JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

Can you site your answers to these points, complete with reference to the evidence that establishes your interpretation is correct?

Okay.

(a) If the hair was washed to remove blood and brains, why was what you called "the red blood spot" still there, if it's not a bullet wound?

I'm more keen on the idea that the red spot could be a minor scalp wound, as stated by Boswell.

The red spot could still hypothetically be a bit of blood. Just look at the doctor's glove. Autopsies are always going to have blood everywhere at every stage.

(b) Why would the hair be parted there, and not at the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

Proof that the hair couldn't be naturally parted like that?

Even if we give you that the hair happened to be parted around a red spot which could be interpreted by some people as a bullet entry wound (not by anybody who has read the autopsy report, mind you, but the photo might look a bit misleading which may have contributed to it becoming the "official entrance wound"). Boswell apparently thought it was interesting enough to remember it 12 years later.

If you insist that the red spot looks like it's being given special attention in the two color BOH photos, it's probably just a coincidence. It's less of a coincidence than most of the stuff pointed out by people who say there was a massive medical evidence coverup.

(c) Why would the photo center this 'red spot' and not the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

We have no information about whether or not clear autopsy photos of the EOP entry wound on the scalp ever existed. Nobody remembers. Shills robbed the evidence. Sometimes you can't have everything. The open cranium photo potentially gives us a very decent view of the EOP wound in the skull.

(d) Why would the ruler be near the 'red spot' and not the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

Humes himself denied to the HSCA that the ruler was there to measure anything, it was there to give scale. Boswell was there and presumably agreed. This is kind of a silly question, since many people on the internet have already proven, using the ruler in the autopsy photo, that the red spot is only about 12 mm. The small head wound was an elliptical, "ragged/slanting" 15x6mm on the level of the ears, according to the autopsy report.

 

[MicahJava]

Once you accept that the cowlick evidence is simply optical illusion, and that the EOP wound was lower in the skull, IMO it has to eventually come to another shooter. Since there's all the proof in the world that there's ever going to be unless even more medical evidence-related material is somehow cobbled together in the future, any investigation of the possibility of multiple shooters must try to explain this elliptical, ragged, slanting EOP wound with the available medical evidence, and in scenarios where there may have been a bigger coverup of the medical evidence.

The large head wound could be caused by a frangible bullet or a bullet clipping the head. Considering the reports that Kennedy was still barely alive when he arrived at Parkland hospital, there may have been much less brain damage than usually contended.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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 Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy, and later J.D. Tippit, dead. Your credentials could show you're the mayor of Munchkin City, for all that it would matter.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Once you accept that the cowlick evidence is simply optical illusion, and that the EOP wound was lower in the skull, IMO it has to eventually come to another shooter. Since there's all the proof in the world that there's ever going to be unless even more medical evidence-related material is somehow cobbled together in the future, any investigation of the possibility of multiple shooters must try to explain this elliptical, ragged, slanting EOP wound with the available medical evidence, and in scenarios where there may have been a bigger coverup of the medical evidence.

The large head wound could be caused by a frangible bullet or a bullet clipping the head. Considering the reports that Kennedy was still barely alive when he arrived at Parkland hospital, there may have been much less brain damage than usually contended.

You will of course provide evidence that such wounds can be caused by a frangible bullet. And evidence that such a bullet was recovered.

And you will, of course, provide evidence for this invisible entry wound you are unable to identify on the autopsy photos.

You will of course provide evidence for how such an optical illusion was implemented and why it wad implemented.

You will of course explain how and why those at the autopsy created false documents to cover up these apparent mysteries.

 

[Axxman300]

I hadn't seen this one before. This is Max Holland making his case for the idea that the Zapruder Film only captured 2 of the three shots, the first coming before he'd resumed filming:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

He is methodical in how he lays everything out, and if he's right then there are 11 seconds between the second and third shot. Honestly had never considered this idea before.

 

[Axxman300]

The large head wound could be caused by a frangible bullet or a bullet clipping the head. Considering the reports that Kennedy was still barely alive when he arrived at Parkland hospital, there may have been much less brain damage than usually contended.

First off, you can see a huge chunk of his brain slide out of his head as he falls limp to the side. I'm not a doctor, but I'd call that significant.

Second, the frangible bullet idea doesn't match up to real-world damage (it would have been worse).

Third, Kennedy was dead when he reached Parkland:


https://www.quora.com/John-F-Kennedy-Was-JFK-instantly-killed-or-did-he-take-some-time-to-die

 

[MicahJava]

I hadn't seen this one before. This is Max Holland making his case for the idea that the Zapruder Film only captured 2 of the three shots, the first coming before he'd resumed filming:

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf

He is methodical in how he lays everything out, and if he's right then there are 11 seconds between the second and third shot. Honestly had never considered this idea before.

Holland lies. He thinks he can see a bullet hole in a traffic light from old footage, but evidence came forth that the traffic lights already came with that gap. Total failure. There is no eyewitness evidence for an early loud shot before the 190-224 reactions. His television program also contains a hoaxed reenactment of the single bullet theory (driving the car further down the road because otherwise a laser trajectory would exit out of the chest of Kennedy).

 

[Tomtomkent]

Holland lies. He thinks he can see a bullet hole in a traffic light from old footage, but evidence came forth that the traffic lights already came with that gap. Total failure.

There is a difference between being wrong and telling lies.

Would you appreciate it if I told you that you were lying about seeing five possible entry wounds in a photograph and circling them? Or lying about an actual entry wound just being a mark?

Or would you rather I assumed you are well meaning but wrong?

 

[MicahJava]

NSFW - autopsy photo

Judging from the open cranium photo, the EOP hole was near one of those bumpy areas in the back of the skull.

If this HSCA drawings are anatomically correct and as relevant to Kennedy's skull/scalp relation as possible, here's where I'd probably place the wound:

Therefore, the red circled area below looks like the most plausible dark spot in the BOH photographs: NSFW - autopsy photo

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, you are wrong. Would it be fairer to say you are mistaken, or lying?

 

[HSienzant]

There is a difference between being wrong and telling lies.

Would you appreciate it if I told you that you were lying about seeing five possible entry wounds in a photograph and circling them? Or lying about an actual entry wound just being a mark?

Or would you rather I assumed you are well meaning but wrong?

That's a problem with many of the conspiracy theorists I've encountered online. They are too quick to judge others as deliberately misleading (i.e., lying) rather than just honestly mistaken.

Of course, using their definition of lying, almost every conspiracy theorist must be lying, because they all reach different conclusions about the locations of the wounds, where the shooters were located, how many shooters there were, who was behind the conspiracy, who the shooters were, what Oswald's role was ...

In short, everyone is lying except for that particular conspiracy theorist. Everyone must be lying, because the evidence is *plain as day* to them, and if you claim you don't see it, you must be lying.

This passage sums it up best:

"The people who believe in conspiracy theories are the quickest to become extremely vituperative," investigative reporter Seymour Hersh told an interviewer, explaining his aversion to looking into the assassination. "One of these guys calls you with a conspiracy theory and you say 'I don't buy it.' And they say 'Sure you don't buy it. It's because you are part of the conspiracy.' It's a gestalt I don't like."

JFK - The Book of the Film, page 222.
https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Book-Film-Applause-Screenplay/dp/1557831270

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Holland lies. He thinks he can see a bullet hole in a traffic light from old footage, but evidence came forth that the traffic lights already came with that gap. Total failure. There is no eyewitness evidence for an early loud shot before the 190-224 reactions. His television program also contains a hoaxed reenactment of the single bullet theory (driving the car further down the road because otherwise a laser trajectory would exit out of the chest of Kennedy).

Lying is telling an intentional untruth. How did you determine he was lying, as opposed to honestly mistaken? Is "lying" the go-to default argument for conspiracy theorists everywhere? I've encountered this claim almost everywhere I've debated the assassination. Without exception.

Those who argue for a lone assassin are more than willing to grant that the opposition is simply misinformed and / or interpreting the evidence incorrectly (mostly because many of us, like myself, have been conspiracy theorists in the past). Not so, from what I've seen, with conspiracy theorists. They are rather quick to judge the opposition is deliberately obfuscating, making claims they know are untrue, spreading misinformation and disinformation. I myself have been accused of being an agent of the coverup by at least four different conspiracy theorists - on multiple different forums. Mostly for, in my view, posting evidence they cannot rebut.

If you want to convince anyone, lay off the "lying" name-calling. You're not a mind-reader, and that's what it would take to know if someone was lying (to intentionally attempt to mislead)or not.

Secondly, can you post the evidence the car was in the wrong place. Not a link to some conspiracy theorist website claiming that. The actual evidence?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Once you accept that the cowlick evidence is simply optical illusion, and that the EOP wound was lower in the skull, IMO it has to eventually come to another shooter. Since there's all the proof in the world that there's ever going to be unless even more medical evidence-related material is somehow cobbled together in the future, any investigation of the possibility of multiple shooters must try to explain this elliptical, ragged, slanting EOP wound with the available medical evidence, and in scenarios where there may have been a bigger coverup of the medical evidence.

The large head wound could be caused by a frangible bullet or a bullet clipping the head. Considering the reports that Kennedy was still barely alive when he arrived at Parkland hospital, there may have been much less brain damage than usually contended.

The Connally's claimed they were literally pelted with blood and brains during the assassination. Jackie is alleged to have offered a piece of JFK's brain or skull (after supposedly going out on the trunk of the limo to retrieve it). A motorcycle policeman is also claimed to have been struck with blood from the head shot. A red mist surrounds JFK's head in the Zapruder film. A large piece of skull is blown upwards at approximately the one o'clock position in that film (later recovered, this is known as the "Harper fragment", after the young man who discovered it). You can see a massive hole in the top, right side of the head in that film, and the autopsy photographs show that damage as well. A piece of brain was rumored to be found in the grass on Elm Street. The doctors at Parkland said they knew he was terminal when brought in, but they had to try. The agonal respirations and heartbeat are controlled by the lowest and most ancient part of the brain, which was relatively undamaged. The higher portion of the brain was severely disrupted and much of it on the right side was missing.

Good luck selling that "there may have been much less brain damage than usually contended".

Hank

 

[traxy]

There is no eyewitness evidence for an early loud shot before the 190-224 reactions.

John Connally

Rosemary Willis

Why are you repeating blatantly false things?

 

[MicahJava]

Lying is telling an intentional untruth. How did you determine he was lying, as opposed to honestly mistaken? Is "lying" the go-to default argument for conspiracy theorists everywhere? I've encountered this claim almost everywhere I've debated the assassination. Without exception.

Those who argue for a lone assassin are more than willing to grant that the opposition is simply misinformed and / or interpreting the evidence incorrectly (mostly because many of us, like myself, have been conspiracy theorists in the past). Not so, from what I've seen, with conspiracy theorists. They are rather quick to judge the opposition is deliberately obfuscating, making claims they know are untrue, spreading misinformation and disinformation. I myself have been accused of being an agent of the coverup by at least four different conspiracy theorists - on multiple different forums. Mostly for, in my view, posting evidence they cannot rebut.

If you want to convince anyone, lay off the "lying" name-calling. You're not a mind-reader, and that's what it would take to know if someone was lying (to intentionally attempt to mislead)or not.

Secondly, can you post the evidence the car was in the wrong place. Not a link to some conspiracy theorist website claiming that. The actual evidence?

Hank

Mr. Holland is a lying liar who lies, not some guy with a pet theory. I don't know when the program was filmed, but for about a year it was known for a fact that the gap in the traffic sign was not a bullet hole, but the program aired anyway. And the reenactment of the single bullet theory is one of the most 1984-esque media hoaxes ever. And as is tradition, they won't release their Dealey Plaza surveying data or the films they restored.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder

 

[MicahJava]

John Connally

Rosemary Willis

Why are you repeating blatantly false things?

Connally literally saw the Zapruder film and placed his shot as shortly after he emerged from the sign. The only evidence for what you're saying is that after Z160, Connally appears to turns his head very fast to the right (of course, Connally himself interpreted the right-head-turn he was talking about as coming at Z238).

Rosemary Willis has no strong recollection of the assassination because it happened when she was 10 years old and was asked about it when she was 26. She thought they maybe she stopped and turned her head in the Z film reacting to a shot, but her father Phillip Willis told Gerald Posner that he might've called out to her at that moment. There's almost no evidence besides Rosemary's head turning pretty fast.

 

[MicahJava]

The Connally's claimed they were literally pelted with blood and brains during the assassination. Jackie is alleged to have offered a piece of JFK's brain or skull (after supposedly going out on the trunk of the limo to retrieve it). A motorcycle policeman is also claimed to have been struck with blood from the head shot. A red mist surrounds JFK's head in the Zapruder film. A large piece of skull is blown upwards at approximately the one o'clock position in that film (later recovered, this is known as the "Harper fragment", after the young man who discovered it). You can see a massive hole in the top, right side of the head in that film, and the autopsy photographs show that damage as well. A piece of brain was rumored to be found in the grass on Elm Street. The doctors at Parkland said they knew he was terminal when brought in, but they had to try. The agonal respirations and heartbeat are controlled by the lowest and most ancient part of the brain, which was relatively undamaged. The higher portion of the brain was severely disrupted and much of it on the right side was missing.

Good luck selling that "there may have been much less brain damage than usually contended".

Hank

The brain photographs (available to us as a sketch) are an indicator of how relatively little brain damage there may have been. We know that the EOP wound existed, but the known brain damage was inconsistent with that wound having any relation to the large head wound. Two shots to the head is the most reasonable interpretation, unless you want to say the EOP wound was caused by a ricochet from a missed shot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Actually. We don't know those things. We know there is a wound consistent with the exit wound, but you deny it. You are unable to produce any evidence for the wound as you describe, that corresponds with your interpretation.

At this point it seems you are looking at the photographs you post, and wilfully ignore the obvious wound in favour of one you alone see by squinting at the hair.

 

[MicahJava]

Actually. We don't know those things. We know there is a wound consistent with the exit wound, but you deny it. You are unable to produce any evidence for the wound as you describe, that corresponds with your interpretation.

At this point it seems you are looking at the photographs you post, and wilfully ignore the obvious wound in favour of one you alone see by squinting at the hair.

I do not buy that the autopsy doctors didn't know how to use a ruler and that all of the records and recollections by people who saw and handled the body are mistaken about the small head wound being no higher than the level of the ears. Not only is the cowlick theory proposing that the location of the wound was mistaken by so many, but the "15x6 mm, jagged, slanting" measurement of the wound is completely wrong too. You also have to ignore the evidence of the open cranium photographs showing the EOP wound. Simply put, the red spot also doesn't look like a bullet hole.

What extraordinary evidence do you have for this charge?

1. In a couple of photographs, it kind of looks like attention is being drawn to the red spot on the scalp (which was specifically denied to be the actual wound by Dr. Boswell, an autopsy photographer, and early statements by Dr. Humes).

2. 12 years after the autopsy, Dr. Humes thought that maybe the cowlick theory had merit (and there are a few good reasons to think that Humes may have been mislead).

3. A fracture on the skull x-rays that some experts (with no clear evidence) say looks like it might be an entry wound (with no proof that the red spot even aligns with the location of said fracture).

That is not extraordinary evidence. Sorry.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do not buy that the autopsy doctors didn't know how to use a ruler and that all of the records and recollections by people who saw and handled the body are mistaken about the small head wound being no higher than the level of the ears. Not only is the cowlick theory proposing that the location of the wound was mistaken by so many, but the "15x6 mm, jagged, slanting" measurement of the wound is completely wrong too. You also have to ignore the evidence of the open cranium photographs showing the EOP wound. Simply put, the red spot also doesn't look like a bullet hole.

What extraordinary evidence do you have for this charge?

1. In a couple of photographs, it kind of looks like attention is being drawn to the red spot on the scalp (which was specifically denied to be the actual wound by Dr. Boswell, an autopsy photographer, and early statements by Dr. Humes).

2. 12 years after the autopsy, Dr. Humes thought that maybe the cowlick theory had merit (and there are a few good reasons to think that Humes may have been mislead).

3. A fracture on the skull x-rays that some experts (with no clear evidence) say looks like it might be an entry wound (with no proof that the red spot even aligns with the location of said fracture).

That is not extraordinary evidence. Sorry.

There is no need for extraordinary evidence. It is not an extraordinary claim.
The records of the autopsy disagree with you.
The photographs disagree with you.
The men themselves confirm the photos are correct.

You seem to misunderstand how this works. You seem to think that the records must be wrong based on human memory some time later.

Human memory is flawed. It is not a recording, it is a way of re-imagining events.

The whole point of autopsy records, the whole reason for those photographs, and diagrams, are because human memory is flawed.

There is a photograph of a wound, where the records place it, and the doctors confirm it in their testimony.

What DOES require extraordinary evidence is:

1) An alternate or additional entry point for a wound.
2) That the autopsy photographs record the ruler (which apparently nobody knows how to use) being placed to offer scale to the known entry wound, if it is not a wound.
3) The hair being parted to reveal a wound that is not a wound.
4) The wound that is not a wound being the focus of the photograph.
5) The known exit point of the ejecta, if not from the wound you deny.
6) The alleged falsification of documents.
7) The alleged presence of a silenced and/or frangible bullet.
8) The alleged presence of a weapon capable of firing said bullet.
9) The alleged presence of shooters to use these weapons.

Not claims. Not unsupported testimony. Actual physical, verifiable evidence.

So far you have supplied none of a suitable standard.

Neither have you supplied a full theory for the events of the day.

What you keep posting is not convincing.