JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[traxy]

I think Dr. Humes is being deceived by the BOH photograph..

What you think means less than nothing.

Here is what Dr. Humes thinks, straight from his own mouth:

And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry.

It looks like a doctor that handled the body agrees that the red spot in the photo is the wound of entry.

And of course it would be. The area of the entry wound is washed, the hair parted exactly at that spot to give a better look at it, and that spot is the focal point of the photograph.

If that was nothing more than a drop of blood, why take so many pains to highlight and photograph it? And why would it not have been washed away when the hair was washed?

 

[No Other]

None of those links go anywhere that has anything to do with your assertion.

Please enlighten me as to this great test that in over 50 years of experience with every aspect of firearms I've never once heard of.

This forum will not let me put in web sites so I left off the characters prior to website name. Amazing! I typed "bluesheepdog" into my browser and it immediately came up. Put fouling into the search bar on the site and the 3rd hit down it speaks to Sniper maintenance (the prior two hits also speak to it).

If you have over 50 years of experience and you are not familiar with metal fouling and the complete impact it has on not only the barrel but in forensics as well, you have me speechless as this is the first thing you learn in gun safety and maintenance.

IF you just go to your browser and type in what I posted you will find the supporting information.

Testing for metal fouling will tell you if the gun was not fired that day or in the recent past. So when the FBI did not test for it, a can worms will stay open forever.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Testing for metal fouling will tell you if the gun was not fired that day or in the recent past. So when the FBI did not test for it, a can worms will stay open forever.

None of those broken links, as far as I can see, show what you are claiming. Which, if any, shows the FBI standard procedures included such a test?
Why is it explicitly stated that no test can determine when a gun was fired, in the text book used at the time?
Which text books include this test, and accurately describe the methodology for eliminating days the weapon was fired?
Why were tests NEEDED if there were bullets recovered that could ONLY result from the rifle being fired?

 

[MicahJava]

And yet you have been unable to prove any of this.
Worse, you posted evidence that argues directly against your interpretation.
Worse still, others have shown that your claims are NOT the conclusions of those who carried out the autopsy.

The conclusion of those who carried out the autopsy was that the small head wound was by the EOP.

And to top it all off: What you swear is in one photograph, and unambiguous, you then complain is too ambiguous in another photograph. Here's the thing: If you were actually showing, what you think you are showing, then you would have given a definite answer before. Drawn one circle on one photo, that matched the location you circled on another.

Instead you circled several bits of hair you happen to suspect was a wound, none of which pair up to your "unambiguous" mark on the second.

The open cranium photo is taken depicts the top-posterior of the skull. It's hard to orient. So, there's been a lot of debate for where exactly the scalp wound would be located in that photo. What's the difference?

I could either take the word of those experts who carried out the autopsy, xrays, etc, as recorded in the HSCA and WC. Or your interpretation.

You just keep giving us reasons to discount your opinion.

Do you have any evidence for fragments being found in the location of the skull where you think a bullet entered?

 

[MicahJava]

What you think means less than nothing.

Here is what Dr. Humes thinks, straight from his own mouth:

And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance; therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry.

It looks like a doctor that handled the body agrees that the red spot in the photo is the wound of entry.

Humes is a EOP witness, always will be. I've already given plenty of reasons why he could his 30+ year old memory could have be simply been wrong. One thing is that Humes was looking at the color BOH photograph, which has the scalp stretched back enough to where it's just over an inch above the ears.

And of course it would be. The area of the entry wound is washed, the hair parted exactly at that spot to give a better look at it, and that spot is the focal point of the photograph.

If that was nothing more than a drop of blood, why take so many pains to highlight and photograph it? And why would it not have been washed away when the hair was washed?

Traxy, comparing the color BOH photo to the B&W BOH photo, I think it's fairly clear that those two photos were taken to get a posterior-side view of the head.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

NSFW - autopsy photograph

EDIT: Actually, there are two nearly identical color BOH autopsy photographs.

NSFW - autopsy photograph

 

[Tomtomkent]

Humes is a EOP witness, always will be. I've already given plenty of reasons why he could his 30+ year old memory could have be simply been wrong. One thing is that Humes was looking at the color BOH photograph, which has the scalp stretched back enough to where it's just over an inch above the ears.

That his memories could be wrong is exactly why we have photographs.
Why does he disagree with you about the wound?

 

[BStrong]

This forum will not let me put in web sites so I left off the characters prior to website name. Amazing! I typed "bluesheepdog" into my browser and it immediately came up. Put fouling into the search bar on the site and the 3rd hit down it speaks to Sniper maintenance (the prior two hits also speak to it).

If you have over 50 years of experience and you are not familiar with metal fouling and the complete impact it has on not only the barrel but in forensics as well, you have me speechless as this is the first thing you learn in gun safety and maintenance.

IF you just go to your browser and type in what I posted you will find the supporting information.

Testing for metal fouling will tell you if the gun was not fired that day or in the recent past. So when the FBI did not test for it, a can worms will stay open forever.

NO is an apt acronym in this instance.

You have no knowledge about this subject matter.

There is absolutely no test methodology or device that when used on a specific firearm that can determine when a firearm has been fired, only that at some point it has been fired.

Since you can't post links, try a good copy and paste job - post the material here from those websites that explain the method of testing a firearm that determines when said firearm has been fired.

Like other posters here over the course of the JFK threads, simply admitting you don't know what you're posting about would buy you some credit, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[No Other]

None of those broken links, as far as I can see, show what you are claiming. Which, if any, shows the FBI standard procedures included such a test?

Why did McCloy ask Agent Frazier if he tested for metal fouling?

Why is it explicitly stated that no test can determine when a gun was fired, in the text book used at the time?

I will repeat, the test determines if the gun was not fired.

Your questions alone show that you have little knowledge, that is not a bad thing unless you are passing yourself off as an Expert. These are sophomoric questions that have no bearing on the efficacy of your position. Plain and simple... the WC asked if it was tested, so somewhere along the line the Commission felt this was an adequate question. They knew they were talking to an FBI agent and the agent did not say... "this is not part of our procedure, why did you ask me this question"? I also don't recall reading where Agent Frazier admonished McCloy for even bringing it up and in fact, Frazier was aware of metal fouling unlike most on this forum.

 

[No Other]

NO is an apt acronym in this instance.

You have no knowledge about this subject matter.

There is absolutely no test methodology or device that when used on a specific firearm that can determine when a firearm has been fired, only that at some point it has been fired.

Since you can't post links, try a good copy and paste job - post the material here from those websites that explain the method of testing a firearm that determines when said firearm has been fired.

Like other posters here over the course of the JFK threads, simply admitting you don't know what you're posting about would buy you some credit, but I won't hold my breath.

You are not plausible, my credentials are impeccable and no matter how often or how loud you yell it will not change. I taught gun safety for so many years it is embarrassing, I grew up with one of the nation's best after market stock manufacturers and as a matter of fact it started in his garage and I saw first hand how to make stocks and barreling is a step child to the stocks, one of my sons father-in-law is a former police officer and his best friend owns one of the top 3 reloading manufacturing company in the nation while my former wife's cousins own the nation's 3rd largest ammunition company... I have discussed this with all of them so I am speaking not only with personal experience but with collaborative conversations.

This thread is old as not one of you speak with any experience and/or knowledge. You might as well go back and argue any and everything that hits the radar if you know it or not.

 

[Elagabalus]

Why did McCloy ask Agent Frazier if he tested for metal fouling?
I will repeat, the test determines if the gun was not fired.

Your questions alone show that you have little knowledge, that is not a bad thing unless you are passing yourself off as an Expert. These are sophomoric questions that have no bearing on the efficacy of your position. Plain and simple... the WC asked if it was tested, so somewhere along the line the Commission felt this was an adequate question. They knew they were talking to an FBI agent and the agent did not say... "this is not part of our procedure, why did you ask me this question"? I also don't recall reading where Agent Frazier admonished McCloy for even bringing it up and in fact, Frazier was aware of metal fouling unlike most on this forum.

So the people who framed LHO fired a different gun to obtain the shell casings and bullet fragments that they then placed in the limo and at the hospital?

 

[thedopefishlives]

So the people who framed LHO fired a different gun to obtain the shell casings and bullet fragments that they then placed in the limo and at the hospital?

Except then the ballistics and the extractor marks wouldn't match... but I'm guessing that was all either faked or hushed up, am I right?

 

[traxy]

Humes is a EOP witness, always will be. I've already given plenty of reasons why he could his 30+ year old memory could have be simply been wrong. One thing is that Humes was looking at the color BOH photograph, which has the scalp stretched back enough to where it's just over an inch above the ears.

The entry wound was above and to the right of the EOP. The red spot in the photos is above and to the right of the EOP. There is no conflict. Humes agrees that the BOH photo shows the entry wound as described in his report.

 

[MicahJava]

The entry wound was above and to the right of the EOP. The red spot in the photos is above and to the right of the EOP. There is no conflict. Humes agrees that the BOH photo shows the entry wound as described in his report.

Tired tricks, traxy.

 

[traxy]

Tired tricks, traxy.

Do you disagree that the wound in the photos is above and to the right of the EOP?

 

[MicahJava]

Do you disagree that the wound in the photos is above and to the right of the EOP?

The north pole is above and to the right of Texas.

Here is a diagram of the hypothetical entrance wound corresponding to the skull fracture some say looks like an entry wound:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/63/HSCA-JFK-wounds-7-117.jpg

I can not remember where, but I do think I remember reading somewhere that it was proven that the red spot on the scalp does not match up to the skull fracture.

And all other evidence shows that the wound could not have been above the level of the ears.

EDIT: In fact, I'm wondering if that little bulge in the skull may be seen right next to the EOP wound as seen here:

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-h0Zz4xrx...0/Autopsy-Photos-Cropped-Via-PatSpeer.com.gif

 

[traxy]

Here is a diagram of the hypothetical entrance wound corresponding to the skull fracture some say looks like an entry wound:

Above and to the right of the EOP. Exactly what the photograph shows, which Humes agrees with.

And all other evidence shows that the wound could not have been above the level of the ears.

According to the 5 panels of forensic pathologists, all of the evidence points to that being the entry wound.

 

[MicahJava]

According to the 5 panels of forensic pathologists, all of the evidence points to that being the entry wound.

Good, you have plenty of citations to disprove me.

Surely they wrote a report or something laying out the specific reasons for their findings?

Do they explain why there are no bullet fragments in the area where they say the bullet entered? Do they explain why their "entry wound" looks like a regular fracture on the X-rays? Do they explain why the red spot looks so two-dimensional in photographs?

 

[Elagabalus]

Good, you have plenty of citations to disprove me.

Surely they wrote a report or something laying out the specific reasons for their findings?

Do they explain why there are no bullet fragments in the area where they say the bullet entered? Do they explain why their "entry wound" looks like a regular fracture on the X-rays? Do they explain why the red spot looks so two-dimensional in photographs?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/OLVflsn.jpg[/qimg]

Were there bullet fragments in the alternative spot?

... Do they explain why the red spot looks so two-dimensional in photographs?

Giggle ...

 

[BStrong]

You are not plausible, my credentials are impeccable and no matter how often or how loud you yell it will not change. I taught gun safety for so many years it is embarrassing, I grew up with one of the nation's best after market stock manufacturers and as a matter of fact it started in his garage and I saw first hand how to make stocks and barreling is a step child to the stocks, one of my sons father-in-law is a former police officer and his best friend owns one of the top 3 reloading manufacturing company in the nation while my former wife's cousins own the nation's 3rd largest ammunition company... I have discussed this with all of them so I am speaking not only with personal experience but with collaborative conversations.

This thread is old as not one of you speak with any experience and/or knowledge. You might as well go back and argue any and everything that hits the radar if you know it or not.

And yet you can not cite one fact to back up the line of ******** you're posting in this thread.

Assert greatness by association all day long. So far the only thing you've proven is that you don't know what a go no-go gauge is and what it's used for. Maybe one of the many super knowledgeable folks you have in your imaginary world might have the right answers.

Perhaps a sock will show up shortly.

I'm sure that embarrassment is something you're very familiar with, and not from a wealth of experience.

I promise not to work your side of the street.

To get back to the subject at hand, the condition of the Carcano:

The above is the print ad from Klein's sporting goods who was the source for LHO's Carcano.

Please note the condition - "lightly used." The joke at the time was that any type of Italian WWII firearm was "fired twice, dropped once," a reference to the stereotypical idea of the Italians surrendering even quicker than the French.

Mail order surplus rifles of the era - (a bunch passed through both my fathers shop out the door and through the mail) - my first job in the shop was cleaning cosmoline off surplus rifles, a task that was sold to me as being a great honor...my old man had a great sense of humor and I was a hell of a cleaner.

Because of my first hand experience, I can tell you that most of the rifles that came into the US pre-68 were absolutely not Mint, unused or arsenal rebuilds - they were well worn specimens, most safe to fire but all of them had been fired with corrosive ammunition and had been subjected to periods of little or no maintenance - preventive maintenance during a war doesn't always conform to the parade ground standards. When folks are shooting at you it's more important for an infantry rifle to go "bang!" than pass the white glove test.

What this means specifically in this discussion is that the Carcano had already been fired, long before LHO got his dirty mitts on the thing, and irl as opposed to CTist fantasy league play, there was and is no test that could have been done that would determine when that rifle had been fired.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edited for rule 12.

 

[No Other]

And yet you can not cite one fact to back up the line of ******** you're posting in this thread.

Assert greatness by association all day long. So far the only thing you've proven is that you don't know what a go no-go gauge is and what it's used for. Maybe one of the many super knowledgeable folks you have in your imaginary world might have the right answers.

Perhaps a sock will show up shortly.

I'm sure that embarrassment is something you're very familiar with, and not from a wealth of experience.

I promise not to work your side of the street.

To get back to the subject at hand, the condition of the Carcano:

[qimg]http://imageshack.com/a/img923/9267/AzBaGQ.jpg[/qimg]

The above is the print ad from Klein's sporting goods who was the source for LHO's Carcano.

Please note the condition - "lightly used." The joke at the time was that any type of Italian WWII firearm was "fired twice, dropped once," a reference to the stereotypical idea of the Italians surrendering even quicker than the French.

Mail order surplus rifles of the era - (a bunch passed through both my fathers shop out the door and through the mail) - my first job in the shop was cleaning cosmoline off surplus rifles, a task that was sold to me as being a great honor...my old man had a great sense of humor and I was a hell of a cleaner.

Because of my first hand experience, I can tell you that most of the rifles that came into the US pre-68 were absolutely not Mint, unused or arsenal rebuilds - they were well worn specimens, most safe to fire but all of them had been fired with corrosive ammunition and had been subjected to periods of little or no maintenance - preventive maintenance during a war doesn't always conform to the parade ground standards. When folks are shooting at you it's more important for an infantry rifle to go "bang!" than pass the white glove test.

What this means specifically in this discussion is that the Carcano had already been fired, long before LHO got his dirty mitts on the thing, and irl as opposed to CTist fantasy league play, there was and is no test that could have been done that would determine when that rifle had been fired.

So Sparky, when are you going to hold a family meeting to figure out what the magic go-no-go gauge is for?

I love your emotion but it is misplaced.

First, don't call me Sparky

Second, your first hand experience did not do you service. What I talk about is Gun Ownership 101, Sharp Shooting Beginners course.

The go no-go gauge eliminates a variable. This is basic but I do not expect you to understand. Metal fouling is elementary and yet it confuses you but it does not put others at risk. Go on the Internet and just "google" barrel fouling FBI... now go forward and educate yourself.

Typical Lone Nutters spew out garbage and I am not saying you are a Lone Nutter as you have proven to be open minded and not judgemental.