|
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. |
10th October 2017, 08:31 AM | #1761 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
10th October 2017, 08:32 AM | #1762 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
10th October 2017, 08:36 AM | #1763 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
10th October 2017, 05:17 PM | #1764 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
10th October 2017, 05:21 PM | #1765 |
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 |
|
10th October 2017, 05:25 PM | #1766 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
10th October 2017, 11:11 PM | #1767 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
I have a bigger gun.
Quote:
Dr. Leestma is a well-known neuropathologist. Just Google him. |
11th October 2017, 12:32 AM | #1768 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
From Reclaiming Parkland:
Quote:
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". |
11th October 2017, 12:35 AM | #1769 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
11th October 2017, 12:37 AM | #1770 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
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.
|
11th October 2017, 01:04 AM | #1771 |
Illuminator
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.
|
11th October 2017, 01:44 AM | #1772 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 7,173
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 02:04 AM | #1773 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
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). |
|
11th October 2017, 02:07 AM | #1774 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
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). |
|
11th October 2017, 06:31 AM | #1775 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
11th October 2017, 06:40 AM | #1776 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
11th October 2017, 07:30 AM | #1777 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:01 AM | #1778 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:08 AM | #1779 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:09 AM | #1780 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:11 AM | #1781 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:16 AM | #1782 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:19 AM | #1783 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 10:21 AM | #1784 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
11th October 2017, 10:42 AM | #1785 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 03:06 PM | #1786 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
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. |
11th October 2017, 03:21 PM | #1787 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
Quote:
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? |
11th October 2017, 04:17 PM | #1788 |
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:
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 04:36 PM | #1789 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 05:23 PM | #1790 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
Your posts don't come close to explaining your argument for a deflection downwards, as opposed to one to the left, right, or upwards.
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 05:34 PM | #1791 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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:
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 |
|
11th October 2017, 08:31 PM | #1792 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
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.
|
12th October 2017, 01:32 AM | #1793 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
12th October 2017, 01:36 AM | #1794 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 07:28 AM | #1795 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 08:22 AM | #1796 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
|
12th October 2017, 08:43 AM | #1797 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 10:14 AM | #1798 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:17 AM | #1799 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:20 AM | #1800 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|