JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Regnad Kcin]

The small head wound was right next to the external occipital protuberance. Get over it.

One man shot another man dead (a too-common occurrence). Get into it.

 

[JayUtah]

Why would it not explode out?

I wrote a pretty extensive post on the fluid dynamics of scalloping wounds in one of the predecessors to this thread. Sad that we always have to start from scratch every time someone new gets all excited about having discovered the JFK conspiracy books and sites.

 

[traxy]

The small head wound was right next to the external occipital protuberance. Get over it.

Above and to the right of it. Absolutely.

 

[MicahJava]

The U.S. government wants you to think this is a picture of the forehead.

 

[No Other]

The scope was a 4x18 Ordnance Optics Inc. Scope here is a picture of that model scope mounted to that model Carcano. (Not LHO's one).

It's pretty obviously a left mounting see-under scope arrangement. and it exactly matches LHO's weapon.

If you had bothered, you could have googled that yourself.

I was not making the claim without supporting it. I guess the original poster could have done what you did too but it is easier to attempt to admonish me versus someone who thinks like you...

 

[No Other]

(a) Straw man argument. I didn't say LHO dropped the rifle, I said the rifle was dropped between some boxes. I never specified by whom.

Then who dropped it and how do you know who dropped it? You used the wrong fallacy, this is not even close to a Straw Man argument...

(b) The weapon wasn't exactly well-hidden. Oswald (or whomever) could have put it in an outgoing box destined for shipment to himself and it would never have been found in the Depository, correct? Instead it was found on the northwest side of the building immediately next to the stairwell that leads to an escape. Oswald (or whomever used it, but most likely Oswald) would have carried the weapon to the stairwell to facilitate his escape (he didn't know how quickly the cops would respond, and indeed, one of them [Officer Baker] was inside the building within about 40-60 seconds of the assassination). Once he reached the stairwell, the rifle (which could have been used to shoot one officer) was abandoned amongst some boxes. Having served its purpose, there was no need to take care of it any longer. The shooter would have simply dropped it amongst some boxes with one and shoved another box over it with the other. He would not have taken care to place it gingerly anywhere -- the goal at that point (whether the shooter is Oswald or someone else intent on framing Oswald) is to get out of the building as quickly as possible. Every second of delay adds to his chance of discovery. So I don't need to show proof the rifle was dropped. You would need to show evidence it wasn't, contrary to all the reasonable reconstructions of the event.

Wow, this is entertaining but nothing factual.

(c) The weapon had an out of alignment telescopic sight. That is consistent with it being dropped. It is inconsistent with it being handled carefully.

A weapon with an out of alignment telescopic sight being consistent with it being dropped is like frontal lobotomy being consistent with a headache. Both are correct but are not necessarily linked unless you can provide that one caused the other. All you have done is provided a guess.

The reasonable conclusion is the weapon was dropped - mostly likely when it was hidden. Ball in your court.

Hank

The ball has to be moved with facts and not with speculation, you have not provided anything that pushes your claim. Do you wish to include something that has merit? Heck, we are talking about a rifle that was never even tested for recent firings when in the hands of the Dallas Police or FBI.

 

[No Other]

It can be used or ignored, depending on the preference of the shooter. The iron sights are always available. So we just don't know if the shooter used the scope or the iron sights, and we just don't know if the scope was in the same condition during the shooting as it was found after the shooting.

All complaints about the scope are meaningless, because there's no evidence that scope was necessary to the commission of the assassination.

Your question reduces to railing against the darkness, instead of just clapping your hands together and turning on the light.

Hank

I guess if you would have known this prior to your posting about the dropping of the rifle, there would not be a need to defend your comment. By the way, your homilies and superfluous comments advance your image of a Thinker but if you continue to refer to fallacies or endearments it would do you good if you can state one that is germane.

 

[Tomtomkent]

[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cUoV5Wyk90U/VdcU4ens42I/AAAAAAABHCk/Qz01L0SvaE8/s1600/F8-JFK-Autopsy-Photo-Pat-Speer.gif[/qimg]

[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrxWL8/VddxAzaNwmI/AAAAAAABHDo/i5zn4ndkzSo/s1600/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif[/qimg]

The U.S. government wants you to think this is a picture of the forehead.

Does it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

MicahJava, before you go on posting autopsy photographs, you may wish to consider reading the previous incarnations of this thread, where overly cropped and enlarged photographs have been discussed before, noting the context and location within the autopsy photos.
Point of fact, you might just want to take a while to look at the autopsy photos as taken, and see where those photos fit. Then consider what they "US Government" actually has to say on the matter.

 

[MicahJava]

MicahJava, before you go on posting autopsy photographs, you may wish to consider reading the previous incarnations of this thread, where overly cropped and enlarged photographs have been discussed before, noting the context and location within the autopsy photos.
Point of fact, you might just want to take a while to look at the autopsy photos as taken, and see where those photos fit. Then consider what they "US Government" actually has to say on the matter.

The people who were there say that it's a picture of the back of the skull with the small wound visible. There is no serious evidence for the cowlick wound. On a sliding scale of credibility for what could be the President's true injuries, cowlick is near the bottom.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ

 

[BStrong]

The people who were there say that it's a picture of the back of the skull with the small wound visible. There is no serious evidence for the cowlick wound. On a sliding scale of credibility for what could be the President's true injuries, cowlick is near the bottom.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ

You might be married to Pat Speer, and iirc you've stated that your six months into examining the JFK assassination so going back in the never ending JFK threads here may be of value - as I and others have pointed out, the autopsy pics/interpretation issue has been done over and over with no resolution for folks that are working backwards from the "anybody but LHO" viewpoint.

 

[MicahJava]

You might be married to Pat Speer, and iirc you've stated that your six months into examining the JFK assassination so going back in the never ending JFK threads here may be of value - as I and others have pointed out, the autopsy pics/interpretation issue has been done over and over with no resolution for folks that are working backwards from the "anybody but LHO" viewpoint.

Nope, just married to the original information from people who were there and saw the body. Speer's site works with the medical evidence at face value, no evidence fabrication needed. Sorry if the EOP wound disagrees with your pet theory that there was no conspiracy or coverup of any kind.

 

[traxy]

Nope, just married to the original information from people who were there and saw the body. Speer's site works with the medical evidence at face value, no evidence fabrication needed. Sorry if the EOP wound disagrees with your pet theory that there was no conspiracy or coverup of any kind.

It's not a "pet theory", it's the findings of 5 separate panels of forensic pathologists who have studied the autopsy materials in depth.

It's you who has the pet theory, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. You're clearly not a "grassy knoll" guy, so you tell us, where was the kill shot fired from and what evidence do you have to support it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The people who were there say that it's a picture of the back of the skull with the small wound visible. There is no serious evidence for the cowlick wound. On a sliding scale of credibility for what could be the President's true injuries, cowlick is near the bottom.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNAbISV6ujQ

You do realise we have autopsy records and photographs?
We can compare the later recollections, to the findings at the time, and a full photographic record.

We can see that the US Government did not place that wound "on the forehead", but on a long wound, along the side of the head, starting towards the rear. The occipital bone IIRC.

You should probably try and understand what the "US government wants us to believe" before you try and tell us. If you want to debunk "the official story", then getting that official story right, tends to be an important first step.

 

[MicahJava]

You do realise we have autopsy records and photographs?
We can compare the later recollections, to the findings at the time, and a full photographic record.

We can see that the US Government did not place that wound "on the forehead", but on a long wound, along the side of the head, starting towards the rear. The occipital bone IIRC.

You should probably try and understand what the "US government wants us to believe" before you try and tell us. If you want to debunk "the official story", then getting that official story right, tends to be an important first step.

The HSCA's contention was that the F8 photograph(s) depict the forehead, with the scalp peeled over the eyes.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The HSCA's contention was that the F8 photograph(s) depict the forehead, with the scalp peeled over the eyes.

And yet we can see the full extent of the wound in the totality of the evidence. Or is there a reason you are ignoring this point every time it is made?

 

[MicahJava]

It's not a "pet theory", it's the findings of 5 separate panels of forensic pathologists who have studied the autopsy materials in depth.

Researchers found that the people who handled the body weren't as sure as you want it to sound (but they kept it on the down-low). The people who handled the body are more important than panels of shills made to play cleanup. The EOP wound couldn't deflect enough to exit out of the top-right side of the head, and there is no medical evidence connecting the back wound to the throat wound.

It's you who has the pet theory, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is. You're clearly not a "grassy knoll" guy, so you tell us, where was the kill shot fired from and what evidence do you have to support it?

I'd be lying if I said I didn't speculate possible shot sequences in my mind and judge the evidence based on what I know, but the head wound almost certainly had to be caused by at least two bullets if the small wound was all the way down near the EOP as the evidence shows. Even if all of the shots were from behind, a shill may have lit a firecracker on the grassy knoll as a basic distraction technique.

 

[MicahJava]

And yet we can see the full extent of the wound in the totality of the evidence. Or is there a reason you are ignoring this point every time it is made?

What?

 

[Tomtomkent]

What?

We have the autopsy report.
We have the autopsy photographs.
We can see if that is truly a "wound to forehead" as you are trying to categorise it.
Or we can see if it is a wound who has one extent at the forehead.
We can, in short, put those closely cropped images into context. We can put their description into context. Yet you seem to be making an effort not to register this.

We can, in point of fact, test the accuracy of those later claims, because we have accurate records from the time.


Again, you really would have been wise to see what has already been discussed on the previous threads. The context of those photographs was covered at length.

 

[abaddon]

I was not making the claim without supporting it. I guess the original poster could have done what you did too but it is easier to attempt to admonish me versus someone who thinks like you...

Next ad hom will be reported. Stop it.