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 JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 26th May 2017, 04:51 PM   #1
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 396
JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Mod Info The previous thread was becoming a little slow, so I have split to a new thread for part 5. Please remember your Membership Agreements when you submit your posts.

As is usual, the split point is arbitrary and participants are free to c&p from previous iterations of this thread in order to address points raised therein.
Posted By:Agatha





Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Maybe it becomes as tedious for the CTs to be here as it sometimes is for skeptics to read their endless fringe resets and Gish gallops. And I can't say that I ever saw a JFK CT on any of the JREF/ISF threads really absorb and grow from any of the criticisms that are lavished here. As I write this, Robert Harris, an alumnus of ISF, is on the alt.assassination forum challenging discussants to offer evidence that his theory (yes, the Z285 shot) is false. How many lectures did he receive on this forum about not demanding that his opponent prove a negative?
I watched the video he present on the education forum, probably the same as here, and I can see no reaction at Z285 that would indicate a shot. Another claim with merit, all in the eye of a CT.

Last edited by Agatha; 27th May 2017 at 01:34 PM.
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 26th May 2017, 08:50 PM   #2
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,150
And in advance of the final document dump, click-bait stories will accumulate ...

...like this one from Politico about June Cobb:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ination-215143

The main reason:

Quote:
According to other declassified files, Cobb reported to the CIA’s Mexico City station in October 1964, nearly a year after JFK’s assassination, that she had learned from a prominent Mexican writer and two other Mexican sources that they had all seen Oswald at a dance party during his trip the year before that was also attended by Cuban diplomats and others who had spoken openly of their hope that Kennedy would be assassinated. Cobb’s sources said Oswald had been at the party in the company of two other young American men, who appeared to be his traveling companions and whose identifies have never been established. The questions raised by Cobb’s reports were obvious: Had any of those people encouraged Oswald to murder JFK or offered to help him escape after the assassination? (Nothing in the previously released documents involving Cobb support theories that Castro personally ordered Kennedy’s death.)
And the beat goes 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 07:00 AM   #3
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And in advance of the final document dump, click-bait stories will accumulate ...

...like this one from Politico about June Cobb:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ination-215143

The main reason:
Quote:
According to other declassified files, Cobb reported to the CIA’s Mexico City station in October 1964, nearly a year after JFK’s assassination, that she had learned from a prominent Mexican writer and two other Mexican sources that they had all seen Oswald at a dance party during his trip the year before that was also attended by Cuban diplomats and others who had spoken openly of their hope that Kennedy would be assassinated. Cobb’s sources said Oswald had been at the party in the company of two other young American men, who appeared to be his traveling companions and whose identifies have never been established. The questions raised by Cobb’s reports were obvious: Had any of those people encouraged Oswald to murder JFK or offered to help him escape after the assassination? (Nothing in the previously released documents involving Cobb support theories that Castro personally ordered Kennedy’s death.)

And the beat goes on.
Let's forget for the moment that Cobb was simply reporting a rumor. She never saw Oswald at a party herself, she had some people tell her that.

And of course, this is all the more believable because we know what a partier Oswald was. That's established by his... err, well... hmm... I guess that's not established at all. In fact, quite the contrary. For instance, his rooming house housekeeper testified:

Quote:
Mr. BALL. Did you ever talk to him about anything?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No; because he wouldn't talk.
Mr. BALL. Did he say "Hello"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Or, "Goodby"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Or anything?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wouldn't say nothing.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever speak to him?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, yes--I would say, "Good afternoon," and he would just maybe look at me give me a dirty look and keep walking and go on to his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he watch television?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---in a way---but all he did ever watch the television was if someone in the other rooms had it on, maybe he would come and stand at the back of the couch---not over 5 minutes and go to his room and shut the door and never say a word.
Mr. BALL. Did he go out any at night?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Did he stay home every night?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes---he stayed home every night---I didn't ever know of him going out. If he did, he left after I went to bed and I never knew...

Real partier type. More evidence of Oswald being a partier is from the owner of the rooming house:

Quote:
Mr. BALL. Did he eat in the kitchen with it sometimes?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Occasionally, if there was no one in the kitchen, he would sit in the kitchen, but if there was anyone in there, he would take it in his room and every bit of that was put in the trash can. He never kept anything cluttered, never kept anything outside, no papers, books, or nothing.
Mr. BALL. Did you see him eat anything but lunch meat?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I never did, just lunch meat, all he ever put in there and preserves, I think he had some preserves and milk; but he put about a half gallon of sweet milk in that box each day.
Mr. BALL. Did you ever see him eating his evening meal?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, I don't think I had seen him but I have seen him come in and get the lunch meat and carry it into his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he go out nights, any?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I just really never did see that man leave that room.
...
Mr. BALL. Did he watch television every evening?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Not every evening but just every time he took a notion but maybe 95 percent of the time he would sit in his room.
Mr. BALL. Did he have any visitors?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; he never had a visitor.

He wouldn't even eat in the community kitchen if there was someone else there. Look up the word 'loner' in the dictionary and there's a picture of Oswald.

And somehow he winds up at a party in Mexico?

This is just another false memory. More than likely, it was simply someone else entirely, and the witnesses convinced themselves, after the assassination, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. It happens a lot. Well-meaning people simply make mistakes too.

Of course to conspiracy theorists, there are no mistakes of this nature. They only allow for two possibilities:
(a) It was the real Lee Harvey Oswald in the company of two men who might have been co-conspirators
(b) It was a conspirator masquerading as Lee Harvey Oswald, thereby establishing the conspiracy.

Option (c) simply doesn't exist to them:
(c) It was a simple case of mistaken identity, where the witness recalls to the best of their ability, but erroneously, that it was Lee Harvey Oswald. Especially if they talk to a couple of other witnesses who are convinced it was Oswald.

Conspiracy theorists have been making a living out of mistakes such as this since the mid-1960s. The first to raise the spectre of Oswald being impersonated was Richard Popkin in his book: THE SECOND OSWALD.

The best at it is John Armstrong in his book HARVEY AND LEE. He has built up this elaborate scheme to double Oswald almost from birth, complete with a second woman impersonating Oswald's mother, Marguerite Oswald. And of course, he half-bakes up this story from nearly every witness coming forward to say they saw Oswald somewhere.

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 27th May 2017, 11:34 AM   #4
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,076
42 Party Professionals saw him at that party.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is online now   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 27th May 2017, 11:36 AM   #5
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,150
Yup, everyone has their pet theory.

This article mention's Gus Russo, who did extensive research and interviews with people who knew Oswald. Russo is in the "Castro was Behind It" camp, which is a quiet, but significant portion of the JFK-CT world. It comes from the same idea which all of the CT originate: Oswald couldn't have done it alone. I even hold the door open for evidence showing that at least one other person knew. That person was probably another loner/loser who probably didn't believe Oswald would go through with it, and wisely vanished from Dallas and history. This is a simple scenario not involving spies of any kind, or some larger scheme, just two guys who met in 1963, and got on well enough to go to shooting ranges on a couple of weekends in October and November.

The facts at the moment point to LHO acting alone every step of the way; the pre-shooting pattern established with the attempt on General Walker matches his actions of the morning of 11/22, bullets match his rifle, rifle found at his place of work, LHO fled the scene, murders Tippet, attempts to kill second officer during arrest.

People are convicted for less.
__________________
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 27th May 2017, 01:05 PM   #6
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
the pre-shooting pattern established with the attempt on General Walker
Question for the forum. LHO was notoriously a loner. We know that. Why, though, did he tell Marina about the Walker attempt as soon as he got back that evening? Showing off? Wishing to look the hero? In the note he left for her, he told her to throw away his clothes but to preserve his papers. This is LHO fantasizing about his "Historic Diary" legacy, of course, but did he think Marina would admire his violence? Or was he tormenting her psychologically? I guess he realized that she was so vulnerable that she would never report him--part of his cruelty to her.
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 27th May 2017, 03:19 PM   #7
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,418
Part V...

Still can't believe it...

So, any new CTers here that wanted to try on the JFK Conspiracy clownshoes?
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower."

JC Denton

tinribmancer 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 27th May 2017, 05:15 PM   #8
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Question for the forum. LHO was notoriously a loner. We know that. Why, though, did he tell Marina about the Walker attempt as soon as he got back that evening? Showing off? Wishing to look the hero? In the note he left for her, he told her to throw away his clothes but to preserve his papers. This is LHO fantasizing about his "Historic Diary" legacy, of course, but did he think Marina would admire his violence? Or was he tormenting her psychologically? I guess he realized that she was so vulnerable that she would never report him--part of his cruelty to her.

Marina found the note Oswald left before Oswald got back. He had a room with a separate outside entrance/exit that he used as a 'study'. He had admonished Marina that he was not to be disturbed when he was in the study. When he didn't come out of the study well into the evening, she entered and found he had left via the separate exit, and left her the note.

Since the note ends with the not-too-subtle suggestion of some illegal activity on his part ("If I am alive and taken prisoner", directions to the city jail then follows), she confronted him with it when he got back home. I believe he expected to pull off the murder and be back home before she noticed he was even missing, and the note was just Oswald being thorough.

But he wasn't thorough enough. He hadn't planned at getting caught by Marina, and didn't have any ready-made excuses handy. When confronted, he simply blurted out the truth. That he had shot at Walker because he considered him, like the WORKER communist paper he subscribed to, to be an incipient Hitler (the WORKER of November 11, 1961, had a headline "Gen. Walker Bids for Fuehrer Role"), and said he thought the world would be better off if Walker was eliminated. It was Oswald's first known assassination attempt.

In a separate conversation with Michael Paine, Oswald gave Michael a copy of the WORKER to peruse, and according to Michael,

Mr. PAINE - I suppose he used it as the mailing address for most of his mail until he would receive, get a permanent address, so he received the Daily Worker there, or The Worker, and also, I didn't see it come, I don't generally see the mail that arrives there. Most of my mail would arrive at that address even though I was living somewhere else because I also didn't feel permanent in my other addresses, so Ruth would collect the mail and separated mine into a separate pile. I didn't see the Militant arrive. I did see various Russian magazines, Agitateur, maybe a very large one. A very large one and the Daily Worker, The Worker.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever discuss these publications with Oswald?
Mr. PAINE - Yes, we talked with regard to the Daily Worker. He said that, he told me, that you could tell what they wanted you to do, they, a word I dislike, what they wanted you to do by reading between the lines, reading the thing and doing a little reading between the lines. He then gave me an issue to look and see. I wanted to see if I could read between the lines and see what they wanted you to do..


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

Last edited by HSienzant; 27th May 2017 at 05:19 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2017, 05:16 PM   #9
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,150
never mind, already answered, better...
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 27th May 2017 at 05:22 PM.
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 27th May 2017, 05:32 PM   #10
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
He said that, he told me, that you could tell what they wanted you to do, they, a word I dislike, what they wanted you to do by reading between the lines. [/i][/font][/color]
Thanks. Yes, I guess having left that note, he would have been hard pressed to lie under Marina's interrogation.

It appears he thought he would be arrested or killed after taking a shot at Walker. He seems to have assumed the same thing on November 21 and early November 22, leaving his ring and most of his cash with Marina. Slipping out of the TSBD unopposed and taxiing to his rented room must have seemed a strange concession of fate. All dressed up for assassination and nowhere to go (except, as Hank suspects, to take another shot at Walker).

BTW, LHO's belief in the messaging "they" in the communist periodicals--the abstract, deterministic "they" that irritated Michael Paine--is strangely echoed by CTs, who also point to unspecified "they" as the puppeteers of LHO and the later purported cover-up.
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 27th May 2017, 05:34 PM   #11
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
never mind, already answered, better...
Thanks anyway, Axxman.
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 27th May 2017, 10:09 PM   #12
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,150
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Thanks. Yes, I guess having left that note, he would have been hard pressed to lie under Marina's interrogation.

It appears he thought he would be arrested or killed after taking a shot at Walker. He seems to have assumed the same thing on November 21 and early November 22, leaving his ring and most of his cash with Marina. Slipping out of the TSBD unopposed and taxiing to his rented room must have seemed a strange concession of fate. All dressed up for assassination and nowhere to go (except, as Hank suspects, to take another shot at Walker).

BTW, LHO's belief in the messaging "they" in the communist periodicals--the abstract, deterministic "they" that irritated Michael Paine--is strangely echoed by CTs, who also point to unspecified "they" as the puppeteers of LHO and the later purported cover-up.
What kills me is that he could have disassembled his rifle, hidden the parts in boxes, maybe dropped them down the back wall of the freight elevator shaft, and just waited for the DPD to clear him before making his exit. Just a little extra planning and he could have bought himself ten hours to leave the city, or kill Walker, and leave the city.

This tells me that part of him didn't expect to pull it off, that when the motorcade turned the corner the bubble-top might be on, and he would just schlep the rifle back home. I think LHO was just as surprised as anyone when he saw the round hit JFK's head.
__________________
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 28th May 2017, 09:10 AM   #13
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
A new JFK thread? Cool.

To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th May 2017 at 09:13 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 28th May 2017, 09:28 AM   #14
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A new JFK thread? Cool.

To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.
How about you answer one of the few dozen/hundred outstanding questions put to you in the last thread that you somehow never got around to responding to?

Like - most recently - if there is a wound in the back of the head as the autopsists claimed (regardless of where exactly it was), doesn't that establish that JFK could be shot in the head from one of the buildings behind the Presidential limousine, including the Depository building, which was the closest building to JFK at the time of the head shot?

Previously you were arguing that JFK's head would look like an ant so the shot from the Depository was impossible. Your current argument accepts that there's a wound in the back of the head, which negates the entire thrust of your prior argument. Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2017 at 09:40 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 28th May 2017, 09:32 AM   #15
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Yeah, unless there are any compelling arguments that the EOP wound could be some kind of exit, it was an entry. It would have to come from behind.

Your turn to answer the previous post?
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 28th May 2017, 09:39 AM   #16
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, unless there are any compelling arguments that the EOP wound could be some kind of exit, it was an entry. It would have to come from behind.
Not my question. Answer my question. Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one?

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th May 2017 at 09:40 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 28th May 2017, 09:56 AM   #17
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah, unless there are any compelling arguments that the EOP wound could be some kind of exit, it was an entry. It would have to come from behind.

Your turn to answer the previous post?
Hm, take MicahJava's uninformed opinion or go with the autopsy results.

Tough call.

MicahJava, do you have anything else besides the uninformed opinion that a CT site told you to think? You've been shy about answering this and the other dozens of questions. Any idea when you'll be providing some answers?
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 28th May 2017, 10:10 AM   #18
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Hm, take MicahJava's uninformed opinion or go with the autopsy results.

Tough call.

MicahJava, do you have anything else besides the uninformed opinion that a CT site told you to think? You've been shy about answering this and the other dozens of questions. Any idea when you'll be providing some answers?
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. Here is a model skull shown in the the HSCA forensic pathology panel report showing the approximate location of the small head wound marked by the three lead autopsy physicians (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck) compared to the much higher wound location endorsed by the HSCA:



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 28th May 2017, 10:14 AM   #19
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. Here is a model skull shown in the the HSCA forensic pathology panel report showing the approximate location of the small head wound marked by the three lead autopsy physicians (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck) compared to the much higher wound location endorsed by the HSCA:

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0062b.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.jpg
So you agree with the autopsy results?
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 28th May 2017, 10:46 AM   #20
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. Here is a model skull shown in the the HSCA forensic pathology panel report showing the approximate location of the small head wound marked by the three lead autopsy physicians (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck) compared to the much higher wound location endorsed by the HSCA:

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0062b.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.jpg
Okay, let's test how reliable this is as evidence:

Why did they initial two different circles?

Don't they remember the wounds being in the same place?

Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back in the WC?

I'm guessing Michajava won't make any real effort to address that, or understand why it makes a difference to people. But I hope to be proven wrong.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 10:58 AM   #21
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Okay, let's test how reliable this is as evidence:

Why did they initial two different circles?

Don't they remember the wounds being in the same place?

Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back in the WC?

I'm guessing Michajava won't make any real effort to address that, or understand why it makes a difference to people. But I hope to be proven wrong.
That is what you could call a reasonable, expected discrepancy between the recollections of the doctors who handled the President's body for several hours. Not the simultaneous mistake of four inches.
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 28th May 2017, 11:55 AM   #22
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,150
You, and no one else (CTist or Skeptic) has seen all of the autopsy photographs, so there is not enough visual information to make a judgement which counters the official autopsy on record.

You are playing the same game Bigfooters play with the Patterson Film.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 12:01 PM   #23
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
You, and no one else (CTist or Skeptic) has seen all of the autopsy photographs, so there is not enough visual information to make a judgement which counters the official autopsy on record.

You are playing the same game Bigfooters play with the Patterson Film.
So you're saying there are missing autopsy photographs which exist, or once existed, but are currently not available in the official record?
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 28th May 2017, 12:07 PM   #24
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That is what you could call a reasonable, expected discrepancy between the recollections of the doctors who handled the President's body for several hours. Not the simultaneous mistake of four inches.
Which would be a viable answer, if you were not avoiding a pertinent point:

Quote:
Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 12:10 PM   #25
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
NOTICE: My first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.

To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th May 2017 at 12:12 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 28th May 2017, 12:14 PM   #26
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Here you go, you can see if the description of the wound years later, matches the testimony given to the WC:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
__________________
@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 28th May 2017, 12:18 PM   #27
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gifNOTICE: My first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif

To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.
The entry wound is being exposed, for best representation in the photographic order.

A better question is why no other entry wounds are visible corresponding with any other markings in on the skull you posted.
__________________
@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 28th May 2017, 12:31 PM   #28
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Here you go, you can see if the description of the wound years later, matches the testimony given to the WC:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
It does.
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 28th May 2017, 12:33 PM   #29
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
The entry wound is being exposed, for best representation in the photographic order.

A better question is why no other entry wounds are visible corresponding with any other markings in on the skull you posted.
The red spot would still be there whether or not the scalp is being pulled back. Why would the doctors pull back the scalp if the red spot in indeed the wound they intend to make an accurate record of? Pulling back the scalp distorts the location of the red spot.
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 28th May 2017, 12:40 PM   #30
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The red spot would still be there whether or not the scalp is being pulled back. Why would the doctors pull back the scalp if the red spot in indeed the wound they intend to make an accurate record of? Pulling back the scalp distorts the location of the red spot.
Because they aren't moving the scalp. They are exposing the wound to best show it in the photograph.

But if you were right, and the scalp were being stretched, why are there still no other wounds visible?
__________________
@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 28th May 2017, 12:41 PM   #31
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It does.
Perhaps you could quote him placing the wound where you claim, as I can't see that.
__________________
@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 28th May 2017, 12:43 PM   #32
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,205
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. Here is a model skull shown in the the HSCA forensic pathology panel report showing the approximate location of the small head wound marked by the three lead autopsy physicians (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck) compared to the much higher wound location endorsed by the HSCA:

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0062b.jpg

https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0063a.jpg
Which of those marking is above the EOP?

Does "slightly above" as you oft cited now mean "beneath"?
__________________
@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 28th May 2017, 02:00 PM   #33
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gifNOTICE: My Your first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif
FTFY.

Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one?

It's a simple question. If JFK has a entry wound in the back of his head, as you're insisting now, then doesn't that mean your prior argument that JFK could not be shot from 88 yards away from the building closest to him was just so much nonsense and a waste of perfectly good electrons?

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 28th May 2017, 02:07 PM   #34
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Because they aren't moving the scalp. They are exposing the wound to best show it in the photograph.
Yes, they are pulling the scalp somewhat downwards. Otherwise you would see the lower parietal part of the large head wound. Also, if the scalp was not being pulled down, the red spot would not correlate to the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays.

Quote:
But if you were right, and the scalp were being stretched, why are there still no other wounds visible?
What? The patch of scalp and hair with the red spot is not only covering the parietal area with the lower part of the large head wound, it is covering the area which could probably be best described as "slightly above" the EOP.

In my opinion, this is the order of likelihood for why you purportedly cannot see the EOP wound on the BOH photographs: 1. It is barely being covered by some pair attached to the portion of scalp being pulled down, 2. You can see it, it's the small dark spot at the 1 o'clock position of the white spot identified by the HSCA as a small nodule of brain matter, 3. You can see it, it's the small dark spot beneath the white spot or just to the right of it, 4. the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated to frame a certain trajectory for a single shot to the back of the head, and 5. there is no EOP wound, the real wound was 4-5 inches higher.
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 28th May 2017, 02:12 PM   #35
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Perhaps you could quote him placing the wound where you claim, as I can't see that.
HUMES: "...The second wound was found in the right posterior portion of the scalp. This wound was situated approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occiptal protuberance which is a bony prominence situated in the posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above that point..."

"...Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to..."

And there is some discussion of the validity of the Rydberg drawings, which show the small head wound in it's low location, slightly 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2017, 02:14 PM   #36
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,219
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
FTFY.

Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one?

It's a simple question. If JFK has a entry wound in the back of his head, as you're insisting now, then doesn't that mean your prior argument that JFK could not be shot from 88 yards away from the building closest to him was just so much nonsense and a waste of perfectly good electrons?

Hank
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
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 28th May 2017, 02:28 PM   #37
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,080
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
Did the MC that Oswald used to shoot JFK have a scope?
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 28th May 2017, 02:33 PM   #38
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,303
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
You didn't say "very difficult". You said "No way" would it be possible.

You do understand your claims are a matter of record, right?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...0#post11853010

You claimed all we had was the theoretical possibility that JFK could be struck from behind without using a scope, as if that somehow eliminated Oswald using Oswald's weapon (which had a scope).

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant.

So you're admitting now that hitting JFK in the back, or the back of the head isn't all that difficult with a scope? That didn't come across in your original argument, at all.

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 28th May 2017, 02:36 PM   #39
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 127
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
And yet your claim about the difficulty of iron sights at that distance has been contradicted on this forum by those who, unlike you, are familiar with firearms. That's all.
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 28th May 2017, 02:45 PM   #40
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,801
how many years of woo is it

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
Oops, nope, the shot was easy. Why are JFK CT claims and people wrong and unable to get the simple things correct.

I could hit the head with a tomato...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 08:34 AM.
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.