JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[kookbreaker]

So you wouldn't want to try to replicate the angle of the photo? It might just take a coin, a small jar, and a 15x6mm piece of tape representing the EOP wound.

Again,

Scarf > Your silliness.

 

[HSienzant]

I was, of course, talking about a possible shot that presumably missed and hit the concrete curb next to the manhole cover, leaving that shallow mark.

Except we already discussed that. You're wrong.

Besides, you're contradicting yourself.

I have already suggested that the early reports of a bullet found in the grass have physical evidence in the form of a deep indention on the side of the stone surrounding the manhole cover.

It's evidence of a conspiracy whether it's a deep indentation or a shallow mark?

Gotcha - it's evidence of a conspiracy no matter what.

All the best.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I think Connally is essentially like many other "two-shot witnesses"; he most likely did not perceive the last two loud shots as being separate because they were so close to eachother. I think the entirety of the witness evidence points to a theory in which the first loud shot was at z190-224, followed moments later by two loud shots close together.

Except you're quoting Governor Connally on when he was hit, and ignoring entirely how it conflicts with your reconstruction above. As I noted the first time. Do you not understand why I don't find that convincing?

Do try to address the points I made.

Click on the link to see them again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510558&postcount=1733

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Plus, you're using "Cowlick" wrong. I don't know if English is your primary language, but a cowlick is on the front of the head referring to a rediculous hair part.

Guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowlick

A cowlick can be anywhere on the head.

Even at the external occipital protuberance.

A cowlick is a section of hair that stands straight up or lies at an angle at odds with the style in which the rest of an individual's hair is worn. Cowlicks appear when the growth direction of the hair forms a spiral pattern. The term "cowlick" originates from the domestic bovine's habit of licking its young, which results in a swirling pattern in the hair. The most common site of a human cowlick is in the crown, but they can show up anywhere. They also sometimes appear in the front and back of the head.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

What a joke your argument is.

This is what happens when someone who reads conspiracy literature - and not the actual testimony - testifies. And when a conspiracy buff like yourself reads that testimony and accepts hearsay repeated from conspiracy books as the truth. It's actually the exact opposite of the truth.

Here's the actual exchange, and it's got nothing to do with coercing Humes. It's one doctor telling the other doctors on the medical panel to shut up and listen to Doctor Humes. I apologize for the length of the post, but it's necessary to get the point across. The medical panel invited Dr. Humes to testify, and this is what transpired.


Dr. PETTY. Joe Davis, you have questions, I think, about the inshoot area, don't you?*
Dr. DAVIS. Well, in terms of the inshoot, my impression when I first looked at these films was that the inshoot was higher, and I equated that with the lesion in photograph, I believe it was No. 26, color photograph- ------well, it's 43------- and I interpreted---- which on is this?
Dr. BADEN. This is No. 42.
Dr. PETTY. We were wondering if that had been the inshoot.
Dr. HUMES. No, no, That's no wound.
Dr. DAVIS. Because in No. 42 I interpreted that as a wound, and the other, lower down in the neck, as just being a contaminant, a piece of brain tissue.
Dr. HUMES. No, that was a wound, and the wound on the skull precisely coincided with it.
Dr. DAVIS. Now it was a tunnel--
Dr HUMES. Yeah, tunnel for a way.
Dr. BOSWELL. Yeah, it's longer than it is wide, and tunneled along and actually under here, and then at the actual bone defect was above the--
Dr. HUMES. And this photograph No. 45, I am quite convinced, is an attempt to demonstrate that wound, and not a very successful one I'm afraid, because I can't for sure pick it out. This, I believe, was taken looking down at the inside looking close to the posterior cranial fossa.
Dr. BOSWELL. And what we see here is a lot of red and fragments of bone.
Dr. COE. Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, have you discussed these photographs with the other pathologists who have previously gone over this this with you?
Dr. HUMES. I have not.
Dr. BOSWELL. I went over the photographs with Humes.
Dr. COE. Because at least there's already one of them right---I had the impression that they apparently thought---I was just curious as to---
Dr. HUMES. Our written description clearly, I think, indicates that point right there.
Dr. COE. But they describe, some of them, the entrance they feel being 10 centimeters above the occipital proturberance.
Dr. PETTY. Well, there have been all sorts of changes from the original--l mcan, right and left and up and down.
Dr. COE. No. That's why I was interested in whether they had discussed it with the pathologists or whether the pathologists had been interpreting entirely from the photographs when they made the statement.
Dr. PETTY. SO, on photograph No. 42, then, down right at the hairline, right at almost in the midline, is the inshoot wound, and this photograph is not taken with the inshoot wound centered in the photograph, but rather the posterior extension of the scalp tear is the subject of the photograph.
Dr. HUMES. Again, to be sure that it was related to the gentleman's head rather than focusing specifically on a wound, no I don't think we took the photograph specifically at that site, do you, Jay?
Dr. BOSWELL. No.
Dr. PETTY. And, you say, Dr. Boswell, that the bullet entered the skin and that the wound in the skull was a little above that.
Dr. BOSWELL. Right.
Dr. PETTY. Because apparently the bullet had tunneled a little under the skin and then that corresponds with the diagram that I saw which showed a point on the back of the body, the diagram with an arrow pointing upward and slightly to the left.
Dr. HUMES. You caught---I don't know what you are referring to.
Dr. DAVIS. What I'm saying--what I'm inferring: in the absence of photographs and specific measurements, we could only conjecture as to how long the tunneling but I would envision this as a tunneling first and then entry into the skull.
Mr. LOQUVAM. Gentlemen, may I say something?
Dr. DAVIS. Yes.
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this discussion belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. HUMES. I agree.
Dr. LOQUVAM. We have no business recording this. This is for us to decide between ourselves; I don't think this belongs in this record.
Dr. PETTY. Well, we have to say something about our feeling as to why we're so interested in that one particular area.
Dr. HUMES. Could I make a comment that I think would be helpful to you, and you can throw out anything I say or whatever? But I feel obligated to make a certain interjection at this point, having heard this theory which I hadn't heard from the committee because I didn't pay that much attention quite frankly. Our attention was obviously directed to what we understood and thought to be clearly a wound of entrance. If such a fragment were to have detached itself from the main mass of the missile, it would have to be a relatively small fragment because the size of the defect in the skull which approximated this point was almost identical with the size of the defect in the skin. Do you follow that line of reasoning?
Dr. PETTY. Yes, that makes sense. I mean, I've seen the same thing.
Dr. DAVIS. I've seen the same thing---bothers me a bit--part of that casing comes off.
Dr. COE. The reason we are so interested in this, Dr. Humes, is because other pathologists have interpreted the---
Dr. LOQUVAM. I don't think this belongs in the damn record.
Dr. HUMES. Well, it probably doesn't.
Dr. LOQUVAM. You guys are nuts. You guys are nuts writing this stuff. It doesn't belong in that damn record.
Dr. BADEN. I think the only purpose of its being in the record is to explain to Dr. Humes what--
Dr. LOQUVAM. Why not turn off the record and explain to him and then go back and talk again.
Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions, but to get his opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles [Dr. Charles Petty] and Joe [Dr. Joe Davis] talking like mad in the damn record, and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry.


Conspiracy books paint that - by quoting selectively - as Dr. Loquvam being party to a coverup and trying to keep Humes testimony out of the record when he says "I don't think this belongs in the damn record". But the truth is quite different. Dr. Loquvam was telling the other members of the panel to shut up and listen to Humes and let's get his opinions on the record. Humes' opinions were the ones they were trying to get on the record and why they invited him to testify.

And then you get Purdy, who supposedly attended that discussion, and heard all the above, repeating not what actually transpired but testifying to the conspiracy spin on it that he read somewhere and now 'recollects' and even testifies to his reconstruction of a false memory of Dr. Petty taking Dr. Humes aside to set him straight.

And you don't quote the actual transcript of the exchange, but Purdy's faulty recollection of the exchange from his testimony to the ARRB, which is about two decades after the exchange.

Moreover, Humes testimony is that the wound is in the hairline at the bottom of the head. As Purdy stated, "He's practically down to the shirt". Yet you claim, somehow, this is evidence "that Dr. Humes was coerced into agreeing with the cowlick placement", which disagrees entirely with what Purdy said and Humes testified to.

And that's why I say "What a joke your argument is."

Hank

I don't think the transcript is sufficient to understand exactly what's going on in the room considering that they're literally talking about not transcribing what they're saying because it's just a casual conversation.

Perry apparently couldn't make it up, either. According to the online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, in Febuary of 2000 Dr. Michael Baden told researchers that Dr. Petty had indeed berated Dr. Humes at some point in time and called him a "god-damned jackass".

Except we examined Connally's testimony and he testified to the three shots lasting ten to twelve seconds. We know (and he testified) the third shot was at Zapruder film frame 313, and the camera exposed film at 18.3 frames per second.

So we know that Governor Connally is saying the first shot happened at Zapruder film frame 135 or prior, if we accept his eyewitness testimony as accurate.

Don't we?

The rest of your post is equally wrong, but I don't have time to rebut the whole thing. This should do for now.

I think Connolly most likely early a loud shot at 190, and was hit by something subsonic at z222. Then, the last two loud shots were so close together he thought it was two.

Except we already discussed that. You're wrong.

Besides, you're contradicting yourself.

If a bullet didn't hit the side of the cement, there's still a lot of information pointing to a bullet being found somewhere in that area, near the manhole cover.

 

[HSienzant]

I don't think the transcript is sufficient to understand exactly what's going on in the room considering that they're literally talking about not transcribing what they're saying because it's just a casual conversation.

What part of this exchange didn't you understand?

Dr. BADEN. Well, our problem is not to get our opinions, but to get his opinions.
Dr. LOQUVAM. All right then, keep our opinions off. Here's Charles [Dr. Charles Petty] and Joe [Dr. Joe Davis] talking like mad in the damn record, and it doesn't belong in it. Sorry.

I understand precisely what's going on. Conspiracy buffs take stuff out of context to paint a different picture than the actual. Dr. Loquvam was telling the other doctors to shut up so they could get Dr. Humes (who performed the autopsy) on the record. You really should read the first-person testimony instead of crediting decades later recollections, which is what you're doing with Purdy's testimony to the AARB about what Dr. Loquvam said during the testimony of Dr. Humes in the HSCA investigation. There's nothing in the record that establishes Purdy's decades after the fact recollection is accurate or true.

Perry apparently couldn't make it up, either. According to the online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, in Febuary of 2000 Dr. Michael Baden told researchers that Dr. Petty had indeed berated Dr. Humes at some point in time and called him a "god-damned jackass".

Who is Perry? Do you mean Dr. Perry, who was in the emergency room in Dallas treating the President after the assassination? Do you mean Purdy? What's the source of the claims in that online book? Can you cite the source, and provide a link to the source? How credible is the source? How does Dr. Petty calling Dr. Humes a name, even if true, establish any of what you posted from Purdy is true? It doesn't. You haven't salvaged the Purdy recollection. You've simply posted more unproven assertions.

I looked at that online book, which is by a conspiracy buff by the name of Pat Speer, whom you've cited a lot.

https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-LQT...pective On The Kennedy Assassination_djvu.txt

The scanning isn't the greatest, but I see that Speer doesn't provide a citation for the claim you're citing.

I think Connolly most likely early a loud shot at 190, and was hit by something subsonic at z222. Then, the last two loud shots were so close together he thought it was two.

Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not asking you to repeat your claims ad infinitum. I'm asking you to address the points I made. I understand your claim. Repeating it doesn't make it more true. You claimed that Gov. Connally said this and that, but when we examined his testimony, we find evidence that the shooting lasted longer than you're allowing, and you're not explaining whatsoever why you believe Connally on some points, and not on others. I'm awaiting your explanation of how you know when Connally is right, and how you know when Connally is wrong, among other things. You can click on these links to see what points I'm making:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510703&postcount=1743
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510558&postcount=1733

If a bullet didn't hit the side of the cement, there's still a lot of information pointing to a bullet being found somewhere in that area, near the manhole cover.

No, there's not. If you dispute this, provide the evidence. Not the rumors or the hearsay. The evidence. Got any?

And you're ignoring the fact that I documented you called this a deep indentation then a shallow mark within the period of about three weeks.

But regardless of what kind of mark it is and whether it's feasible for a bullet to make that kind of mark, you're certain it's a bullet strike. Without ever examining the mark itself.

And I pointed out previously what this "bullet strike evidence" consists of:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11475648&postcount=1323

 

[Axxman300]

Guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowlick

A cowlick can be anywhere on the head.

Even at the external occipital protuberance.

A cowlick is a section of hair that stands straight up or lies at an angle at odds with the style in which the rest of an individual's hair is worn. Cowlicks appear when the growth direction of the hair forms a spiral pattern. The term "cowlick" originates from the domestic bovine's habit of licking its young, which results in a swirling pattern in the hair. The most common site of a human cowlick is in the crown, but they can show up anywhere. They also sometimes appear in the front and back of the head.

Hank

I know, I have one in the back of my head. It's just that in 53 years of assassination lore I've never heard Kennedy's entry wound called anytihng else but "Entry Wound".

 

[HSienzant]

I know, I have one in the back of my head. It's just that in 53 years of assassination lore I've never heard Kennedy's entry wound called anytihng else but "Entry Wound".

It's sleight of hand by conspiracy theorists. By calling it the 'cowlick wound' they are assuming what they need to prove... that the 'red spot' is at the natural part in the hair and isn't the real wound, and that the real wound is lower in the photograph.

By calling it the 'cowlick wound', they also eliminate from consideration entirely the most reasonable explanation, that it's not a natural part in the hair we're looking at, but rather, the autopsy doctors simply combed the hair out of the way to expose the bullet entry wound in the rear of the head.

Pretty slick, right?

They also pretend "south" of the limo is behind the limo, but it's actually forward and to the left of the limo. This is pertinent because the Harper head fragment was found south of where the limo was at the time of the head shot, but some conspiracy authors claim the Harper fragment was found behind the limo -- implying a shooter to the front. But the actual site of the shooter, considering the curve of Elm Street, would be behind the limo. And we can see that Harper fragment in Zapruder film frame 313, spiraling up and outwards at approximately the one o'clock position.

And you already cited this, but it's worth repeating because it shows the material exiting forward from a shot from behind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RX2phbWmgA

This is typical for how claims are made in the conspiracy literature. Cite the actual document, but take the claim out of context or twist it beyond recognition. After all, most readers aren't going to check, and by then, you've already got their money.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Read the 1978 HSCA testimony by Pierre Finck and tell me with a straight face you know the red spot is a bullet entry wound.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

 

[traxy]

Read the 1978 HSCA testimony by Pierre Finck and tell me with a straight face you know the red spot is a bullet entry wound.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

Finck says the phrase "I don't recall" 14 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't remember" 22 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't know" 36 times during this interview.

When shown the back of the head photographs, his comments include:

"It is probably this wound. can't, I don't --"

and...

"This is not too clear so I can't tell if it is this or that, honestly"

and...

"Is it that and that or is it something else?. I don't know."

and...

"It is more accurate to determine an anatomic location when you have the wound itself on the dead body. On the photographs it is embarrassing, it is distorted as far as the angle of shooting is concerned, so you feel much more at ease when you have the dead body and the wounds to establish a location than when you have photographs."

When asked to indicate where the external occipital protuberance is located in the photos, Finck responds with:

"I really don't know."


So, tell me again how this testimony is proof of something.

 

[Ranb]

While it was initially reported to be a "rifle bullet", one rumor circulated that it was a .45 caliber bullet recovered. This opens up the possibility that something like the .45 De Lisle silenced carbine was used.

Well it would be foolish to use a rifle shooting a 45 acp pistol cartridge (230 grain round nose bullet) and plant a 6.5mm rifle for the patsy. I don't think I'd trust one of those carbines to hit a moving target at 260 feet either. The bullet is moving only about 900 fps so the lead required would be greater. The De Lisle is known for its low noise level, not accuracy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Lisle_carbine

As for the video, it is misleading. It is not and has never been "one of the most silent rifles ever made". That distinction belongs to any suppressed 22lr rifle due to the much smaller powder charge and small silencer bore. it is impossible to make any 45 acp rifle with a dry silencer less noisy than a suppressed 22lr. I know as I own and shoot both.

Another problem with the video is that it compares the measured (probably with old meters)85 decibel De Lisle to the ">100 decibel" modern rifles which were measured with the proper noise meters with <20 micro second response time.

Using a De Lisle in Dealey Plaza would be a stupid idea.

 

[Axxman300]

Using a De Lisle in Dealey Plaza would be a stupid idea.

That's what I keep telling him.

I keep telling him that guns don't lie, and while the ballistics wasn't autographed by Oswald, it is exclusive to the Carcano, and there was only one in Dealey Plaza, and it was owned by LHO, and had his fingerprints on it.

I can't believe I wasted so many years thinking a second gunman was possible. It would have been obvious, and would have been discovered quickly.

More to the point, if I'm hired to shoot JFK, and they tell me it has to be in Dallas I'm going to shoot him on Main Street, not Elm Street because I'm closer, and have better avenues for escape. If they order me to kill in Dealey Plaza then I'm taking the School Book Depository, either the 6th floor or roof. The TSBD has a great angle on Elm Street which gives you a dream visual when you sight your shot with the sides of the street converging to the overpass, and the center painted line guiding your front site.

Any idiot can land at least one kill shot from there, and Oswald landed two.

What I am not going to do is work with a second shooter, even if I know him. The more guys with guns the greater chance something goes wrong. If the second shooter suggests he's going to use a silenced weapon I don't take the job because he's a dangerous idiot.

We've had FOUR mass shootings in the past few days, I doubt they did much planning in advance. Sometimes all you need is a gun, and the will to use it, and people die. Like I said, guns never lie.

 

[sackett]

delete. I grow too weary of it all.

still waiting for you to make it interesting, michah

 

[Elagabalus]

bobtaftfan repeats the old, old canard that Roosevelt wanted to “drag the U.S. into the war.”

There’s something particularly offensive about that. FDR could only hope to coax Americans into providing more aid for the British, such was the bullet-headed isolationist mood in the country at that time – in spite of the widespread knowledge of just how appalling world fascism, and especially Nazism, really was.

FDR should have pushed, hustled, bullied, and shamed the U.S. into declaring war on those scum. If he engineered PH as a way of getting the country into the fight, then good for him.

But I wonder if bobtaftfan really feels the same way about fascism as I do. A guy who’d dedicate his screen name to the likes of Robert Alphonso Taft really ought to clarify that point.

I didn’t make up the Alphonso part.

So FDR AND Oswald! It's insidious!*




* Sorry, couldn't resist.

ETA: hah, in before the delete!

 

[sackett]

damn, you're quick

or I'm slow

anyways, this thread is otiose, because I shot jfk. confessed years ago. for some reason, these hobbyists just won't believe me.

 

[Ranb]

On the other hand if someone used a Remington Model 552 Speedmaster with a scope, silencer (even a rudimentary one) it would have been simple to empty the ten round tubular magazine into the car occupants from the sixth floor of the TSBD. The 40 grain bullets moving 1000 fps are lethal and with multiple wounds chances are any assassin would be successful.

Even witnesses as close as Harold Norman and James Jarman on the fifth floor might not have realized anyone was shooting until it was all over.

 

[sackett]

Speedmaster? Hell I own one! It's over there in the closet.

See? Evidence. Toldja I shot JFK.

 

[MicahJava]

Finck says the phrase "I don't recall" 14 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't remember" 22 times during this interview.

Finck says the phrase "I don't know" 36 times during this interview.

When shown the back of the head photographs, his comments include:

"It is probably this wound. can't, I don't --"

and...

"This is not too clear so I can't tell if it is this or that, honestly"

and...

"Is it that and that or is it something else?. I don't know."

and...

"It is more accurate to determine an anatomic location when you have the wound itself on the dead body. On the photographs it is embarrassing, it is distorted as far as the angle of shooting is concerned, so you feel much more at ease when you have the dead body and the wounds to establish a location than when you have photographs."

When asked to indicate where the external occipital protuberance is located in the photos, Finck responds with:

"I really don't know."


So, tell me again how this testimony is proof of something.

Finck is an expert witness. Part of being an expert witness is understanding the limits of human memory and admitting when you don't remember something whenever applicable. He remembered the small head wound. He'd probably slap you upside the head if you hold him the red spot was the entry wound and he didn't double-check his records for the shooting of the President.

You have an astounding zero witnesses who both saw the body and identified the red spot as the small head wound.

Dr. Humes testified to the HSCA that he thought the red spot was the entry wound, but only because he was coerced. Purdy casually mentioned in a ARRB interview that he remembers that some time during or after that HSCA meeting where Humes said the red spot looked like a drop of blood, he was berated by Dr. Petty. This story was backed up by Dr. Baden in Feburay of 2000, who remembered Dr. Petty calling Humes a "god-damned jackass".

Apparently Humes wasn't coerced enough on the issue, because years later he told author Harry Livingstone that he knew the cowlick theory was BS and the real wound was lower. As Livingstone put it, "he was very strong on this issue". Dr. Humes also appeared in the May 27, 1996 issue of the Journal of American Medical Association. In the article entitled "JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy", we read:

"The fatal wound was blatantly obvious," Humes recalls. "The entrance wound was elliptical, 15 millimeters long and 6 millimeters wide, and located 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. The inside of the skull displayed the characteristic beveled appearance."

Finally, Dr. Humes sealed the issue in 1996 and stood by the original EOP location in his ARRB deposition.

Remember, this is coming from the guy who was coerced into raising the back wound for public consumption. I bet he got tired of that kind of BS and decided to set the record straight. Only a fool knows in his heart that the red spot was the entry wound.

 

[traxy]

Finck is an expert witness.

You're right, he is an expert witness who fully admits that there is a lot he doesn't remember about the autopsy.

He also says no less than 3 times in this interview that attempting to locate wounds using a photograph is impossible and a complete waste of time. I believe the word he uses is "embarrassing". He can't even locate the EOP on the photo, and this is a trained forensic pathologist!


If he sees the futility in using that photo, why don't you believe him?

 

[MicahJava]

You're right, he is an expert witness who fully admits that there is a lot he doesn't remember about the autopsy.

He also says no less than 3 times in this interview that attempting to locate wounds using a photograph is impossible and a complete waste of time. I believe the word he uses is "embarrassing". He can't even locate the EOP on the photo, and this is a trained forensic pathologist!


If he sees the futility in using that photo, why don't you believe him?

The scalp is being pulled back in the BOH photos.