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 5th February 2018, 05:12 PM   #1
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,507
JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Mod InfoThis is a continuation of Part V, found here. The split was made arbitrarily. Any post from Part V or any previous incarnation may be quoted here. Thank you.
Posted By:Loss Leader





Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Just a reminder that Axxman is the same dude who thought the passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm" meant that the wound itself was 2.5 centimeters (or almost one inch). This is your skeptic, people. He should know this stuff by heart, but apparently not.

I think another poster here once confused centimeters with millimeters regarding the 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision, I forgot if it was BStrong or TomTomKent or someone else.
Considering that your ISF membership lifetime factual batting average is in negative numbers and you quite honestly don't know which end is up that's pretty funny.

When will you ever address the uncomfortable questions you're being asked? Would there be something dated in 2004 you could provide as evidence of what happened in '63?
__________________
"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

Last edited by Loss Leader; 6th February 2018 at 07:30 PM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 06:04 PM   #2
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Just a reminder that Axxman is the same dude who thought the passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm" meant that the wound itself was 2.5 centimeters (or almost one inch). This is your skeptic, people. He should know this stuff by heart, but apparently not.
.
Wrong, you were making yet another failed attempt at debunking the autopsy, saying that the bullet was an inch above the EOP, like you're some kind of Sherlock Holmes, and I was pointing out that this was EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTOPSY SAID.

So there you are arguing FOR THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY, while arguing against it. I just assumed you were a moron who needed help with metric conversion, turns out English is not your first language hence the trouble.

If you understood English better you would have taken the cue from where I quoted you saying there is some question about the entry would to the skull, and my one inch reference was in relationship to the DISTANCE FROM THE EOP AS STATED BY THE AUTOPSY.

Got it?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 09:53 PM   #3
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Given that until today you thought the red blob on the Zapruder film was brain tissue, I would suggest staying in the rabbit hole to gather more facts.
It doesn't matter what he thought, he's not working the case, he's just an interested bystander who happens to have a life. He knows Oswald did it - alone - and got tripped up by a stupid question. It happens.

The JFK-CT Rabbit Hole full of nothing but self-centered losers. When you read their work you find that they revel in how their work received negative reaction from the official bodies who actually investigated the crime. They find ways to write themselves into the story because, like Oswald, they know that their names will forever be linked to JFK, and to fill their fantasy of being a great savior of the truth, embattled agent against the faceless powers that be, and to fill that real void in their sad empty lives.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 5th February 2018, 10:21 PM   #4
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh my God, it's already page 99 and it fizzles out with pages of useless nonsense from you guys lol
And still running away from answering the questions that destroy your fantasies.

Sad really.

MicahJava, you have a chance to not be every other CTist. What will you do with your chance? Face reality and the hard questions or... be every other CTist.
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 5th February 2018, 10:29 PM   #5
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
All you do is quote your own posts and say "you didn't respond to this!" even though I did. That does't make you look good.
In which post did you give a clear and accurate measurement of the entry wound you wish to debunk?
Was it four inches or five above the EOP?

When I asked, you gave a photo from a book, with no measurement. From all the documents you are apparently familiar with first hand, the autopsy, WC, the HSCA, you were unable to provide a single measurement of four inches or five. You had the trawl a CT book and find a picture of a skull, you can not show us you are capable of understanding.

You constantly call other posters incoherent, or suggest we are trying to confuse others. Has it never occurred to you that we are trying to understand the difference between what the autopsy stated, and your interpretation? If, indeed, you are as familiar with it as you suggest? If you understand what face sheets and diagrams are, and what their use is?

In short, if you lie, or if you are simply very confident in things you are wrong about.
__________________
@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).

Last edited by Tomtomkent; 5th February 2018 at 10:45 PM. Reason: Expanded for clarity.
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 6th February 2018, 03:00 AM   #6
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Well, let's break this down into assumptions you are making here.
1) That the "stupid theory" states the wound was four to five inches above the EOP.
2) That the autopsy doctors ALWAYS said this was not the case.
3) That you are capable of looking at the X-rays and identifying what is claimed to be the entry wound.
4) That you have located it and found it unconvincing.
5) That you are capable of recognising a more likely entry wound.

I am currently addressing step 1). I want to be thorough. I want to understand WHY you believe the measurement is variable between four and five inches, and to do this I want to know which measurement you are basing that incredibly broad range upon. I want to know where on the EOP you are describing, and to which point on the wound.

So, are you measuring from the top of the EOP, or the closest point of the EOP? Is the wound an inch long, measuring from four inches to five? Or are you pulling these figures from thin air? Is it YOUR estimate based on the photographs?
So point one is not proven. Let’s try point two:
Did the autopsy doctors ALWAYS stare the WC and it’s conclusions were wrong?
The contention here seems to be that MicahJava has one quote from the autopsy where he argues that “slightly” above the occipital can not mean the given wound location. Seeing as I don’t much care for his opinion of what is or is not “slightly” above the EOP we shall stick to simple objective facts. We have the WC testimony, we have the autopsy report, photographs and X-rays. If the autopsy surgeons “always” claimed the wound was in a different location we should be able to identify that location, and show it consistently across the range of evidence.

So where is it? Show me that location on the photograph of the back of the head, on the X-rays, show me the descriptions in the autopsy report, and in the testimony that state the “correct” location and specifically deny the WC interpretation
__________________
@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 6th February 2018, 04:19 AM   #7
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
I'm certain he knows up from down.
And MicahJava confused "top" with "back" recently, even after showing photos of a skull marked by the autopsists.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3897

And then he says the confusion is on our part when we correct that.

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 online now   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 6th February 2018, 04:31 AM   #8
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh my God, it's already page 99 and it fizzles out with pages of useless nonsense from you guys lol
So understanding the difference between 'top of the head' and 'back of the head' is "useless nonsense" to you.

Got it.

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 online now   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 6th February 2018, 06:03 AM   #9
Disbelief
Master Poster
 
Disbelief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,599
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Oh my God, it's already page 99 and it fizzles out with pages of useless nonsense from you guys lol
Can't you remedy that by laying out your coherent theory of what happened that day? Obviously it has to fit the facts, but you should be able to do that by now.
__________________
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 6th February 2018, 10:19 AM   #10
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,631
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Can't you remedy that by laying out your coherent theory of what happened that day? Obviously it has to fit the facts, but you should be able to do that by now.
Really? MJ is JAQ......lol. How he could make all that into some kind of coherent whole would be amusing. To get all that weirdness in he'd have to bring in time traveling alien lunatics and/or an organization with a highly strange sense of humor coupled with one of the world's most off beat and stupid plans in history.
Hans 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 6th February 2018, 11:17 AM   #11
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Hank, in the real world, shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells.
Yeah. We all remember the famous line from the GODFATHER that reinforces your claim...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHzh0PvMWTI

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 online now   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 6th February 2018, 11:27 AM   #12
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Disbelief View Post
Can't you remedy that by laying out your coherent theory of what happened that day? Obviously it has to fit the facts, but you should be able to do that by now.
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.
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 6th February 2018, 11:31 AM   #13
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
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.
Wasn't Oswald behind JFK? How many entrance and exit wounds did the autopsy find?
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 6th February 2018, 11:38 AM   #14
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
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.
Sorry, you seem to have quoted a post, then answered a completely different question.

Could you answer your critics with a fully formed theory or not?
__________________
@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 6th February 2018, 11:53 AM   #15
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Also: MicahJava's last post seems to posit the following, in place of any real theory:

1) The only thing he is certain of, is the small bullet wond next to the EOP (which he has not been able to identify in any existing evindence).
2) That the evidence does not show anything that would be expected by a high powered round of ammunition (which appears to say it does not contain whatever it is HE expects a high powered rifle round to do, as the wounds are fully compatible with a comparatively heavy Carricano round fragmenting in the skull. We must also note he offers no viable alternative).
3) That the expected exit wound was not caused by trauma displaced ejecta, but by another missile, (which we can ONLY assume was NOT a high powered rifle round, unless he has contradicted his claim that the wounds are "nothing we would expect from a high powered round. Which is odd, to say the least, as he already posited this was a silenced high calibre rifle, as stated in the CIA handbook).
4) That it is a mystery what happened to the bullet that struck in the wound he has yet to identify.(Assuming of course he is not going to simply admit he is wrong in his interpretation of the autopsy, and simply underestimated the distance suggested by the word "slightly".)
5) That the anomalies can not be conciliated by correcting his wound placement (despite it already having been shown that the 'anomalous' brain damage is accounted for by simply adjusting his placement, and that he has repeatedly shown that he has no clear idea where the correct placement is describing it as "four or five" inches, and failing to produce an actual measurement. As of yet, he has yet to respond to my posts asking for proof that his claims of the wound placement are what the autopsy surgeons claimed at the time, rather than remembered later).

It seems to me that when somebody believes their own opinion is a reason to for certainty, rather than scepticism, despite all he has FAILED to produce, we have reason to be wary.
__________________
@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 6th February 2018, 12:08 PM   #16
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,849
An oldie but a goodie: Axxman confuses centimeters for millimeters regarding Kennedy's 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2173
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 6th February 2018, 12:17 PM   #17
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Given that until today you thought the red blob on the Zapruder film was brain tissue,
If you're talking about the big red blob on Frame 313, it IS brain matter, and blood, and bits of bone exploding out of JFK's head.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I would suggest staying in the rabbit hole to gather more facts.
There are no facts to be gathered in the rabbit hole..only half-truths, outright lies, and false assumptions. The rabbit hole is inhabited only by nutcases, self-serving liars and people like I used to be, who hadn't done the research and believed the crap dished out by people like you and the rest of the "inhabitants".

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.
Which is in about the right place to be the entrance would for the kill shot

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gkhc38my3...r312.jpg?raw=1

When you take the actual position of JFK's head in Frame 312 of the Zapruder film, i.e. tilted down at an angle of about 40° and turned inward toward Jackie by about the same amount, and then superimpose the trajectory of the kill shot bullet (yellow line) about 16° downwards, it passes through the area right where the autopsy photo shows the entry wound that you have been harping on about.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Its no mystery to me at all. What some people expect regarding the explosion of JFK's head is that an exiting bullet ripped a large defect and the bullet and brain matter exited at the defect. Then people like you question where the exit marks are and why the bullet cannot be found. The answer is that the bullet fragmented (exactly as a full metal jacket bullet is designed to do when it hits bone) so it left no intact bullet, and no single exit hole. Instead, it created what is known as a pressure cavity, which is caused by the bullet losing most of its kinetic energy in under a millisecond, and that energy has to go somewhere. The result looks like a small stick of dynamite had been set off within the head.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
No, they only thought that before it was understood that JFK had his head tilted forward and to the left. At the time the autopsy was done, the Zapruder film had not even been developed yet, let alone seen by any of the pathologists. They assumed that JFK was sitting upright when he was hit. Once you place Frame 312 against the bullet trajectory as I have done above, it becomes clear what happened. - the entry wound is where I would expect it to be, and the explosion of brain matter and blood seen on Frame 313 is also where I would expect it to be..
__________________
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 online now   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 6th February 2018, 12:24 PM   #18
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
An oldie but a goodie: Axxman confuses centimeters for millimeters regarding Kennedy's 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2173
MicahJava every other CTist, when do you anticipate answering the questions which destroy your fantasies that you've been running away from?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 12:26 PM   #19
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
An oldie but a goodie: Axxman confuses centimeters for millimeters regarding Kennedy's 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2173
Remember when it was pointed out that the CIA handbook contradicted you?
Remember the quote about high powered rifles with silencer being viable WHEN they were invented?

Remember how you mistook an advert for a .22 vermin rifle, as 'proof' a different weapon, with a different use, of a different calibre, existed?

People can make mistakes. How they act when those mistakes are pointed out is more important.
__________________
@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).

Last edited by Tomtomkent; 6th February 2018 at 12:27 PM.
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 6th February 2018, 02:00 PM   #20
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
An oldie but a goodie: Axxman confuses centimeters for millimeters regarding Kennedy's 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2173
Off day, it's okay, I went to my RN.


(RN is a Registered Nurse)
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 02:08 PM   #21
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
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.
Fringe reset.

There's only one bullet hole in the back of JFK's skull. The autopsy clearly describes the location.

You are in no way capable of making any further assessment because:

You are not a pathologist, in fact most MD's are not qualified to make pathological diagnosis either.

The other 40+ autopsy photos have not been released to the public, so you don't know what they show. The limited photos we have access to show extensive damage exclusive to the 6.5x52mm round.

You have nothing here.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 05:34 PM   #22
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,507
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Off day, it's okay, I went to my RN.


(RN is a Registered Nurse)
The classics never get old.
__________________
"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
Old 6th February 2018, 05:59 PM   #23
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Also: MicahJava's last post seems to posit the following, in place of any real theory:

1) The only thing he is certain of, is the small bullet wond next to the EOP (which he has not been able to identify in any existing evindence).
2) That the evidence does not show anything that would be expected by a high powered round of ammunition (which appears to say it does not contain whatever it is HE expects a high powered rifle round to do, as the wounds are fully compatible with a comparatively heavy Carricano round fragmenting in the skull. We must also note he offers no viable alternative).
3) That the expected exit wound was not caused by trauma displaced ejecta, but by another missile, (which we can ONLY assume was NOT a high powered rifle round, unless he has contradicted his claim that the wounds are "nothing we would expect from a high powered round. Which is odd, to say the least, as he already posited this was a silenced high calibre rifle, as stated in the CIA handbook).
4) That it is a mystery what happened to the bullet that struck in the wound he has yet to identify.(Assuming of course he is not going to simply admit he is wrong in his interpretation of the autopsy, and simply underestimated the distance suggested by the word "slightly".)
5) That the anomalies can not be conciliated by correcting his wound placement (despite it already having been shown that the 'anomalous' brain damage is accounted for by simply adjusting his placement, and that he has repeatedly shown that he has no clear idea where the correct placement is describing it as "four or five" inches, and failing to produce an actual measurement. As of yet, he has yet to respond to my posts asking for proof that his claims of the wound placement are what the autopsy surgeons claimed at the time, rather than remembered later).

It seems to me that when somebody believes their own opinion is a reason to for certainty, rather than scepticism, despite all he has FAILED to produce, we have reason to be wary.
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.

It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.

1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.

2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes

3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo

4. Dr. Humes

5. Dr. Boswell

6. Dr. Finck

7. John Stringer

8. Francis X. O'Neill

9. Roy Kellerman

10. Chester Boyers

11. Tom Robinson

12. Richard Lipsey

13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.

14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.

15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.

16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.

17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.

18. The open-cranium photographs.


How about you just get to the philosophy of why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
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 6th February 2018, 06:10 PM   #24
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
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.
Why can you be certain of that? You doubt almost everything else about the autopsy report.

There's nothing murky about this case. Within 24 hours, the assassin was in custody, his rifle was discovered, his shells were recovered, the nearly whole bullet that fell out of Connally's leg was recovered, the two large fragments from the head shot that killed JFK were recovered, and the autopsy completed, and the fact that both shots that struck JFK were determined to have come from above and behind him.

You can't have a less murky case. You're confusing dumb arguments by conspiracy advocates for murkiness. Just because somebody makes a dumb argument doesn't make it true. And it doesn't make this case murky in any sense.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
What pathologist who examined the body or the extant autopsy materials agrees with your assessment?

None, right?

Yeah, so again, you're substituting your opinion for those of the experts. And tossing out what the autopsy report says. Why?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
They were clear and affirmative that the bullet that struck the back of the head exited the top of the head through the massive wound visible in the Z-film, the autopsy radiographs, and the autopsy photos.

But you ignore that entirely and substitute your own opinion once more. Why do you think your opinion should overturn the opinion of the experts, MicahJava?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
And of course, it wasn't 'raised' arbitrarily. The HSCA forensic pathology panel determined from their examination of the extant autopsy materials - including the radiographs - that the wound was above the EOP. The autopsy radiographs were determined to be those of JFK. So there you go.

The wound is where the HSCA forensic pathology says it was.

Not where you say it was.

It's quite simple -- you don't get to move the wound around to your heart's content simply to get the wound where you like. But that's exactly what you're doing here.

You don't get to substitute your own opinion for that of the experts. But that's exactly what you're doing here.

That's why you get no traction here with your assertions. Everyone can see exactly what you're doing.

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; 6th February 2018 at 06:15 PM.
HSienzant 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 06:21 PM   #25
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,507
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
snipped
snipped

why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
Bolding doesn't improve your arguments.

I'd suggest reading the two links that Smartcooky posted in this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=3919

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...assassination/

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/a...illed-kennedy/
__________________
"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
Old 6th February 2018, 06:26 PM   #26
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.

It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.

1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.

2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes

3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo

4. Dr. Humes

5. Dr. Boswell

6. Dr. Finck

7. John Stringer

8. Francis X. O'Neill

9. Roy Kellerman

10. Chester Boyers

11. Tom Robinson

12. Richard Lipsey

13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.

14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.

15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.

16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.

17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.

18. The open-cranium photographs.


How about you just get to the philosophy of why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
Because it's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a Gish Gallop.

For example, "Dr. Humes" does not constitute evidence of anything.

Neither does anyone else you listed.

What you're doing is re-interpreting almost everything to point to a conspiracy, then summarizing it as evidence for your interpretation of conspiracy. It's not. It's circular reasoning. It's still just your interpretation of the evidence. Don't confuse your opinion of the evidence with the evidence itself. Or with the expert opinion.

But everyone can see that's exactly what you're doing.

Once more: The experts are qualified to give their opinion and tell us their conclusions by dint of their education, training, and experience.

You are not qualified to give your opinion because you don't have the education, training, and experience. You're a layman. But so am I. That's why I restrict myself to the conclusions reached by the experts.

You draw your own opinion and reject the expert opinion, which is why your posts are all meaningless. They are just your layman's opinion, backed by nothing except your layman's opinion.

They will always be that.

They will always be meaningless.

No matter how many fringe resets you do, no matter how many times your repeat your arguments for us. They will always be meaningless.

We get the problem. You don't.

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; 6th February 2018 at 06:48 PM.
HSienzant 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 06:54 PM   #27
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 9,204
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.

<irrelevant rubbish snipped>

evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.

<irrelevant rubbish snipped>
NO-ONE HERE IS CONTESTING THE EXISTENCE AND POSITION OF THE EOP ENTRY WOUND

This wound is exactly where the autopsy photo on the back of JFK's head shows it to be.

This wound is exactly where we would expect it do be given where Oswald was shooting from, the position of JFK's head in Zapruder 312 and where we saw the blow out of his head in Zapruder 313.

Your problem is that you reinterpret the evidence to suit your own preconceived views, and then claim you are right because your views are backed up by your interpretation. This is a type of confirmation bias known as a self-fulfilling delusion. Further to this (and this is a problem that all conspiracy theorists share) is that you have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you cannot even see this is what you are doing. Its easy for us to see because we have all dealt with this before, and it is especially easy for me to see because I used to be down that very same rabbit hole!!
__________________
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 online now   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 6th February 2018, 06:57 PM   #28
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.

1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.
Let's start with your #1 point. You're referencing this diagram, right?

]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5qKit53lPk/UDFA01-gTcI/AAAAAAAAAA0/Yjsn50qM-Yw/s1600/JFK+Autopsy+face+sheet.jpg

Would you say that drawing puts the entry wound at the level of the top of the ears?

Would you agree it's consistent with what we see in this autopsy photo?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aO7sFGJNZqU/hqdefault.jpg

Just about right where what you call 'the red spot' is? The spot you deny is an entry wound?

Hank

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove image tags for rule 5
__________________
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 Agatha; 11th February 2018 at 02:59 PM.
HSienzant 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 07:03 PM   #29
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.

[b]It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.

1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.
Which meant to approximate the wounds at the time of death, and not meant to be accurate.

Quote:
2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes
Which says only two, 6.5x52mm rounds struck JFK (not three).

Quote:
3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo
FBI agents, low on sleep, under pressure from HQ, NOT DOCTORS.

Quote:
4. Dr. Humes

5. Dr. Boswell

6. Dr. Finck
All say and signed off on an OFFICIAL AUTPOSY where they agreed one two bullets struck JFK, one in the upper back, one in the head.

Quote:
7. John Stringer
A photographer, not a doctor.

Quote:
8. Francis X. O'Neill
Not at doctor.

9.
Quote:
Roy Kellerman
Was driving with a hangover. Not in the best position to see anything, confused shots with echoes of shots. No time to observe. Not a good witness. (Fun Fact: The Secret Service driver of the chase car swore all three of Oswald's bullets hit the limo, but was never questioned by the WC. Not sure it matters).

Quote:
10. Chester Boyers
A Navy Corpsman who typed a receipt for Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963, and signed by the two agents, refers to a "receipt of a missle [sic]" (HSCA Record 180-10120-10362; JFK Document 014834). But the HSCA concluded that "the receipt was in error.

Just bullet fragments.

Quote:
11. Tom Robinson
Was a 20 year old mortician's assistant, not a pathologist.

Quote:
12. Richard Lipsey
Is on the record stating Oswald acted alone.

Quote:
13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.
As misinterpreted by magical people on the x-rays. I see Bullwinkle myself.

Quote:
14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.
Only guy to see this, working from old x-rays, plus Cyril makes good money off the assassination CT's.

Quote:
15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.
Not in the autopsy report. BTW, if you bother to read that section it confirms the approximate entry point (brain being inside the skull and so on).

Quote:
16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.
Not an official document. Pulp lunacy at best.

Quote:
17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.
Obviously not true. BS travels at the speed of light. What did the follow-up memo say?

Quote:
18. The open-cranium photographs.
Which the public have never seen.

So we want evidence.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 07:56 PM   #30
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
LBJ's Revenge?



Love it.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 08:01 PM   #31
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Let's start with your #1 point. You're referencing this diagram, right?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l5qKit53lP...face+sheet.jpg

Would you say that drawing puts the entry wound at the level of the top of the ears?

Would you agree it's consistent with what we see in this autopsy photo?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/aO7sFGJNZqU/hqdefault.jpg

Just about right where what you call 'the red spot' is? The spot you deny is an entry wound?

Hank
No.

HSCA drawing of their entry wound location:

https://i.imgur.com/Fk2Oba0.jpg

See the morphing head gif below:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mt8ebUPjtAM/UYm45Enz7SI/AAAAAAAAuiY/52WQQlmaQaY/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-GIF.gif


And a morphing head gif with higher quality blow-ups is found here about 3/4ths of the page down: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3A...eadwoundmyster

It's open to interpretation whether the red spot is actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, or somewhat lower.

An easy way to describe the location of the EOP is "no higher than the level of the ears".

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove image tags for rule 5

Last edited by Agatha; 11th February 2018 at 02:51 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 6th February 2018, 08:15 PM   #32
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
NO-ONE HERE IS CONTESTING THE EXISTENCE AND POSITION OF THE EOP ENTRY WOUND

This wound is exactly where the autopsy photo on the back of JFK's head shows it to be.

This wound is exactly where we would expect it do be given where Oswald was shooting from, the position of JFK's head in Zapruder 312 and where we saw the blow out of his head in Zapruder 313.

Your problem is that you reinterpret the evidence to suit your own preconceived views, and then claim you are right because your views are backed up by your interpretation. This is a type of confirmation bias known as a self-fulfilling delusion. Further to this (and this is a problem that all conspiracy theorists share) is that you have fallen so far down the rabbit hole that you cannot even see this is what you are doing. Its easy for us to see because we have all dealt with this before, and it is especially easy for me to see because I used to be down that very same rabbit hole!!
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.

A. Again, you seem to be mistaken about the official exit wound. Your straight line entering slightly above Kenendy's EOP would exit Kenendy's face or the right temple.

B. If you want to say it exited the right temple, I would like to hear your opinion about what mortician Tom Robinson said about working with an apparent hole in the right temple that he was under the impression represented an exit from a "fragment of bullet or bone".

C. And I need you to explain your opinion on the open-cranium photographs, that anatomical locations they show, what the beveled exit in the bone represents.

D. Wouldn't a lower trajectory exiting in the temporal area go into Connally's direction?

E. How do you account for the windshield fragment, dashboard damage, and James Tague fragment?

F. Why was Kennedy's entry wound recorded as an oval 15x6mm?

G. The official location for the exit wound is in the right frontal-parietal region. This would require a steep upwards trajectory from this round. What evidence do you have that a high-powered round would deflect to far upwards without...

H. Severely damaging the cerebellum?

I. leaving a trail of bullet fragments in the lower back of the head?

J. Why are there larger bullet fragments in the top of the head than there are in the front of the head on the lateral X-rays?

K. What do you think about the possible bullet fragment in the upper neck on the complete X-rays as reported by Wecht?

Last edited by MicahJava; 6th February 2018 at 08:26 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 6th February 2018, 08:31 PM   #33
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,576
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 were asked how you got that figure of 4-5 inches above the EOP.

You never did explain. Nor cite for it.

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 online now   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 6th February 2018, 08:35 PM   #34
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No.

See the morphing head gif below:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mt8ebUPjtAM/UYm45Enz7SI/AAAAAAAAuiY/52WQQlmaQaY/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-GIF.gif


.
The great thing about that gif is that it is obvious that the skull cap had been sawed off, and the brain removed. The 3-D effect also CONFIRMS that they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is, and that those cut-away pieces have not been restored at the time these photos are taken. The circular outline of the remaining skull with the entry wound is clearly visible. More importantly, without the removed skull sections the scalp will rise higher due to the lack of bone.

So...yeah...great evidence for Oswald getting lucky...

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove image tags for rule 5
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Agatha; 11th February 2018 at 02:53 PM.
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 08:35 PM   #35
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,270
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
No.

HSCA drawing of their entry wound location:

https://i.imgur.com/Fk2Oba0.jpg

See the morphing head gif below:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mt8ebUPjtAM/UYm45Enz7SI/AAAAAAAAuiY/52WQQlmaQaY/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos-GIF.gif


And a morphing head gif with higher quality blow-ups is found here about 3/4ths of the page down: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3A...eadwoundmyster

It's open to interpretation whether the red spot is actually 4-5 inches above the EOP, or somewhat lower.

An easy way to describe the location of the EOP is "no higher than the level of the ears".
What is the red spot, MicahJava?

Edited by Agatha:  Edited to remove image tags for rule 5

Last edited by Agatha; 11th February 2018 at 02:52 PM.
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 6th February 2018, 09:09 PM   #36
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,849
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The great thing about that gif is that it is obvious that the skull cap had been sawed off, and the brain removed. The 3-D effect also CONFIRMS that they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is, and that those cut-away pieces have not been restored at the time these photos are taken. The circular outline of the remaining skull with the entry wound is clearly visible. More importantly, without the removed skull sections the scalp will rise higher due to the lack of bone.

So...yeah...great evidence for Oswald getting lucky...
Axxman300, removing a brain requires reflecting the scalp much farther back than you see on the back-of-head photographs. It doesn't take an expert to read some medical web pages on the procedure to remove a brain. So even if the back-of-head photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, they show that the scalp had been peeled back up for the taking of the pictures. The scalp is covering most of the skull bone, or lack thereof, behind it.

Second, I am not sure about your interpretation that you can see the edge of sawed bone. What you think is a deep empty skull cavity appears to me that it may be an illusion of shadows.






And some of the brain was missing from that side (officially), remember.

Third, where do you get "they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is"? The entire area around the large defect was shattered to the point where very little sawing of the skull was needed. I don't know where you get the idea that such a procedure is even an option, let alone physically possible.

Last edited by MicahJava; 6th February 2018 at 09:18 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 10:05 PM   #37
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,222
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman300, removing a brain requires reflecting the scalp much farther back than you see on the back-of-head photographs.
Yet we don't see the skull sans scalp, do we? Therefore we must assume they made the standard incision.

Quote:
It doesn't take an expert to read some medical web pages on the procedure to remove a brain.
Point?

Quote:
So even if the back-of-head photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, they show that the scalp had been peeled back up for the taking of the pictures. The scalp is covering most of the skull bone, or lack thereof, behind it.
Yeah, and?

Quote:
Second, I am not sure about your interpretation that you can see the edge of sawed bone. What you think is a deep empty skull cavity appears to me that it may be an illusion of shadows.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, that cuts both ways.

Quote:
Third, where do you get "they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is"?
Dr. Humes said that's what they did, and Dr. Finck said he could view the beveling of bone on the inside of the skull.

Quote:
The entire area around the large defect was shattered to the point where very little sawing of the skull was needed.
The shattering was forward and to the right of the entry wound, becoming more dramatic near the exit.

Since nobody has seen the other autopsy photos we have to take the word of the official autopsy.


Quote:
I don't know where you get the idea that such a procedure is even an option, let alone physically possible.
I got it from Dr. Hume.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 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 Back to Top
Old 6th February 2018, 10:35 PM   #38
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Guys, I've explained the EOP issues to you a million times to the point where you should know the evidence by heart.

It's not hard to keep a list in your mind. Here I will lay out a very clear beginner's list of evidence for the EOP wound in a chronological order.

1. The autopsy face sheet diagram, signed by Dr. Burkley.

2. The Autopsy Report, reportedly based on contemporaneous notes

3. The Sibert & O'Neill 2:00 AM memo

4. Dr. Humes

5. Dr. Boswell

6. Dr. Finck

7. John Stringer

8. Francis X. O'Neill

9. Roy Kellerman

10. Chester Boyers

11. Tom Robinson

12. Richard Lipsey

13. The cavity in the lower neck area going up into the middle neck area, as shown on the X-rays.

14. The possible bullet fragment in the lower neck reported by Cyril Wecht and ignored.

15. The damage to the brainstem, in the autopsy pathologists' words "caused by the bullet" rather than something post-mortem.

16. The "torn through his cerebellum, the lower part of his brain" passage from Manchester's The Killing of a President, written in a narrative style based on exclusive information from Bethesda participants such as Dr. Burkley.

17. The "Bullet lodged behind the ear" memo before the autopsy was completed.

18. The open-cranium photographs.


How about you just get to the philosophy of why all of these combined do not constitute compelling evidence for you?
Because you have not been able to show any of that is evidence of your claim.

You have failed to meet my repeated requests to cite a precise measurement for the wound placement you try to debunk.

Now I am asking AGAIN for you to show me precisely where the wound really is, on the back of the head photo, and X-rays. If you are capable of interpreting these and telling what the autopsy got “wrong” then can show me the real wound. (Something that should have been step one in your discussion)
__________________
@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 6th February 2018, 10:41 PM   #39
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
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.

A. Again, you seem to be mistaken about the official exit wound. Your straight line entering slightly above Kenendy's EOP would exit Kenendy's face or the right temple.

B. If you want to say it exited the right temple, I would like to hear your opinion about what mortician Tom Robinson said about working with an apparent hole in the right temple that he was under the impression represented an exit from a "fragment of bullet or bone".

C. And I need you to explain your opinion on the open-cranium photographs, that anatomical locations they show, what the beveled exit in the bone represents.

D. Wouldn't a lower trajectory exiting in the temporal area go into Connally's direction?

E. How do you account for the windshield fragment, dashboard damage, and James Tague fragment?

F. Why was Kennedy's entry wound recorded as an oval 15x6mm?

G. The official location for the exit wound is in the right frontal-parietal region. This would require a steep upwards trajectory from this round. What evidence do you have that a high-powered round would deflect to far upwards without...

H. Severely damaging the cerebellum?

I. leaving a trail of bullet fragments in the lower back of the head?

J. Why are there larger bullet fragments in the top of the head than there are in the front of the head on the lateral X-rays?

K. What do you think about the possible bullet fragment in the upper neck on the complete X-rays as reported by Wecht?
Those would be the four to five inches you have never cited a measurement for.
Is an inch a small margin for error?
If so.. yeah, then four to five inches is “slightly” above the OEP, and the rest of your post is so much hot air.
__________________
@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 6th February 2018, 10:46 PM   #40
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,595
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Axxman300, removing a brain requires reflecting the scalp much farther back than you see on the back-of-head photographs. It doesn't take an expert to read some medical web pages on the procedure to remove a brain. So even if the back-of-head photographs were taken after the brain had already been removed, they show that the scalp had been peeled back up for the taking of the pictures. The scalp is covering most of the skull bone, or lack thereof, behind it.

Second, I am not sure about your interpretation that you can see the edge of sawed bone. What you think is a deep empty skull cavity appears to me that it may be an illusion of shadows.






And some of the brain was missing from that side (officially), remember.

Third, where do you get "they cut carefully around the skull segment where the entry wound is"? The entire area around the large defect was shattered to the point where very little sawing of the skull was needed. I don't know where you get the idea that such a procedure is even an option, let alone physically possible.

Well, while we are talking about what is or is not physically possible....

HOW, given the fragmentation of some parts of the skull, would a textbook skull cap removal be viable?
Given your personal interpretation of what was bone and what was brain, or not, in the Z film?
__________________
@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
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 12:52 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.