IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Closed Thread
Old 10th October 2017, 08:31 AM   #1761
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by Jean Davison View Post
According to Dr. Kenneth Strully, a New Hampshire neurosurgeon, JFK's arm movements following Z225 were caused by direct stimulation of the relevant nerves in the spine.

In a letter appearing on another forum long ago he wrote, "Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity [….] As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet’s path took place first; — right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps [….] Kennedy did not reach for his throat. All movements seen in the films, occurring relative to the bullet’s passage, were involuntary; lifting of the shoulders was a result of contraction of the deltoids followed by contraction of the biceps muscles which flexed the upper extremities at the elbows, then forearm and intrinsic muscles of the hands causing clenching of the hands.”

Charts online show that the nerves controlling the arms and hands originate around the C8/T1 area. No, it wasn't the Thorburn position but something similar, evidently.

Going back to lurking now... Carry on, gentlemen.
Hi Jean:
I'm a relative newcomer also, but the comments of Dr. Kenneth Strully clearly refute MJ's contentions, yet again. Thanks for the input and do continue to post.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 08:32 AM   #1762
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Jean Davison View Post
According to Dr. Kenneth Strully, a New Hampshire neurosurgeon, JFK's arm movements following Z225 were caused by direct stimulation of the relevant nerves in the spine.

In a letter appearing on another forum long ago he wrote, "Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity [….] As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet’s path took place first; — right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps [….] Kennedy did not reach for his throat. All movements seen in the films, occurring relative to the bullet’s passage, were involuntary; lifting of the shoulders was a result of contraction of the deltoids followed by contraction of the biceps muscles which flexed the upper extremities at the elbows, then forearm and intrinsic muscles of the hands causing clenching of the hands.”

Charts online show that the nerves controlling the arms and hands originate around the C8/T1 area. No, it wasn't the Thorburn position but something similar, evidently.

Going back to lurking now... Carry on, gentlemen.
What about the pointing directly at his throat?
As see in this frame and surrounding frames?
https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z257.jpg
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 08:36 AM   #1763
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Hi Jean:
I'm a relative newcomer also, but the comments of Dr. Kenneth Strully clearly refute MJ's contentions, yet again. Thanks for the input and do continue to post.
That's just it... she's not a newcomer (except to this forum).

Her book on Lee Harvey Oswald was published in 1983.

Your post is a good example of why hearsay isn't admissible, however.

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; 10th October 2017 at 08:37 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:17 PM   #1764
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by Jean Davison View Post
According to Dr. Kenneth Strully, a New Hampshire neurosurgeon, JFK's arm movements following Z225 were caused by direct stimulation of the relevant nerves in the spine.

In a letter appearing on another forum long ago he wrote, "Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity [….] As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet’s path took place first; — right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps [….] Kennedy did not reach for his throat. All movements seen in the films, occurring relative to the bullet’s passage, were involuntary; lifting of the shoulders was a result of contraction of the deltoids followed by contraction of the biceps muscles which flexed the upper extremities at the elbows, then forearm and intrinsic muscles of the hands causing clenching of the hands.”

Charts online show that the nerves controlling the arms and hands originate around the C8/T1 area. No, it wasn't the Thorburn position but something similar, evidently.

Going back to lurking now... Carry on, gentlemen.
Uh oh, MJ, the heavy artillery showed up.

I recommend her book, not that you'll read it, but some of the grownups might find it intriguing.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:21 PM   #1765
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
2 weeks, 1 day until the final National Archive document dump. I never thought I'd live to see this, so I'm kind of excited.

We're coming up on 54 years since the assassination, I've lost count of how many mass shootings we've had in my lifetime, but at this point it is impossible to ignore what one man can do with a gun when motivated.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 05:25 PM   #1766
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
2 weeks, 1 day until the final National Archive document dump. I never thought I'd live to see this, so I'm kind of excited.

We're coming up on 54 years since the assassination, I've lost count of how many mass shootings we've had in my lifetime, but at this point it is impossible to ignore what one man can do with a gun when motivated.
Sad but so true.
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 Back to Top
Old 10th October 2017, 11:11 PM   #1767
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Jean Davison View Post
According to Dr. Kenneth Strully, a New Hampshire neurosurgeon, JFK's arm movements following Z225 were caused by direct stimulation of the relevant nerves in the spine.

In a letter appearing on another forum long ago he wrote, "Before all else, it is necessary to remember that this assassination reveals a sequence of neural responses initiated in the neck by the shock wave and cavitation induced by the bullet in its traverse of the neck. This traumatized all structures in a 6 inch radius in all directions from the path of passage through the neck. This spread of forces occurred in a fraction of a second, traumatizing all neural structures in the immediate vicinity [….] As a result, contraction of the muscles innervated by nerves closest to the bullet’s path took place first; — right deltoid, left deltoid, right biceps followed by the left biceps [….] Kennedy did not reach for his throat. All movements seen in the films, occurring relative to the bullet’s passage, were involuntary; lifting of the shoulders was a result of contraction of the deltoids followed by contraction of the biceps muscles which flexed the upper extremities at the elbows, then forearm and intrinsic muscles of the hands causing clenching of the hands.”

Charts online show that the nerves controlling the arms and hands originate around the C8/T1 area. No, it wasn't the Thorburn position but something similar, evidently.

Going back to lurking now... Carry on, gentlemen.

I have a bigger gun.

Quote:
The most convincing case against Thorburn's position, however, comes from Dr. Jan E. Leestma, Associate Medical Director and Neuropathologist for the Chicago Institute of Neurosurgery and Neuroresearch at Columbus Hospital. In my conversation with Dr. Leestma11, he adamantly stated that Thorburn's position does not seem a viable outcome of Kennedy's injury. Dr. Leestma says that when a sudden injury, such as a bullet wound, is withstood by a victim, the nerve cells and fibers go into neural shock. The nerves are immediately traumatized; they literally turn off and result in slumping of the victim. He adds "when you physically shock any nerve, the last thing it does is fire. It classically becomes electrically silent. Whether the spinal cord is directly hit or grazed, the nerve cords extending beyond the actual spine would be affected and fall silent."12 When presented with what Lattimer contended occurred during Thorburn's reaction, Dr. Leestma said "it seems to me a reaction as such would just never occur. I don't care if the sixth cervical segment was severed or just touched, the nerves in that area would not go into an immediate neurological reaction with arms flying up, they would fall limp."13 Dr. Leestma placed C-6 at the base of the neck, just above the hump at the bottom of the neck. In sum, Dr. Leestma does not believe that Thorburn's reaction could have occurred. He stated that he thought the back wound was found to be lower than C-6 and that the upsweep of Kennedy's arms did not seem to be a neurological reaction.
http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/JLDUNN.TXT

Dr. Leestma is a well-known neuropathologist. Just Google him.
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 11th October 2017, 12:32 AM   #1768
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The dented lip can be caused by the extractor mechanism after the bullet is fired. This was duplicated in testing by the HSCA back in 1978 -- 39 years ago. News must travel slowly where you are located.
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0191a.htm

From Reclaiming Parkland:


Quote:
The Warren Commission labeled one of the shells reportedly found on the sixth floor, CE 543. The problem is that it is a dented shell. As ballistics authority and expert marksman Howard Donahue has said, this dented shell could not have been used to fire a bullet that day. The weapon would not have fired properly. As Josiah Thompson notes, it also had three identifying marks revealing it had been loaded and extracted from a weapon at least three times before. These were not found on the other shells. As Thompson further notes, “Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald’s rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower. Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip. . . .” The last cartridge in the clip was the live round, not this one. Further, the clip contained no fingerprints, and neither did any of the cases.

One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not. Bugliosi solves this problem the same way Gerald Posner did. He says it was dented during firing. He uses Monty Lutz from the HSCA as his authority. But when Mike Griffith asked Howard Donahue about this particular issue, Donahue replied that, “there were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA . . . I have never seen a case dented like this.

Griffith also communicated with British researcher Chris Mills on this evidentiary point. Mills, who experimented with a Mannlicher Carcano rifle on this issue, said that the only way he achieved this denting effect was by using empty shells, and he had to repeat the experiment sixty times to get the same effect. Mills concluded this could only occur with an empty case that had been previously fired, and then only occasionally.

Author Michael Kurtz noted that the shell “lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald’s rifle.” He then adds that forensic pathologist Forrest Chapman concludes that CE 543 was probably “dry loaded.” Because the dent was too big to support a bullet, it was not fired from the Carcano. Chapman also noted that “CE 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base . . . where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics.” And Kurtz adds that when the FBI fired an empty shell for comparison purposes, it also contained the dent in the lip and the deep firing pin impression. Kurtz also concluded that CE 543 could not have been fired from the Carcano that day.

The updated 2016 edition of Reclaiming Parkland: Tom Hanks, Vincent Bugliosi, & the JFK Assassination in the New Hollywood by James DiEugenio is available for free on libgen.io

Epub file for programs such as Adobe Digital Editions: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=...6D6B1C5AEDC46F

Mobi file for programs such as Amazon Kindle PC: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=...DBACC50CB93A39

Click the lower-left "libgen.io" button and then click "get it".
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 11th October 2017, 12:35 AM   #1769
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Let’s apply Occams Razor.

Which is adds fewest complications:

1) Futuristic ammo types, unknown at the time.
2) A bullet managing to enter the EOP, while carefully dodging bits of the brain right in its path, then taking a trajectory that no doctors actually thought of, in the autopsy.
3) An additional gunman, who somehow had a silenced weapon, that left no traces from the ammunition.
4) Micha Java misunderstandings the word “slightly “ and insisting the wound was on the EOP.

Given there are no anomalies to solve if we consider 4) correct, that remains the most convincing.
You must be confused. You forgot a few important parts.
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 11th October 2017, 12:37 AM   #1770
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
A bullet striking the rear of the skull low will go right through the cerebellum.
You like to play this game where you change the subject to high-velocity bullets when the discussion is about the possibility of a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP. Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone. The area near the EOP and the base of the head is very curved.
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 11th October 2017, 01:04 AM   #1771
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
If we say for the sake of discussion that the three autopsy doctors actually believed Kennedy's head was only wounded by a single shot from behind, we must remember that this is really an issue of them claiming the shots came from ABOVE and behind. Since a EOP-top-right side of the head connection would have a straight or upwards trajectory, they have no reason to claim the head shot came from above and behind. The obvious reason being that it looks well with the official story.
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 11th October 2017, 01:44 AM   #1772
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,171
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If we say for the sake of discussion that the three autopsy doctors actually believed Kennedy's head was only wounded by a single shot from behind, we must remember that this is really an issue of them claiming the shots came from ABOVE and behind. Since a EOP-top-right side of the head connection would have a straight or upwards trajectory, they have no reason to claim the head shot came from above and behind. The obvious reason being that it looks well with the official story.
There is another obvious reason, of course, which is that it fits well with your story.
Can you give any reason why these doctors would lie about the results of the autopsy to support a cover-up of some sort? At what point were they briefed to do this, and by whom?
Do you have any evidence of threats or inducements made to them?
What benefit would this cover-up have?
Who do you think killed JFK, and why, and why did the administration go to such lengths to cover it up?
__________________
'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

Bring Back the Yak! P.J. Denyer

Last edited by Cosmic Yak; 11th October 2017 at 01:45 AM.
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 02:04 AM   #1773
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You like to play this game where you change the subject to high-velocity bullets when the discussion is about the possibility of a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP. Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone. The area near the EOP and the base of the head is very curved.
There is no evidence of this deflection.
Nor of the resulting trauma damage to the cerebellum. Or does you bullet not displace the matter it is passing through?

The obvious conclusion would be that your EOP wound, not described in the autopsy, does not exist, and the bullet struck higher than you suppose, causing the massive trauma clearly visible on 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
Old 11th October 2017, 02:07 AM   #1774
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If we say for the sake of discussion that the three autopsy doctors actually believed Kennedy's head was only wounded by a single shot from behind, we must remember that this is really an issue of them claiming the shots came from ABOVE and behind. Since a EOP-top-right side of the head connection would have a straight or upwards trajectory, they have no reason to claim the head shot came from above and behind. The obvious reason being that it looks well with the official story.
What if we suppose you are placing the wound wrong? How does the single bullet theory fit with the “cowlick wound” as you call it? Or “the wound” as the autopsy calls it. The one that is above the EOP, visible in photographs, confirmed by the WC, and exits from the top of The head, due to massive trauma, whose ejecta is visible on 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
Old 11th October 2017, 06:31 AM   #1775
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You like to play this game where you change the subject to high-velocity bullets when the discussion is about the possibility of a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP. Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone. The area near the EOP and the base of the head is very curved.
What experience do you have to make this statement? None I suspect and you are just trying to continue the discussion without providing any evidence to support your claims.
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 Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 06:40 AM   #1776
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
There's a nice bit of self-refutation here, in two successive posts no less.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Since a EOP-top-right side of the head connection would have a straight or upwards trajectory, they have no reason to claim the head shot came from above and behind.
So the details of the wound are indicative of the trajectory of the bullet...

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone.
...except where the conspiracy theory requires them not to be.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 11th October 2017, 07:30 AM   #1777
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
The dented lip can be caused by the extractor mechanism after the bullet is fired. This was duplicated in testing by the HSCA back in 1978 -- 39 years ago. News must travel slowly where you are located.
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...Vol7_0191a.htm
Quote:
Would the dent on the mouth of CE 543, one of the three expended cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, prevent the bullet from being fired in the CE 139 Mannlicher-Careano rifle, or any other rifle? Can it be determined whether these cartridge cases had been chambered on more than one occasion?
(155) Figure 8B shows a dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case which Josiah Thompson, a critic of the Warren Commission, said would prevent CE 543 from being fired in any rifle.(79)
(156) It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel. (See fig. 2.) The dent had nothing to do with loading the bullet during the manufacturing process, nor is it the type of deformation expected if the case were stepped on.
(157) There was no evidence in the form of multiple extractor or ejector marks on the cartridge case to indicate that it was chambered in the rifle more than once. This also applies to cartridge cases CE 544 and CE 545.
In any case, how do you know this dented bullet was associated with the missed shot, and not the shot that hit the President in the back, or the bullet that hit the President in the head? How did you determine a plant is the most reasonable explanation?

How come you bring up only the arguments in favor of conspiracy and ignore any resolutions of the arguments that were discovered during the various investigations (like the dented bullet shell resolution known for 39 years)?

I can see only two possible reasons for this:
1. The websites you frequent for your arguments aren't telling you the whole truth.
2. You're not telling the whole truth.

Which is it, or is there another possibility I'm overlooking?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
From Reclaiming Parkland:
Quote:
The Warren Commission labeled one of the shells reportedly found on the sixth floor, CE 543. The problem is that it is a dented shell. As ballistics authority and expert marksman Howard Donahue has said, this dented shell could not have been used to fire a bullet that day. The weapon would not have fired properly. As Josiah Thompson notes, it also had three identifying marks revealing it had been loaded and extracted from a weapon at least three times before. These were not found on the other shells. As Thompson further notes, “Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald’s rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower. Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip. . . .” The last cartridge in the clip was the live round, not this one. Further, the clip contained no fingerprints, and neither did any of the cases.

One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not. Bugliosi solves this problem the same way Gerald Posner did. He says it was dented during firing. He uses Monty Lutz from the HSCA as his authority. But when Mike Griffith asked Howard Donahue about this particular issue, Donahue replied that, “there were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA . . . I have never seen a case dented like this.”

Griffith also communicated with British researcher Chris Mills on this evidentiary point. Mills, who experimented with a Mannlicher Carcano rifle on this issue, said that the only way he achieved this denting effect was by using empty shells, and he had to repeat the experiment sixty times to get the same effect. Mills concluded this could only occur with an empty case that had been previously fired, and then only occasionally.

Author Michael Kurtz noted that the shell “lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald’s rifle.” He then adds that forensic pathologist Forrest Chapman concludes that CE 543 was probably “dry loaded.” Because the dent was too big to support a bullet, it was not fired from the Carcano. Chapman also noted that “CE 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base . . . where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics.” And Kurtz adds that when the FBI fired an empty shell for comparison purposes, it also contained the dent in the lip and the deep firing pin impression. Kurtz also concluded that CE 543 could not have been fired from the Carcano that day.
Thank you for that information. So we now know the sources of the misinformation and falsehoods you're telling here.

Not one of your sources tested the actual weapon CE139 to see if the lip could be dented upon working the bolt and ejecting the shell. The HSCA firearms panel did that, and duplicated the issue.

Many of the people you cite are well-known known conspiracy buffs, who are apparently more than content to ignore all contrary evidence that establishes when something they are claiming is false.

They all *assumed* the bullet had that dented lip prior to being fired, and working from that assumption, they concluded that shell could not have been fired that day. But the HSCA did the experiment they did not, using the actual weapon, and reproduced similar damage from a shell after firing a test bullet (see the language above).

Their other claims are also all contrary to the findings of the HSCA firearms panel. Josiah Thompson is cited as saying "As Josiah Thompson notes, it also had three identifying marks revealing it had been loaded and extracted from a weapon at least three times before."

Consulting his book, SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS, the source of that is an FBI memo here: https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol26_0243a.htm
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...ol26_0243b.htm

But the language is less strong there than Thompson pretends, only saying that there are additional marks that could be marks from a rifle, not that there are additional marks from a rifle. That memo also notes that many of these marks are very faint, and could not be associated with the CE139 rifle (called the C14 rifle by the FBI). They also note throughout there is only one set of marks on each shell that could be associated with the CE139 rifle. And they didn't have sufficient evidence to associate the other marks with a weapon.

And the HSCA firearms panel noted this in stronger language, " (157) There was no evidence in the form of multiple extractor or ejector marks on the cartridge case to indicate that it was chambered in the rifle more than once. This also applies to cartridge cases CE 544 and CE 545."

Note as well that Oswald is only known to own one rifle, CE139, the assassination weapon found on the sixth floor. So where did these supposed other rifle marks come from? They could be random markings on the shells obtained from handling or even markings from the manufacture process.

You don't know. Thompson doesn't know. You (and Thompson) simply pretend the memo says something it doesn'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; 11th October 2017 at 07:33 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:01 AM   #1778
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You like to play this game where you change the subject to high-velocity bullets when the discussion is about the possibility of a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP. Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone. The area near the EOP and the base of the head is very curved.
Granting the bolded above for the sake of argument, you have presented no evidence that the likely deflection would be downwards, rather than upwards or to either side.

Since we do have a wound of exit (determined to be so by the very autopsy doctors you like to cite when it suits your purposes), then why are you not assuming a deflection upwards and to the right to exit the top right of the head as we can all see on the Zapruder film.

Occam's razor and all that.

Instead, you conjecture a bullet exiting the throat without demonstrating it created an exit wound in the base of the skull, conjecture yet another bullet hitting the head and creating the large wound of exit, and ignore entirely the two large bullet fragments found forward of the President that were traceable to Oswald's rifle - to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world - that could only have come from the bullet that struck JFK in the head.

Your problem is that you want a conspiracy at all costs. If some of those costs are ignoring evidence and proposing falsehoods, it appears you're okay with 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

Last edited by HSienzant; 11th October 2017 at 10:09 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:08 AM   #1779
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If we say for the sake of discussion that the three autopsy doctors actually believed Kennedy's head was only wounded by a single shot from behind, we must remember that this is really an issue of them claiming the shots came from ABOVE and behind. Since a EOP-top-right side of the head connection would have a straight or upwards trajectory, they have no reason to claim the head shot came from above and behind. The obvious reason being that it looks well with the official story.
At the time of the autopsy, there was no official story. The Warren Commission wasn't founded until a week later, by executive order.

The autopsists, however, were aware of reports from Dallas that a gunman was seen in an upper story window of a tall building on the President's route. That is mentioned in the autopsy report. Their report could have confirmed or denied the eyewitness accounts (that's part of the reason we have autopsies, to determine the facts surrounding the death of the victim).

They confirmed those eyewitness accounts. That doesn't show a bias on their part, except when viewed through a conspiracy lens.

You have elsewhere argued for a deflection downward, but never conceded a deflection upwards (which destroys your entire argument above and also offered over hundreds of posts over the past year or more) is even possible.

Is a deflection upwards possible, Micah Java? If not, on what basis do you rule it out?

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:09 AM   #1780
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There's a nice bit of self-refutation here, in two successive posts no less.



So the details of the wound are indicative of the trajectory of the bullet...



...except where the conspiracy theory requires them not to be.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:11 AM   #1781
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You must be confused. You forgot a few important parts.
Pray tell, do elucidate the important parts missing. And how all the parts fit together to confirm your argument.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:16 AM   #1782
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You like to play this game where you change the subject to high-velocity bullets when the discussion is about the possibility of a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP. Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone. The area near the EOP and the base of the head is very curved.
Do show more than the 'possibility' of "a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP". Show the likelihood.

You can start by telling us what evidence there is of a low-velocity weapon being seen in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination.

Or of later being found in Dealey Plaza.

Or of bullets, shells, or fragments of bullets of a low-velocity firearm being found at the scene of the crime, as is true of Oswald's rifle.

The six hard pieces of evidence (1 bullet, 3 shells, or 2 large fragments) all large enough to test all had markings indicating they came from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

Live with 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 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 11th October 2017, 10:19 AM   #1783
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You like to play this game where you change the subject to high-velocity bullets when the discussion is about the possibility of a low-velocity bullet causing the damage to the scalp and skull near the EOP. Also, bullets are highly likely to deflect as soon as it encounters a curved portion of bone. The area near the EOP and the base of the head is very curved.
I'm arguing on behalf of a bullet known to exist.

You are arguing, incorrectly BTW, for a bullet that does not.

There was no low velocity bullet fired. No bullet struck the President below the cerebellum. This is fact.

The 6.5x52mm round cavitated upon entry of the skull due to deflection - something we've covered multiple times - and blew out the top of his head. This bullet is responsible for all of the damage to the 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 Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:21 AM   #1784
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I have a bigger gun.



http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/JLDUNN.TXT

Dr. Leestma is a well-known neuropathologist. Just Google him.
You don't get to use CT sites as proof since they're woo sites.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 10:42 AM   #1785
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
From Reclaiming Parkland:

The Warren Commission labeled one of the shells reportedly found on the sixth floor, CE 543. The problem is that it is a dented shell. As ballistics authority and expert marksman Howard Donahue has said, this dented shell could not have been used to fire a bullet that day. The weapon would not have fired properly. As Josiah Thompson notes, it also had three identifying marks revealing it had been loaded and extracted from a weapon at least three times before. These were not found on the other shells. As Thompson further notes, “Of all the various marks discovered on this case, only one set links it to Oswald’s rifle, and this set was identified as having come from the magazine follower. Yet the magazine follower marks only the last cartridge in the clip. . . .” The last cartridge in the clip was the live round, not this one. Further, the clip contained no fingerprints, and neither did any of the cases.

One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not. Bugliosi solves this problem the same way Gerald Posner did. He says it was dented during firing. He uses Monty Lutz from the HSCA as his authority. But when Mike Griffith asked Howard Donahue about this particular issue, Donahue replied that, “there were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA . . . I have never seen a case dented like this.”

Griffith also communicated with British researcher Chris Mills on this evidentiary point. Mills, who experimented with a Mannlicher Carcano rifle on this issue, said that the only way he achieved this denting effect was by using empty shells, and he had to repeat the experiment sixty times to get the same effect. Mills concluded this could only occur with an empty case that had been previously fired, and then only occasionally.

Author Michael Kurtz noted that the shell “lacks the characteristic indentation on the side made by the firing chamber of Oswald’s rifle.” He then adds that forensic pathologist Forrest Chapman concludes that CE 543 was probably “dry loaded.” Because the dent was too big to support a bullet, it was not fired from the Carcano. Chapman also noted that “CE 543 had a deeper and more concave indentation on its base . . . where the firing pin strikes the case. Only empty cases exhibit such characteristics.” And Kurtz adds that when the FBI fired an empty shell for comparison purposes, it also contained the dent in the lip and the deep firing pin impression. Kurtz also concluded that CE 543 could not have been fired from the Carcano that day.
Howard Donahue wrote a book claiming that a Secret Service M-16A1 killed Kennedy. So now you believe the round was a .556? They're not subsonic.

Josiah Thompson never handled the evidence, and says three shooters were in Dealey Plaza. Thomson wants a conspiracy, and was never concerned with facts at all. Plus, most of his points have been proven untrue in regards to the shell casings.


Mike Griffith is a CTist, nothing more. His other book is about how the "Book of Mormon" is real.

Chris Mills is a CTist, not qualified.

Michael Kurtz is a historian, not a ballistics expert.

The problem with that passage you cut and pasted is that it only makes sense if you're an ignoramus about guns, and blind to CT thinking.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 03:06 PM   #1786
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There's a nice bit of self-refutation here, in two successive posts no less.



So the details of the wound are indicative of the trajectory of the bullet...



...except where the conspiracy theory requires them not to be.

Dave
Dave, do you suspect that a shot entered the back of Kennedy's head near the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head? It's not completely unheard of for LNers to accept the EOP wound and reconcile it with the official story. Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths.

A shooting situation like Dealey Plaza/Sniper's Nest, Strudivan writes, would likely have a 6.5 Carcano round enter near the EOP, about where the occipital lobe meets the cerebellum, that would then deflect sharply upwards towards the occipital lobe. His words, not mine. His book doesn't come close to explaining that distinct possibility. He also agrees that there was a hole on the forehead above the right eye, as an exit for a fragment. How many experts throughout all of the investigations were infatuated with keeping the trajectory completely straight? Were literally all those people scam artists at worst or utterly dismissed best? There's must be a reason why the experts throughout all of history have fundamentally agreed that rounds like the 6.5 Carcano round would stay basically straight upon entering skull bone/tissues.

Last edited by MicahJava; 11th October 2017 at 03:11 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 11th October 2017, 03:21 PM   #1787
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
British researcher Chris Mills likewise has concluded the dented shell could not have been used to fire a bullet during the assassination, as a result of his own experiments with a Carcano rifle. I quote from an e-mail message Mills sent to me on this subject:

Ian Griggs has forwarded a posting which you wrote for the jfk.sharegroup. In this you discuss the dented shell casing.

Ian forwarded this on to me because of my recent experiments with my own Mannlicher Carcano. Quite by accident I recently dented a shell in exactly the same manner as that which is shown in the photographs showing the shell purportedly found on the sixth floor.

My M/C [Mannlicher-Carcano rifle] is deactivated and I was experimenting with empty shells. The very first one produced the dent on the rim. I had to repeat the operation about 60 more times before the results were reproduced.

But the damage was exactly the same. It seems that when using a hull that has previously been fired, the lip of the case expands slightly and can catch on a lip below the barrel opening in the breech. This can ONLY happen with an EMPTY case that has already been fired and even then only occasionally.

This means that at least one of the cartridge cases found on 11.22.63 was NOT fired from that window.

In a subsequent message, Mills elaborated on his statement that one of the cartridge cases found in the sixth-floor sniper's nest could not have been fired from the window:

One of the cases [of the three reportedly removed from the sniper's nest] was found with an inward facing dent on the lip of the casing. This could not have happened before a missile left the shell as the dent would preclude the shell actually holding the bullet. It must have occurred at some time after this particular shell was fired.

Several researchers have tried to duplicate the damage by standing on the case, throwing it against walls, etc., but to no avail. The case cannot be similarly damaged by loading a live round into the chamber either, as it is protected and guided into the breech by the bullet itself.

What I found, by accident, is that similar damage can be caused by loading an empty case into the weapon. It appeared to me that the more times this was attempted, the more likely the damage was to occur. This led me to the apparent conclusion that unless the person in the 6th floor fired the weapon, ejected the shell, picked it up and then reloaded it (a pointless activity, as I'm sure you will agree), this particular case had been fired at some earlier time, then reloaded empty, probably several times. I consider that this is what caused the damage.

This left me wondering why (a) practice with an empty shell case? and (b) why leave an extra case behind?

Question A: At first I thought it may be to practice with the weapon but I guess that would be just as effective without a shell case in. I now think it more likely that the empty case was fed through several times in order that it could be matched (by scratch marks on its surface) to the M/C, whether or not the original bullet was really fired from that weapon.

Which brings me to Question B: As I said in my last letter, if you plant a missile which is supposed to have come from the murder weapon, you must have a shell casing to go with it at the murder scene. If not, more missiles may turn up than cases found. Hence the dumped case, whoever did it being unaware of the damage to its lip.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/id135.htm

Where's your experimental evidence on this subject? Is there any at all besides that one guy from the discredited HSCA claiming that some guy maybe found a dented shell?
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 11th October 2017, 04:17 PM   #1788
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Too bad there aren't any high resolution photos of the shells. Oh wait, there are:

Exhibit 543: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305147

Exhibit 544: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305148

Exhibit 545: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305149

Quote:
One of the cases [of the three reportedly removed from the sniper's nest] was found with an inward facing dent on the lip of the casing.
Apparently not. You have bought into yet another lie. The links to the shell casings are above. 543 has a slight indent in the right, but it's clearly shootable

I'm going to go out on a limb ans suggest that the bullet from 543 might be the one that missed.

Either way, two of Oswald's rounds stuck home so everything you've posted is pointless drivel.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 04:36 PM   #1789
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you suspect that a shot entered the back of Kennedy's head near the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head? It's not completely unheard of for LNers to accept the EOP wound and reconcile it with the official story. Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths.

A shooting situation like Dealey Plaza/Sniper's Nest, Strudivan writes, would likely have a 6.5 Carcano round enter near the EOP, about where the occipital lobe meets the cerebellum, that would then deflect sharply upwards towards the occipital lobe.
He speculates. Strudivan wants to sell a book, nothing more.

This is what he said while under oath:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/hscastur.htm

Quote:
He also agrees that there was a hole on the forehead above the right eye, as an exit for a fragment.
He's not a pathologist.

Quote:
How many experts throughout all of the investigations were infatuated with keeping the trajectory completely straight?
None. Seriously, not one ballistics expert said this. The autopsy and visual evidence doesn't support this.

Quote:
There's must be a reason why the experts throughout all of history have fundamentally agreed that rounds like the 6.5 Carcano round would stay basically straight upon entering skull bone/tissues.
Again you show your lack of research.

Hell, Strudivan presented his research using ballistic gels to depict cavitation and deflection of the 6.5x52mm round...which you clearly haven't read, or don't understand.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:23 PM   #1790
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you suspect that a shot entered the back of Kennedy's head near the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head? It's not completely unheard of for LNers to accept the EOP wound and reconcile it with the official story. Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths.

A shooting situation like Dealey Plaza/Sniper's Nest, Strudivan writes, would likely have a 6.5 Carcano round enter near the EOP, about where the occipital lobe meets the cerebellum, that would then deflect sharply upwards towards the occipital lobe [Did you mean that? - Hank]. His words, not mine. His book doesn't come close to explaining that distinct possibility. He also agrees that there was a hole on the forehead above the right eye, as an exit for a fragment.
Your posts don't come close to explaining your argument for a deflection downwards, as opposed to one to the left, right, or upwards.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
How many experts throughout all of the investigations were infatuated with keeping the trajectory completely straight? Were literally all those people scam artists at worst or utterly dismissed best? There's must be a reason why the experts throughout all of history have fundamentally agreed that rounds like the 6.5 Carcano round would stay basically straight upon entering skull bone/tissues.
Hilarious. Then why were you arguing for a deflection downwards for months on end?

Oh, that's right. An imaginary shooter with an imaginary weapon firing imaginary bullets that do imaginary damage.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 05:34 PM   #1791
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/id135.htm

Where's your experimental evidence on this subject? Is there any at all besides that one guy from the discredited HSCA claiming that some guy maybe found a dented shell?
You quote a conspiracy theorist quoting another conspiracy theorist who says it can't be done.

I cited the HSCA firearms panel which says it was done.

Guess which wins? (No need to guess).

The actual result trumps the argument that it's impossible. It's equally impossible for the Patriots to come from 28-3 down in the Super Bowl last February, but then, here you go:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/...ocid=INSSPBD10

And then, anytime the HSCA concludes anything you don't like, they are "the discredited HSCA".

And you then throw up a strawman argument ("Is there any at all besides that one guy from the discredited HSCA claiming that some guy maybe found a dented shell?")

Please read the statement I cited earlier. It says "the panel", not one guy.

Quote:
Would the dent on the mouth of CE 543, one of the three expended cartridge cases found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, prevent the bullet from being fired in the CE 139 Mannlicher-Careano rifle, or any other rifle? Can it be determined whether these cartridge cases had been chambered on more than one occasion?
(155) Figure 8B shows a dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case which Josiah Thompson, a critic of the Warren Commission, said would prevent CE 543 from being fired in any rifle.(79)
(156) It is the opinion of the panel that the dent on the mouth of the CE 543 cartridge case was produced when the cartridge case was ejected from the rifle. This condition was duplicated during test-firing of the CE 139 rifle by the panel. (See fig. 2.) The dent had nothing to do with loading the bullet during the manufacturing process, nor is it the type of deformation expected if the case were stepped on.
(157) There was no evidence in the form of multiple extractor or ejector marks on the cartridge case to indicate that it was chambered in the rifle more than once. This also applies to cartridge cases CE 544 and CE 545.
You're very predictable. You have no arguments that withstand scrutiny, so ultimately you're stuck with falsehoods, quotes out of context, speculation, conjecture and logical fallacies (like strawman arguments and red herrings).

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; 11th October 2017 at 07:33 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 Back to Top
Old 11th October 2017, 08:31 PM   #1792
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you suspect that a shot entered the back of Kennedy's head near the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head? It's not completely unheard of for LNers to accept the EOP wound and reconcile it with the official story. Larry Sturdivan's 2005 book The JFK Myths.

A shooting situation like Dealey Plaza/Sniper's Nest, Strudivan writes, would likely have a 6.5 Carcano round enter near the EOP, about where the occipital lobe meets the cerebellum, that would then deflect sharply upwards towards the occipital lobe. His words, not mine. His book doesn't come close to explaining that distinct possibility. He also agrees that there was a hole on the forehead above the right eye, as an exit for a fragment. How many experts throughout all of the investigations were infatuated with keeping the trajectory completely straight? Were literally all those people scam artists at worst or utterly dismissed best? There's must be a reason why the experts throughout all of history have fundamentally agreed that rounds like the 6.5 Carcano round would stay basically straight upon entering skull bone/tissues.
Whether or not Mr. Sturdivan believes that the bullet takes a "sharply" up trajectory or not is immaterial because the bullet blew out a large portion of the right frontal lobe, no mystery here, except in CT Land. BTW there was no hole as it wasn't diagrammed or mentioned in the autopsy. So why should we accept anything this guy writes, since he lost on that point.
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 Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 01:32 AM   #1793
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you suspect that a shot entered the back of Kennedy's head near the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head?
No, I believe that you're deliberately obfuscating the actual entry wound location and handwaving away the lack of damage to the cerebellum in order to keep a pointless discussion alive, and that only one bullet struck Kennedy's skull.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 12th October 2017, 01:36 AM   #1794
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Oh, that's right. An imaginary shooter with an imaginary weapon firing imaginary bullets that do imaginary damage.
I think we need to explore this concept of high-tech bullets that leave no trace a bit more. Apparently the one that hit Kennedy bang on the EOP then passed into the base of his neck without leaving any trace or doing any internal damage. I think there's a name for this type of round, and they definitely did exist in 1963; they're called "blanks", and if you shoot somebody with one I understand they leave no residual impression at all. So maybe somebody fired one of these high-tech "blank" rounds at Kennedy while Oswald was firing real bullets at him, and that's why there's no trace of it anywhere.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers 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 12th October 2017, 07:28 AM   #1795
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I think we need to explore this concept of high-tech bullets that leave no trace a bit more. Apparently the one that hit Kennedy bang on the EOP then passed into the base of his neck without leaving any trace or doing any internal damage. I think there's a name for this type of round, and they definitely did exist in 1963; they're called "blanks", and if you shoot somebody with one I understand they leave no residual impression at all. So maybe somebody fired one of these high-tech "blank" rounds at Kennedy while Oswald was firing real bullets at him, and that's why there's no trace of it anywhere.

Dave
Good point, but I think we can therefore eliminate this round as the one in question.

Micah Java thinks his round:

(a) actually caused damage to the back of JFK's head, leaving an entry wound in the EOP (not above the EOP as the autopsy doctors determined);

(b) he thinks that same round then somehow exited the throat (not the top of the head as the autopsy doctors have it);

(c) he thinks another imaginary round struck the President in the top/right side of the head (which is again contrary to what the autopsy doctors determined);

(d) he likewise thinks a bullet exiting the floor of the skull without doing any discernable damage and going on to somehow exit the throat is a realistic option (which is again contrary to what the autopsy doctors determined);

(e) he then says he trusts the autopsy results and we don't.

Which is as bizarre a formulation as you can get regarding the JFK assassination.

He has imaginary shooters shooting imaginary bullets from imaginary locations with an imaginary weapon doing imaginary damage.

And no end in sight to his nonsensical arguments that ignore the evidence.

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; 12th October 2017 at 09:13 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:22 AM   #1796
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
...

And no end in sight to his nonsensical arguments that ignore the evidence.

Hank
I have speculated that he is a troll, nothing more nothing less.
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 Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:43 AM   #1797
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I have speculated that he is a troll, nothing more nothing less.
I'm with you. I am not convinced he's not. I see no good reason to presume he's not a troll.

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

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:14 AM   #1798
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
There's a nice bit of self-refutation here, in two successive posts no less.

So the details of the wound are indicative of the trajectory of the bullet...

...except where the conspiracy theory requires them not to be.

Dave
The projectile that entered near the EOP would have been traveling downwards to begin with.
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 12th October 2017, 10:17 AM   #1799
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Too bad there aren't any high resolution photos of the shells. Oh wait, there are:

Exhibit 543: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305147

Exhibit 544: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305148

Exhibit 545: https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305149



Apparently not. You have bought into yet another lie. The links to the shell casings are above. 543 has a slight indent in the right, but it's clearly shootable

I'm going to go out on a limb ans suggest that the bullet from 543 might be the one that missed.

Either way, two of Oswald's rounds stuck home so everything you've posted is pointless drivel.

Um, you do realize that the live round is supposed to go into the little hole on the top of the shell casing, right? Any defect on the lip of the casing would prevent a round from coming out or going in.
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 12th October 2017, 10:20 AM   #1800
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
You quote a conspiracy theorist quoting another conspiracy theorist who says it can't be done.

I cited the HSCA firearms panel which says it was done.

Guess which wins? (No need to guess).

The actual result trumps the argument that it's impossible. It's equally impossible for the Patriots to come from 28-3 down in the Super Bowl last February, but then, here you go:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/...ocid=INSSPBD10

And then, anytime the HSCA concludes anything you don't like, they are "the discredited HSCA".

And you then throw up a strawman argument ("Is there any at all besides that one guy from the discredited HSCA claiming that some guy maybe found a dented shell?")

Please read the statement I cited earlier. It says "the panel", not one guy.



You're very predictable. You have no arguments that withstand scrutiny, so ultimately you're stuck with falsehoods, quotes out of context, speculation, conjecture and logical fallacies (like strawman arguments and red herrings).

Hank
Oh no, you chose to forget the excerpt I quoted.

Quote:
One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not. Bugliosi solves this problem the same way Gerald Posner did. He says it was dented during firing. He uses Monty Lutz from the HSCA as his authority. But when Mike Griffith asked Howard Donahue about this particular issue, Donahue replied that, “there were no shells dented in that manner by the HSCA . . . I have never seen a case dented like this.”
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
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

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 09:51 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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.