

NOTE: setting the speed to .25 helps to see what happens with the fragmentation.
FTFY

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 10:47 AM   #70
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,877
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
That's lot of words to say you don't have a theory that fits the evidence. You would think at this point, that would be pretty important. Here's the thing, even if you are right about one of these details, it still doesn't mean that Oswald is not the lone assassin. You need to be able to put it all together into something coherent.
How could you replicate Kennedy's head wounds without more than one missile striking the head?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 10:56 AM   #71
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,372
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How could you replicate Kennedy's head wounds without more than one missile striking the head?
Didn't the autopsy you've been citing say there was one entrance and one exit wound? How would you replicate that by having more than one shot?

Sometimes, you just ask the most inane questions.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 10:57 AM   #72
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How could you replicate Kennedy's head wounds without more than one missile striking the head?
If you mean the wounds JFK actually had in his head: By the bullet hitting in the "cowlick" wound, shattering, and causing a trauma wave that ejected through the top of the head.

If however you mean the wounds you seem to be claiming he had:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dr. Peter Cummings is a case of one forensic pathologist who believes the X-rays suggest a single missile striking slightly above the EOP and exiting the top-right side of the head!
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 12:31 PM   #73
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Still waiting for MicahJava to provide an accurate citation of a wound “right next to” the EOP.
Still waiting for him to identify that wound location consistently on the x-rays and photographs.
Still waiting for CONTEMPORARY evidence that the autopsy surgeons disagreed with the autopsy finding or their presentation in the WC.
Still waiting for MicahJava to cite his "4 to 5" inches source"
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 12:39 PM   #74
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,372
Still waiting for MicahJava to explain what the red spot is in the location where the entrance wound is described.

Still waiting for MicahJava to acknowledge that Oswald was behind JFK.

Still waiting for MicahJava to give his comprehensive theory for what happened that explains all of the evidence.

Still waiting for MicahJava to show where the entrance wound was as he understands it using the pics he posted.
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 Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 12:50 PM   #75
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Here is some history behind who saw what on the X-rays regarding a purported defect 4-5 inches above the EOP.
Quote:
Dr. Werner Spitz,

"The missile which struck the right side of the President's head penetrated approximately 10 cm (4") above the occipital protuberance and 2 1/2 cm (1") to the right of the midline." "Nothing in the evidence which I have viewed tends to conflict with my opinion that the two shots which struck the president could have come" from the sniper's nest.
This is exactly where we see the entrance wound in the autopsy photographs

This is exactly where Dr Morgan said the entrance wound was.

There is nothing to see here. The known position of the head wound fits almost perfectly with the known facts... that JFK was shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD, with a 6.5x52mm bullet from from Oswald's Mannlicher Carcano rifle.

The only variable is that we don't know precisely what angle JFK's head was tilted downwards and what angle it was turned inwards at the exact moment of impact because the snapshots taken of Zapruder 312 & 313 are not sharp or clear enough to be precise, but what measurements can be taken put the entry wound within the margins of error.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 01:01 PM   #76
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,603
But how can we trust a doctor who thinks the wound was in one place, and not open to interpretation with a 25% margin of error....
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 01:24 PM   #77
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,600
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How could you replicate Kennedy's head wounds without more than one missile striking the head?
Let me help you, this is where you are supposed to tell us your theory, not continue to ask questions. You should be done anomaly hunting and be able to piece together your evidence into a coherent theory. Go.
__________________
Zensmack (LastChild, Laughing Assassin, RazetheFlag, Wastrel, TruthbyDecree) - Working his way up the sock puppet chain, trying to overtake P'Doh. Or, are they the same?

Quote me where I said conspiracists use evidence. - mchapman
Disbelief is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 02:55 PM   #78
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,409
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How could you replicate Kennedy's head wounds without more than one missile striking the head?
Whelp, out here in the real world a 6.5x52mm round should do the job...because it has done so repeatedly...but do go on...
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 05:36 PM   #79
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,691
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How could you replicate Kennedy's head wounds without more than one missile striking the head?
This has been explained to you numerous times... there are two wounds on JFKs head

The first is the entry wound as shown in the autopsy photos.

The second is the "exit" wound, not of the bullet but of the brain matter, blood tissue and bullet fragments; this wound being a result of the explosion caused by a pressure cavity due to the sudden release of the kinetic energy of the impacting and fragmenting bullet.

You need to again review this video to understand how this happens...

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


Ballistic gelatin is used for these kinds of tests precisely because it very closely approximates the reaction of human tissue to the impact of a high velocity bullet.

This is not what might happen, this is what happens EVERY TIME a human suffers the impact of a bullet at high velocity, which then fragments. In this case, the bullet fragments into at least five pieces without having to pass through bone; just its impact with the relatively soft gel. Passing through bone first causes a greater slow down, therefore, a greater release of kinetic energy and a greater amount of fragmentation.

I urge you to watch that clip carefully, and with an open mind. In your mind, try transfer what you see happen to the ballistic gel, to a human head, and try to imagine how a human brain would respond to that impact.

THERE ARE NO OTHER WOUNDS ATTRIBUTABLE TO BULLET IMPACTS ON THE SKULL OF JFK!!

Now, if you think there are then

1. Tell us where you think the shots were fired from
2. Show us where the impact and exit wounds are
3. Explain what happened to the additional bullets

Back your assertions up with actual evidence.

NOTE: By "actual evidence" I mean documented evidence including physical evidence such as autopsy photographs, bullets or bullet fragments, scene photos, and properly taken witness statements. Third hand reports from some anonymous nutcase poster on a JFK Conspiracy forum is not evidence.
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 7th February 2018, 07:34 PM   #80
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,665
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The 6.5x52mm Carcano round seals Oswald's guilt, certainly proves it was his gun. It is not only an over-powered, large round, it was unfamiliar to most Americans. For the hundreds of GSW's Parkland received every month, I doubt any were the 6.5x52mm.

The funny thing is that the 6.5 round his becoming the hip new thing for distance shooting (if I judge my gun magazine cover drool factor), so maybe in the future the bullet won't be such a mystery for people...not that this changes CTist's minds.
Long distance shooters have been on the 6.5 mm projectile for a good long time, and the similar 6.5 x 55mm Swedish Mauser caliber is popular enough that some US manufacturers have included that caliber in their line ups:

http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/hu...wedish-mauser/
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:29 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.