|
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. |
12th October 2017, 10:23 AM | #1801 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:26 AM | #1802 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
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.
|
12th October 2017, 10:27 AM | #1803 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:28 AM | #1804 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:29 AM | #1805 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:29 AM | #1806 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:31 AM | #1807 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:37 AM | #1808 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 10:42 AM | #1809 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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). Hank |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
12th October 2017, 10:44 AM | #1810 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
|
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. |
12th October 2017, 11:18 AM | #1811 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 11:19 AM | #1812 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 11:38 AM | #1813 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,589
|
|
12th October 2017, 11:57 AM | #1814 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
|
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). |
|
12th October 2017, 12:08 PM | #1815 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 12:10 PM | #1816 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th October 2017, 12:11 PM | #1817 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th October 2017, 12:14 PM | #1818 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 12:20 PM | #1819 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 12:51 PM | #1820 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
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.
|
12th October 2017, 12:53 PM | #1821 |
New Blood
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 5
|
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. |
12th October 2017, 01:02 PM | #1822 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
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.
|
12th October 2017, 01:05 PM | #1823 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 01:07 PM | #1824 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:14 PM | #1825 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:17 PM | #1826 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
12th October 2017, 02:18 PM | #1827 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:21 PM | #1828 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:23 PM | #1829 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:31 PM | #1830 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:34 PM | #1831 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th October 2017, 02:44 PM | #1832 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 8,865
|
|
12th October 2017, 07:55 PM | #1833 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 07:57 PM | #1834 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
|
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha |
|
12th October 2017, 08:26 PM | #1835 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
|
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 |
|
12th October 2017, 09:30 PM | #1836 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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:
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. 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 |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
12th October 2017, 09:36 PM | #1837 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
12th October 2017, 09:38 PM | #1838 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
|
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
12th October 2017, 09:41 PM | #1839 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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 |
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner. Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so. - Manifesto |
|
12th October 2017, 09:52 PM | #1840 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
|
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. 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: And then there's: |
__________________
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|