JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[traxy]

So far, nobody has refuted Pat Speer's page which advocates that the F8 autopsy photo shows the EOP wound.

So we're supposed to refute the guess work of untrained laymen now?

I'll take the opinion of the teams of trained anthropologists, pathologists and photography experts that have examined the evidence first hand over Pat Speer if it's all the same to you.

the spot on the X-ray that is supposed to be a hole has the obvious appearance of a fracture.

OK...but

I'm not very familiar with the X-rays

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

For a detailed dissertation of the x-rays and what they show, feel free to consult any one of the reports from the panels of forensic pathologists that have examined them.

The rear of the head photo shows the entry wound as clear as day.

 

[MicahJava]

Hmmm.... More than a dozen pathologists that collectively have more than a century's worth of experience versus some random person on the internet that refuses to cite any sources so apparently is operating purely on personal incredulity.

Sorry, I think I'm going to go with the people that have actual experience. Do you think you'll ever be able to provide any actual evidence of your position, or is just argument by assertion all the way down?

Try it by shooting a skull or a ballistics dummy. The bullet will not deflect far enough. My citation for that is the apparent need to cover-up the true location of the wound. It seems that the EOP wound is independent from the top-right head wound. The people who concluded that it was the result of one bullet to the head probably did not consider the trajectory, or they were somehow coerced. I don't have much more to say if you already accept the EOP wound.

Do you agree that the cowlick entrance wound is a hoax, which involved some coercion, including forcing the artist of the BOH autopsy photo sketch to make the red spot look like an actual hole with depth? Also, do you agree that the F8 autopsy photograph(s) depict the EOP wound?

As to examining the brain, we have the pictures and x-rays from the autopsy, there's absolutely no information the brain could impart at this point. And you do know what happened to the brain, right? Or is this another instance where you're deliberately refusing to learn anything?

lol

 

[HSienzant]

The cowlick entrance wound has no evidence besides a spot that looks like a dried drop of blood on the scalp.

Except the opinion of all the qualified experts who examined the x-rays and autopsy photos for the HSCA. You appear to keep forgetting that.

What are the odds that the bullet would just happen to pierce right where the scalp parts the hair?

Hilarious. Seriously. This argument is HILARIOUS.

You think they should have done a comb-over to appeal to JFK's vanity?

You appear to think the autopsists wouldn't part the hair to make the wound more visible to the photographer for the historical record. Rather, you're making the assumption that the bullet hit exactly where JFK normally parted his hair. That's your assumption, so we'll await your evidence that establishes your assumption. Go ahead, we'll wait...

While you're at it, establish that's the normal cowlick area of JFK's head, and not the result of a pathologist combing the hair out of the way to make the wound more visible.

What's that? You're *assuming* that's the cowlick area?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Try it by shooting a skull or a ballistics dummy. The bullet will not deflect far enough.

Can you provide the evidence for your assertion? Like the actual results of your tests? We'll stipulate we'll accept your test results rather than go through the expense of replicating them.

My citation for that is the apparent need to cover-up the true location of the wound.

Wait, what? You assume the answer you want, and your evidence for that is the assumption you want?

It seems that the EOP wound is independent from the top-right head wound.

It appears you're arguing for two bullets above. But none of the actual experts (including Cyril Wecht) found evidence of a second shot. Instead, they found evidence of an entry and an exit.

The people who concluded that it was the result of one bullet to the head probably did not consider the trajectory

When looking at the body, you don't need to know the trajectory to determine the entry and exit wounds. Those are independent of the evidence from the body. Why do you think they should have considered anything except what the body tells them?

...or they were somehow coerced.

False dichotomy. There are other options you haven't listed. Like they are right and you don't know what you're talking about. So let's see what our true choices are:

(a) They didn't consider the trajectory.
(b) They were coerced.
(c) You don't know what you're talking about.

Feel free to add other options to this list.

Right now, the evidence indicates (c) is the correct answer. We'll await your evidence (not to be confused with your layman's opinion).

I don't have much more to say if you already accept the EOP wound.

So where do you place the wound? And why? And based on what evidence?

Do you agree that the cowlick entrance wound is a hoax, which involved some coercion, including forcing the artist of the BOH autopsy photo sketch to make the red spot look like an actual hole with depth? Also, do you agree that the F8 autopsy photograph(s) depict the EOP wound?

It would help if instead of just asking questions, you presented your argument complete with links to the autopsy photo(s) you are referencing.

Hank

 

[Belz...]

I then burned the volumes because they were obviously garbage.

Let me translate that:

I then burned the volumes because they disagreed with my conclusions.

 

[HSienzant]

As to examining the brain, we have the pictures and x-rays from the autopsy, there's absolutely no information the brain could impart at this point. And you do know what happened to the brain, right? Or is this another instance where you're deliberately refusing to learn anything?

lol

MicahJava,

You avoided addressing the point whatsoever. "lol" is not an adequate answer.

Care to actually address the point this time around?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy facesheet shows the wound on the same level as the ears, right by the EOP.

You mean Boswell's notes? This?
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/boswell-sheet1.htm

It also shows the bullet going from right to left once it enters the back of the head. Do you pick and choose the parts you like?

That's a difference of a solid four inches.

Please document that.

And the cowlick drop of blood (perhaps that photograph was chosen over the ones that were disappeared because it was so deliciously deceptive) on the photograph isn't the same size as the autopsy report says it was.

I've underscored the items you need to document in the above. You are stating things you haven't attempted to document in any fashion.

You are effectively accusing the doctors of not knowing how to use a ruler.

As far as I can determine, nobody but you has mentioned this point in this thread. You're the one raising the issue.

My reluctance accept these four-inch-mistakes by trained professionals is why I don't think anybody can trust the autopsy photograph of the back very much. Is there any witness, even an arguably coerced one, who handled the body and placed the wound on the cowlick?

I've underscored the items you need to document in the above. You are stating things you haven't attempted to document in any fashion.

And also, what's with the F8 photo? You can see fairly clearly that the light is reflecting off the edge of the bone around the hole in the skull. It's a hole, not a little splotch like the cowlick photo. Take all the context away, like how the photograph was originally described as portraying the small hole on the back of the head, and I don't see how F8 (actually two photographs) could be anything other than the EOP wound.

It would help if you actually provided the photos in question and labelled what you're looking at, and explain how you know it's showing what you're claiming it's showing. You refer to F8 as one photo and then say it's "actually two photographs". That's not at all clear.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Try it by shooting a skull or a ballistics dummy. The bullet will not deflect far enough.

This has been done:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoMY0eR3eEs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjrupSwqrAs

The bullet will not deflect far enough.

You'd be wrong on that. A skull does funny things to a bullet.

My citation for that is the apparent need to cover-up the true location of the wound.

There was no need to cover-up anything. The impact from behind is obvious to even the casual shooter.

It seems that the EOP wound is independent from the top-right head wound.

Not really.

The people who concluded that it was the result of one bullet to the head probably did not consider the trajectory,

Or they were medical experts and ballistic experts.

or they were somehow coerced.

This would be a lie, proven long ago to be a lie.

The simple truth of the shoots all coming from behind comes from the lack of wounds to Jackie. A shot from the knoll would have killed or wounded her too.

Again, bullets don't lie.

 

[Meadmaker]

What, "the CIA" (who, specifically, please) couldn't have spiked his drug cocktail or pushed him down a flight of stairs....

Not very closely related, but suddenly I had a vision of President George W. Bush's near miss with a pretzel.

Could that have been a failed CIA coup?

What kind of pretzel was it? Who bought those pretzels? Why was the congressional investigation shut down so tightly can covered up so thoroughly that no record of it even exists?

 

[devnull]

From reunion tower.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=789&pictureid=5491[/qimg]

Pffft, I could make that shot all day, every day.

I didnt though. It wasnt me. I swear.

 

[BazBear]

Pffft, I could make that shot all day, every day.

I didnt though. It wasnt me. I swear.

I was assigned the mission, but HQ screwed up and didn't get the memo that I wouldn't be born until 404 days later.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Pffft, I could make that shot all day, every day.

Hell, a three-year-old could have done it.

Not that I have any particular reason to know that, of course.

Dave

 

[Meadmaker]

Pffft, I could make that shot all day, every day.

I didnt though. It wasnt me. I swear.

For me, I couldn't hit that shot more than one time in twenty.....


with a bow.
.

 

[BStrong]

Wow, a LN EOP theorist. You can tell how that trajectory is ridiculous just by looking at the Z film. That is also shown by how quickly the cowlick theory was cobbled together. Also, it's a little hard to tell without the brain to examine.

Get out the thinking cap and use it as directed.

 

[BStrong]

Let me translate that:

I can use my highly developed ******** detector.

"I didn't buy anything or read anything that doesn't shore up my fantasy and burning books is such a cool analogy to coverup my manic hand-waving.

 

[HSienzant]

HSienzant, I took your advice and bought the 26 volumes. When I saw the Rydberg drawings, I saw that a small bullet hole on the back of Kennedy's skull was located near the External occipital protuberance, and realized that that hole was too low to have exited out of the top-right side of the head. They even drew him leaning over during the headshot when he obviously isn't in the Zapruder film. I then burned the volumes because they were obviously garbage.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/182/Willed-Ignorance

Willed Ignorance:

Description: Refusing to change one’s mind or consider conflicting information based on a desire to maintain one's existing beliefs.

Logical Form:
I believe X.
You have evidence for Y.
I don’t want to see it because I don't want to stop believing in X.

Example #1:
I don’t want anything coming in the way of me and my beliefs; therefore, I will only socialize with people who share my beliefs.

Explanation: This is a common form of the fallacy -- excluding oneself from society as a whole to smaller subgroups where the same general opinions are shared.

Hank

 

[No Other]

This was after the rifle had been dropped between some boxes on the sixth floor. How would that affect the accuracy of the scope?

How would anybody know if LHO dropped the rifle? Or does "dropped" mean "I dropped my kid off at school". Please provide proof that the rifle was dropped. thx

 

[Elagabalus]

How would anybody know if LHO dropped the rifle? Or does "dropped" mean "I dropped my kid off at school". Please provide proof that the rifle was dropped. thx

R U 4 real?

 

[BStrong]

How would anybody know if LHO dropped the rifle? Or does "dropped" mean "I dropped my kid off at school". Please provide proof that the rifle was dropped. thx

If you examine a firearm equipped with a mounted optic and said optic is not in perfect alignment a reasonable examiner might come to the conclusion that the firearm may have been dropped or damaged in some other fashion.

 

[MicahJava]

Except the opinion of all the qualified experts who examined the x-rays and autopsy photos for the HSCA. You appear to keep forgetting that.


Hilarious. Seriously. This argument is HILARIOUS.

You think they should have done a comb-over to appeal to JFK's vanity?

You appear to think the autopsists wouldn't part the hair to make the wound more visible to the photographer for the historical record. Rather, you're making the assumption that the bullet hit exactly where JFK normally parted his hair. That's your assumption, so we'll await your evidence that establishes your assumption. Go ahead, we'll wait...

While you're at it, establish that's the normal cowlick area of JFK's head, and not the result of a pathologist combing the hair out of the way to make the wound more visible.

What's that? You're *assuming* that's the cowlick area?

Hank

Please name one person who handled the body who agrees with the cowlick entrance wound. The BOH photo looks like a drop of blood and the x-rays look like a fracture. Do any of your citations attempt to explain why the X-ray looks like a skull fracture and not a bullet hole? I didn't consider that the doctors could have parted his hair out of the way to make a wound visible (it looks like the spot where the hair naturally parts), but like I said, what doctor said that happened?