ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

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


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

Reply
Old 12th October 2017, 10:23 AM   #1801
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
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
The most overlooked part of the forensics is the evidence of internal damage from the base of head to the lower neck areas. I was hoping you would be familiar with it, since I've listed the evidence several times.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:26 AM   #1802
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
See how desperate Hank is to lie and shield the truth from truly honest people. He wants you to think I'm ignoring the passage of autopsy report that said "slightly above the external occipital protuberance", when I did not argue that it was lower. He wants you to think "slightly above" means "four inches above, nowhere near the external occipital protuberance, not even in the occipital bone". Put it this way: The wound was low enough in the head to remain intact after the top of the skull had been opened up to facilitate removal of the brain. That's what Dr. Finck always said.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:27 AM   #1803
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
You seem to be saying that the shell was probably dented during or after ejection. Well done!
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:28 AM   #1804
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
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
Do you have a reason for thinking a bullet could not have entered near the EOP and traveled below the cerebellum?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:29 AM   #1805
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
You seem to be saying that the shell was probably dented during or after ejection. Well done!
It's about a 1 out of 60 chance to have the shell dented like that while ejecting them empty.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:29 AM   #1806
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The most overlooked part of the forensics is the evidence of internal damage from the base of head to the lower neck areas. I was hoping you would be familiar with it, since I've listed the evidence several times.
Where did the shot come from? Doesn't your one CT website tell you what to think about that?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:31 AM   #1807
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's about a 1 out of 60 chance to have the shell dented like that while ejecting them empty.
Awesome! You've proven your case that a bullet came out of it before LHO ejected it. Your one CT website will be so disappointed in you.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:37 AM   #1808
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Awesome! You've proven your case that a bullet came out of it before LHO ejected it. Your one CT website will be so disappointed in you.

I knew you had trouble reading. It's a 1 out of 60 chance if you load the already-empty shell casings and eject 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:42 AM   #1809
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.”
No, I covered all this above.

But let's address those points in greater detail.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
One of the things Thompson did was to test whether CE 543 could have been dented when it was discharged. It could not.
I pointed out Thompson didn't test the actual weapon, but another similar model.

How does one prove a negative? Thompson is saying he did that -- based on what? Ten tests? Twenty? What if it occurs once in a hundred trials? How many tests did Thompson actually do, and how did he determine that was sufficient to rule out the damage as being possible? Can you cite the numbers and how Thompson determined his testing was adequate to rule it out as ever occurring?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
I don't recall anything of the sort. Neither man is quoted. Nor do you reference any page numbers in either book. This could be nothing more than a misunderstanding at best or, at worst, a deliberate strawman argument advanced merely to put the argument away. Please quote the precise words of Bugliosi and Posner where they argued for the bullet shell being damaged upon firing, not upon ejection.

The HSCA firearms panel, of which Lutz was a member, determined the shell was damaged upon ejection, and claimed to duplicate the problem. Bugliosi or Posner citing Monty Lutz is therefore citing an firearms expert. Lutz' testimony would be allowed in court. And Bugliosi's and/or Posner's citing of Lutz' claim is therefore allowed.

Here's how Bugliosi quoted Donald Champagne's testimony (another one of the five HSCA firearms experts). See page 928 of RECLAIMING HISTORY:
Question: Are you saying then when your panel test-fired CE139 (Oswald's rifle), out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?
Answer: Yes sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon.


It's clear the argument you quote above is just a strawman argument. Bugliosi not only didn't say it happened in firing the weapon, but in ejecting the bullet, and he quoted the firearms expert directly saying that. And it was Champagne, not Lutz, that Bugliosi quoted.

So that's how trustworthy your source is. NOT AT ALL TRUSTWORTHY. They are lying to you by claiming Posner and Bugliosi said something they apparently never said, and in passing on their false claims here, without any independent verification of their claims by you, you are at least as guilty.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.”
Donahue has his own theory about the assassination, which contradicts the HSCA's theory. He had every reason to belittle the findings of the HSCA which contradict his own.

Moreover, Mike Griffith is a long-time conspiracy theorist, as is the author of the book you cite (Jim DiEugenio). A conspiracy theorist (you) quoting a conspiracy theorist (DiEugenio) quoting a conspiracy theorist (Griffith) quoting a man with a different theory (Donahue) is hardly getting to the source.

Quote Donahue's testimony directly, as Buliosi quoted Champagne's. Not what Griffith says he said (that's hearsay). Not what DiEugenio says Griffith says Donahue said (that's likewise hearsay).

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th October 2017 at 11:04 AM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 10:44 AM   #1810
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's about a 1 out of 60 chance to have the shell dented like that while ejecting them empty.
And 0 chance of being dented prior to firing. See how snug the fit is of a bullet in a firing chamber?

http://www.orions-hammer.com/blowback/

Figure 1-2

So the 1 in 60, if that is correct is infinitely larger than 0. Yep the bullet was ejected from the rifle after firing.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:18 AM   #1811
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I knew you had trouble reading. It's a 1 out of 60 chance if you load the already-empty shell casings and eject them.
No, you had trouble writing. You have corrected your mistake so I forgive you. Oddly, I've found dented empty casings at the gun range a LOT. Why do you suppose that is? Do you yet know what a gun is?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:19 AM   #1812
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have a reason for thinking a bullet could not have entered near the EOP and traveled below the cerebellum?
Did your one CT website tell you what to think about where the bullet came from yet?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:38 AM   #1813
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 7,402
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Not if the casing was dented after the round was fired. Actually, it would be difficult to dent the casing when the bullet is inside it, and it wouldn't necessarily prevent the round from firing.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 11:57 AM   #1814
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,238
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have a reason for thinking a bullet could not have entered near the EOP and traveled below the cerebellum?
1) The only bullet hole in the skull is the one you call the "Cowlick"
2) There is no way of the bullet entering where you say without the trauma damaging the cerebellum.
3) The damage to the base of the skull is not compatible with this.
4) There is no evidence of damage to the neck or spine, compatible with this.
5) The "Cowlick" is a complete wound, not only an entry, but a trauma path and exit.
6) No pathologist engaged in the autopsy, or official reviews, went on record to describe the wound you imagine to be proving.
7) It is clearly utter rubbish.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:08 PM   #1815
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Oh cool, so you know when it was dented, and you know exactly how and went it was dented? You have the paper-trail for that batch of ammo from the factory in Italy, to it's sale and import to the US? You can confirm that this shell casing was in good working order on 11/21/63?

It is quite possible that Oswald fired the shot with the dented round, and it jammed his rifle, and the dent came when he cleared the shell. I realize you have no idea what I just said, which is why you spend a day at a shooting range.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:10 PM   #1816
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The most overlooked part of the forensics is the evidence of internal damage from the base of head to the lower neck areas. I was hoping you would be familiar with it, since I've listed the evidence several times.
There is no independent evidence, just statements made by CTists.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:11 PM   #1817
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Put it this way: The wound was low enough in the head to remain intact after the top of the skull had been opened up to facilitate removal of the brain. That's what Dr. Finck always said.
And you clearly do not understand any of the autopsy in total.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:14 PM   #1818
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have a reason for thinking a bullet could not have entered near the EOP and traveled below the cerebellum?
Lack of eye-witness testimony.
Lack of visual evidence in any of the films shot in Dealey Plaza.
Lack such a wound found at Parkland
Lack of evidence of such a wound found during the autopsy.
Laws of physics.
Laws of ballistics
Commons sense based on the evidence above.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:20 PM   #1819
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's about a 1 out of 60 chance to have the shell dented like that while ejecting them empty.
You based that on what?

Do you own a Carcano? If so, how often do you shoot? Carcano rounds are almost $1 a piece, you must be going broke with your exhaustive research.

You must understand who the Carcano was designed for, right? Italian conscripts, 17 - 20 year-olds with no firearms experience. It's a battle rifle to be used in the mud, snow, dirt, and desert sands of the Italian colonial territories. It had to be cheap, it had to be easy to use, and it had to work when you needed it too. You can still find Carcanos in African countries today for this reason.

The Carcano was not a finicky weapon. Mostly point and shoot.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:51 PM   #1820
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And you clearly do not understand any of the autopsy in total.
Actually, I think I have a firmer grasp on the autopsy evidence than most. Anybody who tosses an insult to the reality of a small wound near the external occipital protuberance always ignores evidence. Bumper sticker memes don't work for debate on forensic science, sorry.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 12:53 PM   #1821
Jean Davison
New Blood
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 4
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's about a 1 out of 60 chance to have the shell dented like that while ejecting them empty.
What's your source for that please? Dents in ejected rifle shells are apparently quite common. Do a Google search for: dented brass ejection. Click on Images to see a whole bunch of CE543 look-alikes.

Add the word Zimmerman to the search and click ALL to bring up an illustrated article by someone who tested a Carcano like Oswald's and got numerous dents in ejected shells. Another researcher, Todd W. Vaughan had a similar experience with his Carcano (c. 1 in 4 of his ejected casings were dented).

Only conspiracy sources seem to find CE543 unusual or suspicious. Which ought to tell you something.
Jean Davison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 01:02 PM   #1822
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
I love Hank's hearsay accusation. A guy from the HSCA claiming that some other guy- who is unnamed- might have recreated the dent in CE543 by normal firing and ejecting, versus a researcher who performed actual experiments testing this issue out.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 01:05 PM   #1823
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by Jean Davison View Post
What's your source for that please? Dents in ejected rifle shells are apparently quite common. Do a Google search for: dented brass ejection. Click on Images to see a whole bunch of CE543 look-alikes.

Add the word Zimmerman to the search and click ALL to bring up an illustrated article by someone who tested a Carcano like Oswald's and got numerous dents in ejected shells. Another researcher, Todd W. Vaughan had a similar experience with his Carcano (c. 1 in 4 of his ejected casings were dented).

Only conspiracy sources seem to find CE543 unusual or suspicious. Which ought to tell you something.
1. Failure to move your eyeballs up to see my source that I already posted.

2. Failure to stick to the subject of 6.5 Carcano rounds fired through CE139.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 01:07 PM   #1824
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I love Hank's hearsay accusation. A guy from the HSCA claiming that some other guy- who is unnamed- might have recreated the dent in CE543 by normal firing and ejecting, versus a researcher who performed actual experiments testing this issue out.
What did your actual research uncover about dented spent casings? Not what your one CT website told you to think.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:14 PM   #1825
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
What did your actual research uncover about dented spent casings? Not what your one CT website told you to think.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1787
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:17 PM   #1826
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,985
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
I have speculated that he is a troll, nothing more nothing less.
Not an unreasonable assumption given his sudden appearance in 911 crankery.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:18 PM   #1827
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you feel duped since he's been shown to be wrong and you didn't know it because you didn't do your own research?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:21 PM   #1828
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Do you feel duped since he's been shown to be wrong and you didn't know it because you didn't do your own research?
Are you a bot?
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:23 PM   #1829
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Are you a bot?
Answer the questions asked. Do you feel duped by your CT source since they're using you and giving you wrong information which you dutifully parrot?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:31 PM   #1830
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,268
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Answer the questions asked. Do you feel duped by your CT source since they're using you and giving you wrong information which you dutifully parrot?
Why do you think the dented lip on CE543 is nothing to worry about? I think you skipped the part where you present an argument with evidence.

Last edited by MicahJava; 12th October 2017 at 02:34 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:34 PM   #1831
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Prosperity, AZ
Posts: 28,142
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you think the dented lip on 543 is nothing to worry about? I think you skipped the part where you present an argument with evidence.
Answer the questions asked. Do you feel like you've been duped by your CT source since they've been shown to be wrong and didn't let you in on it? Didn't you know? Really? Makes you want to do your own research, doesn't it, rather than simply parroting your CT source?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 02:44 PM   #1832
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,780
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What you think you are:



What you actually are:

This is odd.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 07:55 PM   #1833
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Actually, I think I have a firmer grasp on the autopsy evidence than most. Anybody who tosses an insult to the reality of a small wound near the external occipital protuberance always ignores evidence. Bumper sticker memes don't work for debate on forensic science, sorry.
No, you're lack of understanding pathology somehow dwarfs your lack of understanding ballistics.

The wound is "situated on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance". Nobody's saying it's 4 inches higher because that would put the entry wound in the dashboard of the Lincoln. 2 inches in any direction from the stated Autopsy entry point is well within the margin of error for the 6th floor.

There is no second head wound.

Your source is a quote from one conspiracy loon quote two other conspiracy loons. How is this objective in any way?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 07:57 PM   #1834
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you think the dented lip on CE543 is nothing to worry about? I think you skipped the part where you present an argument with evidence.
I posted the spent shell casing. The photograph doesn't show anything like the loonies suggest as far as dented lips.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 08:26 PM   #1835
Axxman300
Master Poster
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 2,193
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. Failure to move your eyeballs up to see my source that I already posted.

2. Failure to stick to the subject of 6.5 Carcano rounds fired through CE139.
Your CT source quoting other CTists.

Two guys who regularly shoot just told you you're wrong.

I posted high resolution photos of the actual shells, and the so-called dent is not a factor even if it was dented before he fired.

What Jean Davison is requesting is an independent source. There are more gun/shooter websites than porn sites on the web. Go see what they say.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:30 PM   #1836
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
See how desperate Hank is to lie and shield the truth from truly honest people. He wants you to think I'm ignoring the passage of autopsy report that said "slightly above the external occipital protuberance", when I did not argue that it was lower.
Except when you did cite Humes recollection that the wound was at the bottom of the hairline -- well below the EOP:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1680
You wrote this:
Quote:
Both Boswell and Humes have said at one point that the small wound could be by that white spot, because all they had to see were the BOH photos. Boswell is probably correct in saying that the wound wasn't that low, but he also explicitly says that the red spot isn't the wound and it's too high.
I didn't lie. I took you at your word. Was that a mistake? Or do just not remember what you said 13 months ago? That wouldn't be a problem if you had a consistent argument. All your claims would not then contradict each other.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
He wants you to think "slightly above" means "four inches above, nowhere near the external occipital protuberance, not even in the occipital bone".
Please cite where I ever said that. My point is you want everyone to think "slightly above" means at the EOP or below, and it's never meant that.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Put it this way: The wound was low enough in the head to remain intact after the top of the skull had been opened up to facilitate removal of the brain. That's what Dr. Finck always said.
The wound could be anywhere on the head and that would be true. As both Finck and Humes noted, the cuts made to facilitate removal of the brain consisted of cuts in the scalp only. They did not need to cut any bone. You're simply assuming what you need to prove.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th October 2017 at 10:05 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:36 PM   #1837
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Do you have a reason for thinking a bullet could not have entered near the EOP and traveled below the cerebellum?
1. Do the doctors mention any damage from a bullet below the cerebellum?
2. Your theory includes the bullet exiting the throat after entering at or below the EOP. Please explain how a bullet can exit the throat without causing a bullet wound in the base of the skull.
3. Your theory has JFK being shot through the brain about five seconds before his head explodes and he finally collapses. Explain how JFK was able to remain upright and point to his throat after he would have suffered that much damage to his brain.

Your theory makes no sense. It never has.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:38 PM   #1838
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
It's about a 1 out of 60 chance to have the shell dented like that while ejecting them empty.
Cartridge hulls are always ejected empty after you fire them. You just admitted it's possible to reproduce the damage.

Thanks.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:41 PM   #1839
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I knew you had trouble reading. It's a 1 out of 60 chance if you load the already-empty shell casings and eject them.
How does the ejector mechanism know whether a bullet was fired from that shell when you work the bolt and eject the empty cartridge? How does it know it was empty when loaded?

Show us how it makes it difference to how the ejector mechanism works.

Walk us through that, with diagrams.

If you can't, the fact that you're claiming empty shells get the dent at a 1 in 60 ratio shows you're admitting empty shells can be damaged as the shell in evidence (CE543).

You just don't understand what you're arguing.

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

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th October 2017 at 10:07 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th October 2017, 09:52 PM   #1840
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,358
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I love Hank's hearsay accusation.
Your argument seems to be that your hearsay is okay because I cited some hearsay.

Not at all the case.

First of all, I cited the testimony I did - from Bugliosi's book - to establish your source was knocking down a strawman argument. They falsely claimed that Bugliosi (and Posner) both said the bullet was damaged upon firing. I showed that was a falsehood from your cited source because Bugliosi cited Champagne saying the damage came upon ejection of the bullet, AFTER firing, contrary to what your source was lying to you about.

Secondly, I didn't cite hearsay.

I cited the testimony of Champagne, a firearms expert who served on the HSCA firearms panel.

The panel wrote that one of the four test bullets had a damaged shell when ejected from CE139. Champagne testified to that fact. That's first hand evidence. Not hearsay. Yours however was definitely hearsay, and not admissible. All you quoted was what Griffith said Donahue said. Quote Donahue's actual verifiable statement and show where it came from.

But if you want the testimony of the member of the firearms panel who actually ejected the test bullet with the damaged lip, here it is (and note they examined two test shells from FBI tests done for the Warren Commission, one of which had a dented mouth):
Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Chairman, if we could now have JFK exhibit No. F-98. Mr. Champagne, have you seen that photograph before?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. MCDONALD. Does the photograph accurately depict the condition of the exhibit that you have in front of you at the time of your examination?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. If I may look at it.
Mr. McDONALD. Please do.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir. This composite photograph depicts CE-543 and in particular the area of the mouth that has an indentation in it. This is shown primarily in the lower left-hand photograph. It is rather difficult to see but it is there. It can also be seen to a certain extent in the upper left-hand photograph in this area.
Mr. MCDONALD. Mr. Champagne; as you have testified, this was one of the cartridges found on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building and the mouth has a dent. Could that dent have occurred during the loading process.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No, sir; this is not a dent that would have been in the cartridge case during the loading process.
Mr. MCDONALD. Could it have occurred during the ejection process?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes; during the testing of the weapon we found that one of the tests that were fired and ejected from the weapon by the panelists also included a cartridge case with a similar information of the mouth of the cartridge case.
Mr. MCDONALD. In other words.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. We also examined Federal tests. Of two tests that we examined, one of them also had an indented mouth.
Mr. MCDONALD. Are you saying then when your panel test fired CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon. If I may.
Mr. McDONALD. Yes, please.
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The ejection is that process whereby the bolt handle is moved to the rear to eject the expended cartridge case, ejecting the cartridge case out of the weapon.
Mr. MCDONALD. Now, when you tested the rifle, the panel tested the rifle, of your panel members, who ejected the shell or cartridge case that came out with the dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Mr. Lutz.
Mr. MCDONALD. Would Mr. Lutz please come forward and demonstrate to us how you ejected to cause a dent in the test cartridge case.
Mr. LUTZ. The particular amount of force that I used to extract and eject the cartridge case from the weapon was much in the manner that I would consider to be employed during an attempt to rapidly fire the firearm. The cartridge was fired with the bolt being closed and then with considerable speed and pressure being applied, opening it and pulling the bolt to the rear and holding it to my side, and in a manner very rapidly, kicking the cartridge back and ejecting the cartridge and causing it fall to the floor.
Mr. PREYER. Mr. Edgar.
Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Lutz, would you turn so we can see it.
Mr. LUTZ. In this manner, where I have grasped the bolt forward, the cartridge had been fired, moved away from the firing tube holding the bolt handle and then pulling it back with a violent move duplicating what I deemed to be a rapid sequence of firing, operating the handle to rapidly fire the firearm.

Mr. MCDONALD. Thank you.
Mr. Champagne, we have before you on the easel JFK exhibit No. F-100. Does that accurately portray the four spent cartridge cases that your panel test fired?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir, it does.
Mr. McDONALD. And does one of the four cartridge cases have a dent?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. No. 2 has the dent in the mouth.

Mr. MCDONALD. Could we place before the panel JFK cartridge cases No. F-280, please?
Are those the cartridge cases that the panel test fired?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MCDONALD. How do you know, sir?
Mr. CHAMPAGNE. The container has our initials on it.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
A guy from the HSCA claiming that some other guy- who is unnamed- might have recreated the dent in CE543 by normal firing and ejecting, versus a researcher who performed actual experiments testing this issue out.
And he was able to reproduce that damaged shell when he ejected empty cartridges. That's sufficient to show your argument is wrong. Unless you can explain how the ejector mechanism knows when and how a bullet was fired before the empty shell is ejected.

At the end of the cycle, after firing the bullet, you have an empty cartridge in the chamber. This is likewise true if you load an empty cartridge into the chamber.

In either case, you now have to cycle the bolt to eject the empty cartridge. Your own source says he reproduced the damage, and saw the damage on empty shells he ejected. We're done here.

You just don't realize it yet.

Hank

PS: And there was a lot more to my posts on this subject than just the hearsay accusation. You ignored every other point. For instance:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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.
And then there's:
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
No, I covered all this above.

But let's address those points in greater detail.




I pointed out Thompson didn't test the actual weapon, but another similar model.

How does one prove a negative? Thompson is saying he did that -- based on what? Ten tests? Twenty? What if it occurs once in a hundred trials? How many tests did Thompson actually do, and how did he determine that was sufficient to rule out the damage as being possible? Can you cite the numbers and how Thompson determined his testing was adequate to rule it out as ever occurring?




I don't recall anything of the sort. Neither man is quoted. Nor do you reference any page numbers in either book. This could be nothing more than a misunderstanding at best or, at worst, a deliberate strawman argument advanced merely to put the argument away. Please quote the precise words of Bugliosi and Posner where they argued for the bullet shell being damaged upon firing, not upon ejection.

The HSCA firearms panel, of which Lutz was a member, determined the shell was damaged upon ejection, and claimed to duplicate the problem. Bugliosi or Posner citing Monty Lutz is therefore citing an firearms expert. Lutz' testimony would be allowed in court. And Bugliosi's and/or Posner's citing of Lutz' claim is therefore allowed.

Here's how Bugliosi quoted Donald Champagne's testimony (another one of the five HSCA firearms experts). See page 928 of RECLAIMING HISTORY:
Question: Are you saying then when your panel test-fired CE139 (Oswald's rifle), out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented mouth?
Answer: Yes sir, that occurred during the ejection process in firing the weapon.


It's clear the argument you quote above is just a strawman argument. Bugliosi not only didn't say it happened in firing the weapon, but in ejecting the bullet, and he quoted the firearms expert directly saying that. And it was Champagne, not Lutz, that Bugliosi quoted.

So that's how trustworthy your source is. NOT AT ALL TRUSTWORTHY. They are lying to you by claiming Posner and Bugliosi said something they apparently never said, and in passing on their false claims here, without any independent verification of their claims by you, you are at least as guilty.




Donahue has his own theory about the assassination, which contradicts the HSCA's theory. He had every reason to belittle the findings of the HSCA which contradict his own.

Moreover, Mike Griffith is a long-time conspiracy theorist, as is the author of the book you cite (Jim DiEugenio). A conspiracy theorist (you) quoting a conspiracy theorist (DiEugenio) quoting a conspiracy theorist (Griffith) quoting a man with a different theory (Donahue) is hardly getting to the source.

Quote Donahue's testimony directly, as Buliosi quoted Champagne's. Not what Griffith says he said (that's hearsay). Not what DiEugenio says Griffith says Donahue said (that's likewise hearsay).
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 12th October 2017 at 10:43 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:21 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.