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 21st October 2017, 10:52 AM   #2121
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
When did they deny doing that? When they said they extended the scalp wounds to examine the cranial content.

Or when the photographers stated that one of the sets of photographs taken was sanitised and partially reconstructed?
When they extended the scalp wounds to examine the cranial content.

From Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Now let me recapitulate as I understand what you said here. One, you arrived at about 8:30 in the evening, give or take a little bit. Two, at the time you arrived you believed that the brain had already been removed.

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. What was the situation that was verbally presented to you at the time you got there? How many gunshot wounds were there there that had been discovered at that time when you walked in the room? What was your briefing, in other words?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I remember what I saw, the wounds I saw.

Dr. PETTY. All right.

Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember.

Dr. PETTY. All right. What wounds did you see when you. first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive you into any corner at all, I just want to know what. wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.

Dr. FINCK. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled, inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that wound as a wound of entry. The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/ lower neck on the right side. In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.

Dr. LOCUVAM. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I don't remember.

Dr. ROSE. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. We would have to refer to the autopsy report.


Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.

Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.

Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?

Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.

Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?

Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.

Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?

Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.


...

Dr. BADEN. Were you present when these color photographs were taken of the head?

Dr. FINCK. I was at least for some of them. I remember positively that a Navy photographer took pictures and I wanted pictures of the crater in particular because this is a positive finding for a wound of entry in the back of the head. So I wanted a picture showing no crater from the outside and a clear-cut crater from the inside, but I don't know.

Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.

Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.

Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.

Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?

Dr. FINCK. I think so.


...

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.

Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.

Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.

Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16, of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to what you believe that could be.

Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?

Mr. PURDY. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?

Mr. PURDY. They are initialed. No. 43 here is a copy made from the original, which is initialed by Dr. Boswell. These were initialed at the time of the review and they were turned over to the Archives. Perhaps it would be appropriate soon to show the X ray which corresponds to this region.

Dr. PETTY. May I ask one other question, perhaps two. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.

Dr. FINCK. Absolutely.

Dr. PETTY. Did you ever see such a photograph?

Dr. FINCK. I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967 when I was recalled from Vietnam. I was asked to look at photographs and as I recall there were two blank 4 by 5 transparencies; in other words, two photographs that had been exposed but with no image and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs.

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.


Dr. PETTY. Did you see the brain?

Dr. FINCK. I saw the brain.



From Finck's 5/24/1996 ARRB deposition:

Q: In the autopsy protocol, copy of which I have shown you before, that wound is identified as being 2-1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

A: Yes.

Q: Is that your recollection of where the entrance wound was?

A: From the record, yes.

Q: In addition to that entrance wound, there was also an exit wound. Do you recall that?

A: [Perusing document] Close to midnight, portions of cranial vault - portions of cranial vault are received from Dallas, Texas, and identified an exit. Yes.

Q: Okay. We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit wound and the entrance wound?

A: No.

Q: Three holes or just two?

A: Two.

Q: And which bone was the entrance wound located in?

A: The occipital bone. It was recorded as occipital. We should refer to the record for that.

Q: Was the entrance wound a hole that perforated the occipital bone, or is it one that split the occipital bone such that there would be,for example, a half circle with part of -

A: No, it perforated, I was able to see a crater from the inside. I said that right here [indicating].


Q: You are referring to Exhibit 28.

A: Right occipital, lacerated occipital corresponds to the wound. "The skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone. On that basis I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance." This is unquestionable.

Q: And so just so I am clear, I understand that you have identified as being beveled but I want to know whether the wound is a circular wound in the sense that the shell, the skull all around the wound is intact, or is part of the adjacent skull blown away from the portion of the entrance wound?

A: It was a perforation of the occipital bone.

Q: In his testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, Dr. Boswell stated that - and his words will speak for themselves, so this is my recharacterization of them - he said that you needed to place a loose piece of fragment back onto the skull before you could identify the full circle for the entrance wound. Is it your current recollection that Dr. Boswell would be mistaken in that regard?

A: You are referring to the wound of entrance?

Q: Wound of entrance.

A: I don't remember. I don't know what you are saying. I have a clear picture of that wound of entrance. I don't understand what you said about the wound of entrance. I have to do what with the wound of entrance?

Q: That in order to see the full circle of the wound of entrance, you would need to put a piece of skull fragment back into place in order to identify the full circle for the entrance.

A: I don't remember that.
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 21st October 2017, 10:52 AM   #2122
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Incoherent.

The EOP wound was low enough in the back of the head to not be separated from the skull during the brain removal procedure.
Which, again, given what the autopsy actually says, is a good indication the wound was not as low as you claim.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 10:55 AM   #2123
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Incoherent.

The EOP wound was low enough in the back of the head to not be separated from the skull during the brain removal procedure.
And back to begging the question about the location of the wound as well as the procedures done at autopsy.

Repeating your beliefs doesn't make them more true.

And if you need anything spelled out to you in greater detail, let me know what it is, specifically. Calling something "incoherent" doesn't provide enough detail to determine where you got lost.

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 21st October 2017, 10:55 AM   #2124
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
When a bullet passes through a medium such as tissue, or brain matter, the displacement of matter ahead of the bullet, just like the bow wave ahead of a ship, causes trauma far beyond the diameter of the bullet.

In the case of the JFK assassination, we know, from descriptions of damage to the brain, that the bullet entered at the point you keep calling "the cowlick", and caused massive trauma, ahead of the bullet's passage, that exploded out of the side of his head.

You keep claiming that the bullet entered lower, and travelled downwards.

You seem not to grasp that areas of the brain you claim were undamaged, should have been effected by the trauma wave, ahead of the bullet, as it passed downwards.

The bullet missing them is not, and has not been, the point, but you refuse to address or explain this anomaly.

How can the bullet pass downwards, without causing trauma to the lower reaches of the brain?

It makes no sense. You can try and deflect, by talking about skull fractures, and the like, but sooner, or later, you are either going to have to address the trauma issue, or stop pretending you are the one who knows what they are talking about with respect to the wound.
You are speaking of something that mostly occurs with supersonic bullets. If a supersonic bullet had entered the EOP area, it most likely would have exited the face. But it's your job to try to confuse people rather than having a discussion like a normal human being.
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 21st October 2017, 11:00 AM   #2125
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"Fracture" in this case means any break in the skull bone caused by the bullet.
Really?

You mean an exit wound in the base of the the skull would be called a fracture, and not something more specific, like, umm, 'an exit wound'?

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 21st October 2017, 11:01 AM   #2126
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are speaking of something that mostly occurs with supersonic bullets. If a supersonic bullet had entered the EOP area, it most likely would have exited the face. But it's your job to try to confuse people rather than having a discussion like a normal human being.
Why would the path differ so greatly?

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 21st October 2017, 11:04 AM   #2127
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Which, again, given what the autopsy actually says, is a good indication the wound was not as low as you claim.
The autopsy report concluded that Kennedy was wounded by two shots fired from "above and behind". Since the back wound is anatomically lower than the throat wound, and the entry wound in the head they remember was much lower than the purported corresponding "exit", there is literally no basis for claiming they were fired from above. In Dr. Humes' Warren Commission drawings, he simply raised the back wound and had Kennedy's head leaning over to a degree much farther than shown on the Zapruder film.

You can not use the "above and behind" passage from the autopsy report as evidence for the cowlick entry wound. How often has one of the autopsy doctors sworn that they did not think evidence was manipulated, then go on provide statements suggesting that it was? You're expecting consistency with people who probably have skeletons in their closet. The one thing I know the autopsy doctors have always been consistent on is the location for the small wound in the back of the head.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 11:04 AM   #2128
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
When they extended the scalp wounds to examine the cranial content.

From Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:
Er... so, as evidence you are offering somebody stating they can't remember?

Quote:
Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.

Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.

Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.

Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?

Dr. FINCK. I think so.

I'm not convinced this supports your personal analysis of what is, or is not, in the photographs, and frankly, there are more obvious solutions than a conspiracy.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:05 AM   #2129
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Why would the path differ so greatly?

Hank
Subsonic bullets sharply deflect upon hitting bone more often than supersonic bullets.
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 21st October 2017, 11:06 AM   #2130
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are speaking of something that mostly occurs with supersonic bullets. If a supersonic bullet had entered the EOP area, it most likely would have exited the face. But it's your job to try to confuse people rather than having a discussion like a normal human being.
Speculation on your part. What are your credentials as to ballistic trajectories.
Another logical fallacy.
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 21st October 2017, 11:08 AM   #2131
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
When they extended the scalp wounds to examine the cranial content.

From Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Now let me recapitulate as I understand what you said here. One, you arrived at about 8:30 in the evening, give or take a little bit. Two, at the time you arrived you believed that the brain had already been removed.

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. What was the situation that was verbally presented to you at the time you got there? How many gunshot wounds were there there that had been discovered at that time when you walked in the room? What was your briefing, in other words?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I remember what I saw, the wounds I saw.

Dr. PETTY. All right.

Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember.

Dr. PETTY. All right. What wounds did you see when you. first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive you into any corner at all, I just want to know what. wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.

Dr. FINCK. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled, inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that wound as a wound of entry. The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/ lower neck on the right side. In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.

Dr. LOCUVAM. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I don't remember.

Dr. ROSE. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. We would have to refer to the autopsy report.


Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.

Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.

Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?

Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.

Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?

Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.

Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?

Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.


...

Dr. BADEN. Were you present when these color photographs were taken of the head?

Dr. FINCK. I was at least for some of them. I remember positively that a Navy photographer took pictures and I wanted pictures of the crater in particular because this is a positive finding for a wound of entry in the back of the head. So I wanted a picture showing no crater from the outside and a clear-cut crater from the inside, but I don't know.

Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.

Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.

Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.

Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.

Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?

Dr. FINCK. I think so.


...

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.

Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.

Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.

Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.

Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16, of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to what you believe that could be.

Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?

Mr. PURDY. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?

Mr. PURDY. They are initialed. No. 43 here is a copy made from the original, which is initialed by Dr. Boswell. These were initialed at the time of the review and they were turned over to the Archives. Perhaps it would be appropriate soon to show the X ray which corresponds to this region.

Dr. PETTY. May I ask one other question, perhaps two. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.

Dr. FINCK. Absolutely.

Dr. PETTY. Did you ever see such a photograph?

Dr. FINCK. I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967 when I was recalled from Vietnam. I was asked to look at photographs and as I recall there were two blank 4 by 5 transparencies; in other words, two photographs that had been exposed but with no image and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs.

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.


Dr. PETTY. Did you see the brain?

Dr. FINCK. I saw the brain.



From Finck's 5/24/1996 ARRB deposition:

Q: In the autopsy protocol, copy of which I have shown you before, that wound is identified as being 2-1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.

A: Yes.

Q: Is that your recollection of where the entrance wound was?

A: From the record, yes.

Q: In addition to that entrance wound, there was also an exit wound. Do you recall that?

A: [Perusing document] Close to midnight, portions of cranial vault - portions of cranial vault are received from Dallas, Texas, and identified an exit. Yes.

Q: Okay. We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit wound and the entrance wound?

A: No.

Q: Three holes or just two?

A: Two.

Q: And which bone was the entrance wound located in?

A: The occipital bone. It was recorded as occipital. We should refer to the record for that.

Q: Was the entrance wound a hole that perforated the occipital bone, or is it one that split the occipital bone such that there would be,for example, a half circle with part of -

A: No, it perforated, I was able to see a crater from the inside. I said that right here [indicating].


Q: You are referring to Exhibit 28.

A: Right occipital, lacerated occipital corresponds to the wound. "The skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone. On that basis I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance." This is unquestionable.

Q: And so just so I am clear, I understand that you have identified as being beveled but I want to know whether the wound is a circular wound in the sense that the shell, the skull all around the wound is intact, or is part of the adjacent skull blown away from the portion of the entrance wound?

A: It was a perforation of the occipital bone.

Q: In his testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, Dr. Boswell stated that - and his words will speak for themselves, so this is my recharacterization of them - he said that you needed to place a loose piece of fragment back onto the skull before you could identify the full circle for the entrance wound. Is it your current recollection that Dr. Boswell would be mistaken in that regard?

A: You are referring to the wound of entrance?

Q: Wound of entrance.

A: I don't remember. I don't know what you are saying. I have a clear picture of that wound of entrance. I don't understand what you said about the wound of entrance. I have to do what with the wound of entrance?

Q: That in order to see the full circle of the wound of entrance, you would need to put a piece of skull fragment back into place in order to identify the full circle for the entrance.

A: I don't remember that.
Now tell us what parts confirm your views. Everything above matches mine.
__________________
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 21st October 2017, 11:11 AM   #2132
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Er... so, as evidence you are offering somebody stating they can't remember?
That is a sign of a good witness, when they can tell what they can or can not accurately remember from a long time ago. That's taking the innocent interpretation.

Quote:
I'm not convinced this supports your personal analysis of what is, or is not, in the photographs, and frankly, there are more obvious solutions than a conspiracy.
Are you referring to the photographs seen by Saundra Spencer? The only ones of the skull she saw was the hole in the occipital bone made by the reconstructive surgery. She was shown the autopsy skull photographs and denied recognizing seeing them.
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 21st October 2017, 11:13 AM   #2133
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are speaking of something that mostly occurs with supersonic bullets. If a supersonic bullet had entered the EOP area, it most likely would have exited the face. But it's your job to try to confuse people rather than having a discussion like a normal human being.
I'm sorry if you find the conversation confusing, but I'm going to have to say that I am going to be surprised if any bullet fails to cause trauma when passing through a viscous medium, such as brain tissue.

Obviously characteristics, like the weight, and shape, yaw or pitch, might change the pattern of trauma we expect, and narrow or expand it, but to pretend a bullet can push through a skull (pushing skull matter ahead of it) into something viscous, and not displace matter at all, is frankly silly.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:18 AM   #2134
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That is a sign of a good witness, when they can tell what they can or can not accurately remember from a long time ago. That's taking the innocent interpretation.

Yes. It is. And perhaps you should stop and think why that is not going to convince us of YOUR theories.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:20 AM   #2135
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Now tell us what parts confirm your views. Everything above matches mine.
Just give the brain room to breath and you're in EOP country.
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 21st October 2017, 11:22 AM   #2136
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Are you referring to the photographs seen by Saundra Spencer? The only ones of the skull she saw was the hole in the occipital bone made by the reconstructive surgery. She was shown the autopsy skull photographs and denied recognizing seeing them.
You do realise this makes it more likely that you have no idea where in the sequence your preferred image belongs, and if it is, or is not, before reconstruction?

I think honest confusion over sequencing is a more likely solution to the anomalies you want to make into a big issue, than deliberate conspiracy.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:24 AM   #2137
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Just give the brain room to breath and you're in EOP country.
Could you try rephrasing this so it makes some kind of sense please?
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:26 AM   #2138
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
You do realise this makes it more likely that you have no idea where in the sequence your preferred image belongs, and if it is, or is not, before reconstruction?

I think honest confusion over sequencing is a more likely solution to the anomalies you want to make into a big issue, than deliberate conspiracy.
The skull photographs in evidence today match the autopsy doctors' recollections of when they were taken. There are just missing close-up shots of the outer and inner surface of the EOP wound in the skull.
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 21st October 2017, 11:32 AM   #2139
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The skull photographs in evidence today match the autopsy doctors' recollections of when they were taken. There are just missing close-up shots of the outer and inner surface of the EOP wound in the skull.
Oh good.

Then, unless more images are released in the coming weeks that offer significantly different data, I think most people here will have no issue in deciding you are wrong about the entry wound being on or beneath the EOP, deflecting downwards, or causing an exit wound in the throat.

If you agree the photographs match the autopsy doctors, then, I doubt you have any evidence that will convince us of anything other than the causes they testified to the WC, or for anything that needs a silenced weapon to explain.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:36 AM   #2140
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Let's just be clear:
The problem Micha Java is going to face, is that he keeps saying stuff matches the autopsy, or the doctors, etc. As these clearly disagree with his own theory (and keep being shown to be in disagreement with his conclusions, ad nauseum), the best he can hope to convince anybody of, on the sliding scale of probabilities is: "An interesting outlaying possibility, but far less probable than the received conclusions of the autopsy, and WC".
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 11:39 AM   #2141
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG 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 21st October 2017, 11:43 AM   #2142
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
I thought this had been decided a long time ago, is this just a manner of showmanship?
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 21st October 2017, 11:44 AM   #2143
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Subsonic bullets sharply deflect upon hitting bone more often than supersonic bullets.
Did you one CT source tell you yet what a "gun" is? So far, you've shown zero knowledge of one so your opinion is worthless on this subject also.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 11:46 AM   #2144
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report concluded that Kennedy was wounded by two shots fired from "above and behind". Since the back wound is anatomically lower than the throat wound, and the entry wound in the head they remember was much lower than the purported corresponding "exit", there is literally no basis for claiming they were fired from above. In Dr. Humes' Warren Commission drawings, he simply raised the back wound and had Kennedy's head leaning over to a degree much farther than shown on the Zapruder film.

You can not use the "above and behind" passage from the autopsy report as evidence for the cowlick entry wound. How often has one of the autopsy doctors sworn that they did not think evidence was manipulated, then go on provide statements suggesting that it was? You're expecting consistency with people who probably have skeletons in their closet. The one thing I know the autopsy doctors have always been consistent on is the location for the small wound in the back of the head.
You have yet to prove that the back wound is "below" the throat wound. Saying it is proven without evidence is begging the question.
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 21st October 2017, 11:50 AM   #2145
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
As I've been accused of confusing people, let's try and cut this all back to make it as simple as possible, and clear away the confusion.

The received view is this:

LHO shot three times from the sniper's nest in the TSBD and two shots hit JFK. One passed through JFK's back and exited his throat, hitting somebody sitting in the same car.
The other shot hit JFK in the back of the head, and caused the explosive ejecta.

The alternate theory seems to be changeable, but suggests LHO hit JFK lower down in the head, on or beneath the EOP (as opposed to slightly above it- or slightly higher above it than Micha considers "slightly"), that exited through the throat.
There was another head shot from a silenced weapon, from an unknown shooter, in an unknown location.

The reasons posters here seem to be discounting the alternate theory are as follows:
*The autopsy places the bullet hole slightly higher.
*We seem to have photographs of that wound.
*The testimony describes this wound placing.
*There seems to be no basis to the sub-claim "The brain would have to be removed through a five inch hole".
*Micha Java claims that the damage to the brain is impossible, but ONLY from his interpretation of the entry point of the head wound. The brain damage described makes perfect sense by considering the entry point in the generally accepted location, the one the WC identifies.

And that is the rub.

None of the issues that "prove" another (silenced) headshot are impossible, or contradictory, if one simply adjusts the entry location point to the received wisdom of the WC. There is no controversy, unless you first distort your view to the alternate entry point.

It seems to me, as I have stated before, these should be reasons to reconsider the accuracy of Micha's interpretation of the autopsy, before they are reasons to consider a conspiracy.

I don't see that as complicated, or confusing the issue. I don't see it as preventing conversation.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 11:52 AM   #2146
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
But will the files tell us Ted Cruz was any part of it?
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 12:04 PM   #2147
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
But will the files tell us Ted Cruz was any part of it?
Highly unlikely as he was not born yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
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 21st October 2017, 12:07 PM   #2148
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Highly unlikely as he was not born yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Cruz
Yes, sorry, my post was a very poor attempt at humour, recalling that on the campaign trail Trump stated he believed the conspiracy theories about Cruz's father, which just happened to reflect badly upon Cruz personally.

I won't pretend it was in any way a good joke.
__________________
@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 21st October 2017, 12:08 PM   #2149
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
Yes, sorry, my post was a very poor attempt at humour, recalling that on the campaign trail Trump stated he believed the conspiracy theories about Cruz's father, which just happened to reflect badly upon Cruz personally.

I won't pretend it was in any way a good joke.
No blood no foul
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 21st October 2017, 12:37 PM   #2150
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
As I've been accused of confusing people, let's try and cut this all back to make it as simple as possible, and clear away the confusion.

The received view is this:

LHO shot three times from the sniper's nest in the TSBD and two shots hit JFK. One passed through JFK's back and exited his throat, hitting somebody sitting in the same car.
The other shot hit JFK in the back of the head, and caused the explosive ejecta.

The alternate theory seems to be changeable, but suggests LHO hit JFK lower down in the head, on or beneath the EOP (as opposed to slightly above it- or slightly higher above it than Micha considers "slightly"), that exited through the throat.
There was another head shot from a silenced weapon, from an unknown shooter, in an unknown location.

The reasons posters here seem to be discounting the alternate theory are as follows:
*The autopsy places the bullet hole slightly higher.
*We seem to have photographs of that wound.
*The testimony describes this wound placing.
*There seems to be no basis to the sub-claim "The brain would have to be removed through a five inch hole".
*Micha Java claims that the damage to the brain is impossible, but ONLY from his interpretation of the entry point of the head wound. The brain damage described makes perfect sense by considering the entry point in the generally accepted location, the one the WC identifies.

And that is the rub.

None of the issues that "prove" another (silenced) headshot are impossible, or contradictory, if one simply adjusts the entry location point to the received wisdom of the WC. There is no controversy, unless you first distort your view to the alternate entry point.

It seems to me, as I have stated before, these should be reasons to reconsider the accuracy of Micha's interpretation of the autopsy, before they are reasons to consider a conspiracy.

I don't see that as complicated, or confusing the issue. I don't see it as preventing conversation.
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:29 AM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 12:41 PM   #2151
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
And what in my post did you take issue with?
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:30 AM.
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 21st October 2017, 12:54 PM   #2152
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Edited by kmortis:  Removed response to previously moderated content.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:30 AM.
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 21st October 2017, 01:19 PM   #2153
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
[quote=MicahJava;12043608]
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Hilariously wrong, on both accounts.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:31 AM.
LSSBB 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 21st October 2017, 01:20 PM   #2154
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
Riggghhhtt, as Hank continually re-posts identical comments made by you six months ago.

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:31 AM.
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 21st October 2017, 03:15 PM   #2155
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Edited by kmortis:  Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
Edited by kmortis:  Removed response to previously moderated content

Last edited by kmortis; 23rd October 2017 at 09:31 AM.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st October 2017, 04:09 PM   #2156
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Quote:
Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?

Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.

Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?

Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.

Just quoting this to show MJ's master research skills.
__________________
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 21st October 2017, 04:13 PM   #2157
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are speaking of something that mostly occurs with supersonic bullets. If a supersonic bullet had entered the EOP area, it most likely would have exited the face. But it's your job to try to confuse people rather than having a discussion like a normal human being.
You're like the anti-Larry Vickers.
__________________
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 21st October 2017, 04:29 PM   #2158
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Subsonic bullets sharply deflect upon hitting bone more often than supersonic bullets.
Do they?
__________________
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 21st October 2017, 04:43 PM   #2159
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report concluded that Kennedy was wounded by two shots fired from "above and behind".
Which is correct.


Quote:
Since the back wound is anatomically lower than the throat wound,
You just wrote that supersonic bullets deflect, but now they don't?


Quote:
and the entry wound in the head they remember was much lower than the purported corresponding "exit", there is literally no basis for claiming they were fired from above.
Except for the science of ballistics...no, no basis whatsoever.


Quote:
In Dr. Humes' Warren Commission drawings, he simply raised the back wound and had Kennedy's head leaning over to a degree much farther than shown on the Zapruder film.
He's leaning over hard.

Quote:
How often has one of the autopsy doctors sworn that they did not think evidence was manipulated, then go on provide statements suggesting that it was?
None. Humes never said that.

Quote:
You're expecting consistency with people who probably have skeletons in their closet.
List them.
__________________
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 21st October 2017, 04:46 PM   #2160
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
That is a sign of a good witness, when they can tell what they can or can not accurately remember from a long time ago. That's taking the innocent interpretation.
How about you wait until your 20-year high school reunion, and then tell us how good your memory is.
__________________
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
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 07:17 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.