JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[sackett]

Christ what a gruesome infatuation.

Come on, Micah J., tell us who REALLY shot Kennedy? You consider yourself a researcher, right? What oh what does your research FINALLY reveal?

Ignore me if you like. All you're doing is getting older.

 

[MicahJava]

Christ what a gruesome infatuation.

Come on, Micah J., tell us who REALLY shot Kennedy? You considernyourself a researcher, right? What oh what does your research FINALLY reveal?

Ignore me if you like. All you're doing is getting older.

1. Shooter hiding in truck shoots Kennedy in the back. Bullet does not exit.

2. Kennedy, wounded, pulls out the presidential pistol in self-defense. The man in the trunk shoots again and creates the small wound low in the head.

3. In reaction to being shot low in the head, Kennedy accidentally pulls the trigger on his pistol and shoots Connally in the back.

4. Connally, now angry at himself being wounded sitting turned to the side to avoid getting hit, pulls out his own pistol, hides it under his Stetson hat, and turns around with the intention of shooting the President in the face.

5. Secret Service agent George Hickey Jr., confused, begins to withdraw his AR-15 in reaction to the commotion.

6. Bill Greer points his pistol at the President's head.

7. Meanwhile, Jackie Kennedy is pointing her own pistol at her husband's throat.

8. The driver, Bill Greer, pulls out his own gun and shoots Connally in the wrist before he can have the honors. Connally drops his pistol and his Stetson hat.

At this moment, three things happen.

9. Connally, flinching and reacting to his wrist shot, pulls the trigger on his pistol, creating a tiny tangential wound above Kennedy's right eye.

10. Jackie pulls the trigger on her pistol, sending a bullet into her husband's throat and creating an exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

11. George Hickey Jr. accidentally shoots his AR-15, which entered the President's cowlick and exited out of the top-right side of his head.

12. Just as Kennedy is beginning to be thrown backwards, the Driver takes his shot, creating an entrance wound in his right temple and enlarging the exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

13. Hickey accidentally fires yet another time; this bullet hit near a manhole cover a some distance away, ricocheting a shard of lead further away near James Tague's feet, sending a fragment of cement upwards and hitting Tague's cheek.

14. As the limousine is driving away, Jackie turns around and taps on the trunk of the limousine three times, indicating to the shooter hiding there that the hit was successful.

Watch the Zapruder Film with this in mind and tell me this doesn't explain everything.

 

[sackett]

What a childish response.

 

[MicahJava]

What a childish response.

What's your theory?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Oh, right, sure. I've been forgetting all about the presidential pistol.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

1. Shooter hiding in truck shoots Kennedy in the back. Bullet does not exit.

2. Kennedy, wounded, pulls out the presidential pistol in self-defense. The man in the trunk shoots again and creates the small wound low in the head.

3. In reaction to being shot low in the head, Kennedy accidentally pulls the trigger on his pistol and shoots Connally in the back.

4. Connally, now angry at himself being wounded sitting turned to the side to avoid getting hit, pulls out his own pistol, hides it under his Stetson hat, and turns around with the intention of shooting the President in the face.

5. Secret Service agent George Hickey Jr., confused, begins to withdraw his AR-15 in reaction to the commotion.

6. Bill Greer points his pistol at the President's head.

7. Meanwhile, Jackie Kennedy is pointing her own pistol at her husband's throat.

8. The driver, Bill Greer, pulls out his own gun and shoots Connally in the wrist before he can have the honors. Connally drops his pistol and his Stetson hat.

At this moment, three things happen.

9. Connally, flinching and reacting to his wrist shot, pulls the trigger on his pistol, creating a tiny tangential wound above Kennedy's right eye.

10. Jackie pulls the trigger on her pistol, sending a bullet into her husband's throat and creating an exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

11. George Hickey Jr. accidentally shoots his AR-15, which entered the President's cowlick and exited out of the top-right side of his head.

12. Just as Kennedy is beginning to be thrown backwards, the Driver takes his shot, creating an entrance wound in his right temple and enlarging the exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

13. Hickey accidentally fires yet another time; this bullet hit near a manhole cover a some distance away, ricocheting a shard of lead further away near James Tague's feet, sending a fragment of cement upwards and hitting Tague's cheek.

14. As the limousine is driving away, Jackie turns around and taps on the trunk of the limousine three times, indicating to the shooter hiding there that the hit was successful.

Watch the Zapruder Film with this in mind and tell me this doesn't explain everything.

You can't be serious

So you've just been kidding all along?

 

[MicahJava]

Let's start over.

Can anybody use medical evidence to show that the small wound near the EOP can have any relation to a large wound on the top-right side of the head?

Your first problem is going to be why the wound was so elliptical.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Other researchers have shown that the autopsy professionals were not as sure of the official conclusions as you're implying, and it is known that they were susceptible to some coercion.

You seem to have mistaken "claimed" for "shown". They have demonstrated no such thing. They have supported no such claims with viable evidence. Just the usual misinterpretation, too much weight on decades old memories, and misinterpretations.

Since we have established that the small, elliptical wound near the EOP existed, can you use medical evidence to explain how all of the head damage is consistent with anything Oswald could have done?

You have established no such thing. You may believe it, but you have not established it as a matter of fact, or evidence. You have in fact, been posted pretty convincing evidence that the wound is where the autopsy concluded. Photographs of the wound for example.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let's start over.

Can anybody use medical evidence to show that the small wound near the EOP can have any relation to a large wound on the top-right side of the head?

Your first problem is going to be why the wound was so elliptical.

The wound near the EOP, above it, near what you keep calling the "cowlick" is not elliptical.

 

[MicahJava]

You seem to have mistaken "claimed" for "shown". They have demonstrated no such thing. They have supported no such claims with viable evidence. Just the usual misinterpretation, too much weight on decades old memories, and misinterpretations.

Not only were the autopsy professionals not sure about the official story, Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. Burkey, who inspected the body, expressed that he was totally sure multiple shooters were involved. The president's personal physician! You're damn right I'll listen to what he says.

You have established no such thing. You may believe it, but you have not established it as a matter of fact, or evidence. You have in fact, been posted pretty convincing evidence that the wound is where the autopsy concluded. Photographs of the wound for example.

To any lurkers who are casually viewing this spat, I am the one saying that the autopsy report was correct in the placement of the small head wound. Tomtomkent here is the one trying to convince us that all of the professionals in charge of investigating the damage to Mr. Kennedy were literally wrong by a factor of four inches. I think they know how to use a ruler.

I have posted a photograph of the EOP wound, but not the one you're thinking of (the one everybody who saw the body thinks is a drop of blood or a minor scalp defect). I do not have a copy of Doug Hornes Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, but somewhere in there is information that a there was once indeed a photograph (since vanished) that unambiguously showed the EOP wound in it's proper place, low in the head. The two open-cranium photos are enough, IMO, albeit somewhat confusing at first.

The wound near the EOP, above it, near what you keep calling the "cowlick" is not elliptical.

Your logic is backwards. The red spot on the BOH photos is not elliptical, therefore it can not be the wound described in the autopsy report. The autopsy report says that the head wound was no higher than the level of the ears, was elliptical (15x6mm), had ragged edges, and was somewhat slanted. This perfectly matches the hole in the skull seen on the open-cranium photographs.

Is this really the only thing holding together the Oswald facade? Well allow me to pull the thread until it unravels. Only a fool knows in his heart that the red dot on the BOH photos is the entry wound.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I find it very odd you think the autopsy was correct in the placement of the head wounds, and yet also claim the wound visible in that position, on the photographs is wrong.

 

[HSienzant]

John T. Stringer, the photographer, in his testimony to the ARRB, 1996:

Q: And you're certain that that's where the doctors identified the entrance wound as being; is that correct?

A: Yeah. Yeah, I would think so. That's what I remember.

Q: I'd like to point out the spot that appears somewhat red that is near the end of the ruler, and ask you whether that was an entrance wound, or whether the doctors during the night of the autopsy identified that as an entrance wound?

A: I don't think so, no.

Q: Do you know what that red spot is that appears to be, in layman's terms, near the cowlick?

A: It looks like blood. I would say it was. There was blood all over the place. But I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. I don't think there was a hole there for the bullet wound. You would have seen the hole.

But curiously, Stringer, in 1972, had a totally different recollection. From a tape made by David Lifton which the ARRB played for Stringer during his testimony:

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

[1972 Lifton/Stringer interview tape playing]
[17]LIFTON: I see. I see. Let me ask you
[18] another way of stating that. And this is a good
[19] way of stating what I asked you before.
[20] If you lie back in a bathtub - you know,
[21] just in a totally prone position and you...and your
[22] head rests against the bathtub, is that the part of

Page 80
[1] the head - you know, is that the part of the head
[2] that was damaged?
[3] STRINGER: Yeah.
[4] LIFTON: That part?
[5] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[6] LIFTON: Back in the part that would be
[7] against the tile of the bathtub?
[8] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[9] LIFTON: I see. Whereas, the part that
[10] would be straight up ahead - you know, vertically
[11] in that position - was...was undamaged?
[12] STRINGER: Oh, no. I probably wouldn't
[13] say undamaged", no. I mean, it was - Some of it
[14] was gone. I mean, out of the - some of the bone.
[15] LIFTON: Yeah. I see.
[16] [End of audio tape portion.]
[17] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[18] BY MR. GUNN:
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you recall having had the
[20] conversation that we just listened to with Mr.
[21] Lifton?
[22] A: I don't recall it, but from the tape.

Page 81
[1] Somebody else played it for me.
[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.
[11] Q: The question that I'd be interested in is
[12] not what the trajectory of the bullet was, which
[13] wasn't discussed there -
[14] A: Yeah.
[15] Q: - but just where the wound was on
[16] President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that
[17] the wound was in the occiput or the occipital
[18] region?
[19] A: I don't remember telling him that, no.
[20] Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region
[21] of the President -
[22] A: Yes, the entry.

Page 82
[1] Q: By "the entry", you mean what?
[2] A: Where the bullet went.
[3] Q: And how big was the entry wound?
[4] A: About the size of a bullet, from what you
[5] could see. On the inside where the bone was, I
[6] guess it was different.



So do we give his 1993 testimony more credence, his 1972 recorded statements to Lifton more credence, or do we understand and accept the limits and fallibility of human recollection, and give the x-rays and autopsy photos - as interpreted by expert pathologists to the HSCA - more credence?

Do you understand the issue here?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Isn't it amazing how the "most accurate" recollections are always the ones that match an appealing story. If only there were some objective evidence to analyse and clear up any ambiguity or confusion.

Like the autopsy records, that match the photos, that match the x ray, that match the ballistics...

 

[HSienzant]

1. Shooter hiding in truck shoots Kennedy in the back. Bullet does not exit.

2. Kennedy, wounded, pulls out the presidential pistol in self-defense. The man in the trunk shoots again and creates the small wound low in the head.

3. In reaction to being shot low in the head, Kennedy accidentally pulls the trigger on his pistol and shoots Connally in the back.

4. Connally, now angry at himself being wounded sitting turned to the side to avoid getting hit, pulls out his own pistol, hides it under his Stetson hat, and turns around with the intention of shooting the President in the face.

5. Secret Service agent George Hickey Jr., confused, begins to withdraw his AR-15 in reaction to the commotion.

6. Bill Greer points his pistol at the President's head.

7. Meanwhile, Jackie Kennedy is pointing her own pistol at her husband's throat.

8. The driver, Bill Greer, pulls out his own gun and shoots Connally in the wrist before he can have the honors. Connally drops his pistol and his Stetson hat.

At this moment, three things happen.

9. Connally, flinching and reacting to his wrist shot, pulls the trigger on his pistol, creating a tiny tangential wound above Kennedy's right eye.

10. Jackie pulls the trigger on her pistol, sending a bullet into her husband's throat and creating an exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

11. George Hickey Jr. accidentally shoots his AR-15, which entered the President's cowlick and exited out of the top-right side of his head.

12. Just as Kennedy is beginning to be thrown backwards, the Driver takes his shot, creating an entrance wound in his right temple and enlarging the exit wound in the right-rear of the head.

13. Hickey accidentally fires yet another time; this bullet hit near a manhole cover a some distance away, ricocheting a shard of lead further away near James Tague's feet, sending a fragment of cement upwards and hitting Tague's cheek.

14. As the limousine is driving away, Jackie turns around and taps on the trunk of the limousine three times, indicating to the shooter hiding there that the hit was successful.

Watch the Zapruder Film with this in mind and tell me this doesn't explain everything.

I see none of that in the Zapruder film. And neither do you. Why don't you tell us your real theory, if indeed you even have one.

For starters, you say the entry wound in the back of the head was too low to have caused the exit wound in the top of the head AND to have been inflicted by Oswald.

Correct?

So according to you then, either one of two things is true:

(a) the wound in the back of the head had to be higher, or
(b) the shooter behind the limo had to be lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Since you appear to have been strenuously arguing against (a), I'm thinking your actual scenario is (b). But where is this supposedly lower shooter?

Why don't you lay out the evidence for this lower shooter?

Did any witnesses see this shooter? Was a weapon found? Ammo traceable to that weapon? The weapon traced?

What do you have to support your argument for a shooter lower than [other than] the sixth floor of the TSBD?

Can you flesh out the other half of the argument?

You argue for a lower wound. Now you have to argue for a lower shooter. The two go together, according to you. Show us the evidence for this lower shooter.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Not only were the autopsy professionals not sure about the official story, Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. Burkey, who inspected the body, expressed that he was totally sure multiple shooters were involved. The president's personal physician! You're damn right I'll listen to what he says.

What is his conclusion based on? Did he perform a separate autopsy? Did he make a detailed examination of the body of JFK at any time? Is he an expert qualified to make such a judgment? Did he acquire his forensic pathology skills on the sly? This is a logical fallacy known as an appeal to illegitimate authority.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Please read the link in detail and understand why Dr. Burkley is not an authority on this matter. And why citing his opinion isn't valid argument from authority. And why your judgment to trust his opinion is misplaced.

To any lurkers who are casually viewing this spat, I am the one saying that the autopsy report was correct in the placement of the small head wound. Tomtomkent here is the one trying to convince us that all of the professionals in charge of investigating the damage to Mr. Kennedy were literally wrong by a factor of four inches. I think they know how to use a ruler.

Ah, the old "They know how to use a ruler" argument. Except, please note, the autopsy doctors never gave a measurement for how much above the EOP the wound was. The "Four Inches" below the cowlick is your argument, not their measurement.

I have posted a photograph of the EOP wound, but not the one you're thinking of (the one everybody who saw the body thinks is a drop of blood or a minor scalp defect). I do not have a copy of Doug Hornes Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, but somewhere in there is information that a there was once indeed a photograph (since vanished) that unambiguously showed the EOP wound in it's proper place, low in the head. The two open-cranium photos are enough, IMO, albeit somewhat confusing at first.

Unfortunately, "IMO" isn't recognized as an authoritative source here. And you're appealing to the conspiracy theorist who is claiming the "missing evidence" confirms his beliefs. We've never heard that argument before.

Your logic is backwards. The red spot on the BOH photos is not elliptical, therefore it can not be the wound described in the autopsy report.

Looks relatively elliptical to me. But I'm not a authority here. What did the experts on the HSCA panel conclude?

The autopsy report says that the head wound was no higher than the level of the ears, was elliptical (15x6mm), had ragged edges, and was somewhat slanted. This perfectly matches the hole in the skull seen on the open-cranium photographs.

I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it

That one, the one that couldn't possibly be a wound entry location (according to you).

Is this really the only thing holding together the Oswald facade?

No, there's also his weapon found on the sixth floor, a bullet found in Parkland traceable to his weapon, two large bullet fragments traceable to that weapon, three shells at the sniper's nest traceable to that weapon, numerous witnesses who saw a rifle or gunman in that sniper's nest, his fingerprints on the weapon, the paper trail linking him to the rifle, the two witnesses who saw him with a long sack that morning, the fact that his weapon was missing from its normal hiding place in the Paine garage, the fact that Oswald was the only person who was inside the building before the shooting to depart the building after the shooting before the building was sealed off, the fact that Oswald went back to his rented room and obtained a pistol and used it to kill a police officer, the fact that Oswald has a history involving political assassination, as he was involved in another assassination attempt back in April of 1963... stuff like that also holds together what you call the "Oswald facade".

Well allow me to pull the thread until it unravels. Only a fool knows in his heart that the red dot on the BOH photos is the entry wound.

Only the fools on the HSCA pathology panel. And fools who like to follow the actual evidence and real experts, instead of 'missing evidence' and non-experts like Dr. Burkley. Fools like that.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Let's start over.

No, let's not. Let's have you explain your actual theory in detail, and show the evidence for it, including not only the supposed low entry wound, but the supposed lower shooter, who represents the other half of your argument.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

But curiously, Stringer, in 1972, had a totally different recollection. From a tape made by David Lifton which the ARRB played for Stringer during his testimony:

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

[1972 Lifton/Stringer interview tape playing]
[17]LIFTON: I see. I see. Let me ask you
[18] another way of stating that. And this is a good
[19] way of stating what I asked you before.
[20] If you lie back in a bathtub - you know,
[21] just in a totally prone position and you...and your
[22] head rests against the bathtub, is that the part of

Page 80
[1] the head - you know, is that the part of the head
[2] that was damaged?
[3] STRINGER: Yeah.
[4] LIFTON: That part?
[5] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[6] LIFTON: Back in the part that would be
[7] against the tile of the bathtub?
[8] STRINGER: Mm-hmm.
[9] LIFTON: I see. Whereas, the part that
[10] would be straight up ahead - you know, vertically
[11] in that position - was...was undamaged?
[12] STRINGER: Oh, no. I probably wouldn't
[13] say undamaged", no. I mean, it was - Some of it
[14] was gone. I mean, out of the - some of the bone.
[15] LIFTON: Yeah. I see.
[16] [End of audio tape portion.]
[17] MR. GUNN: Okay.
[18] BY MR. GUNN:
[19] Q: Mr. Stringer, do you recall having had the
[20] conversation that we just listened to with Mr.
[21] Lifton?
[22] A: I don't recall it, but from the tape.

Page 81
[1] Somebody else played it for me.
[2] Q: Does that sound as if it was an accurate
[3] recording of the conversation that you had with
[4] Mr. Lifton?
[5] A: I don't know whether it was or not, but
[6] it's not true - what's on there.
[7] Q: In what respect is it not true, what's on
[8] there?
[9] A: Well, it - Well, the bullet came in the
[10] back and came out the side.
[11] Q: The question that I'd be interested in is
[12] not what the trajectory of the bullet was, which
[13] wasn't discussed there -
[14] A: Yeah.
[15] Q: - but just where the wound was on
[16] President Kennedy. Did you tell Mr. Lifton that
[17] the wound was in the occiput or the occipital
[18] region?
[19] A: I don't remember telling him that, no.
[20] Q: Was there a wound in the occipital region
[21] of the President -
[22] A: Yes, the entry.

Page 82
[1] Q: By "the entry", you mean what?
[2] A: Where the bullet went.
[3] Q: And how big was the entry wound?
[4] A: About the size of a bullet, from what you
[5] could see. On the inside where the bone was, I
[6] guess it was different.



So do we give his 1993 testimony more credence, his 1972 recorded statements to Lifton more credence, or do we understand and accept the limits and fallibility of human recollection, and give the x-rays and autopsy photos - as interpreted by expert pathologists to the HSCA - more credence?

Do you understand the issue here?

Hank

I tend to think that the actual witnessing of the President's naked corpse is more compelling to the human memory than a short conversation with David Lifton.

 

[MicahJava]

I see none of that in the Zapruder film. And neither do you. Why don't you tell us your real theory, if indeed you even have one.

For starters, you say the entry wound in the back of the head was too low to have caused the exit wound in the top of the head AND to have been inflicted by Oswald.

Correct?

So according to you then, either one of two things is true:

(a) the wound in the back of the head had to be higher, or
(b) the shooter behind the limo had to be lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Since you appear to have been strenuously arguing against (a), I'm thinking your actual scenario is (b). But where is this supposedly lower shooter?

Why don't you lay out the evidence for this lower shooter?

Did any witnesses see this shooter? Was a weapon found? Ammo traceable to that weapon? The weapon traced?

What do you have to support your argument for a shooter lower than [other than] the sixth floor of the TSBD?

Can you flesh out the other half of the argument?

You argue for a lower wound. Now you have to argue for a lower shooter. The two go together, according to you. Show us the evidence for this lower shooter.

Hank

I am arguing for the small and large head wounds being created by separate bullets. A few people who saw the body were suspicious of exactly that.

The elliptical shape and relatively minor damage around the EOP wound indicates that this was an entry wound created by subsonic ammunition.

Robert Harris was on here discussing the coincidences relating to Jim Braden in the Dal-Tex building.

For what it's worth, there is an FBI document claiming that a bullet was found "lodged behind the president's ear".

There is more compiled evidence of at least one bullet recovered from the body in this book, starting on page 361 of the pdf.

 

[Hans]

I am arguing for the small and large head wounds being created by separate bullets. A few people who saw the body were suspicious of exactly that.

The elliptical shape and relatively minor damage around the EOP wound indicates that this was an entry wound created by subsonic ammunition.

Robert Harris was on here discussing the coincidences relating to Jim Braden in the Dal-Tex building.

For what it's worth, there is an FBI document claiming that a bullet was found "lodged behind the president's ear".

There is more compiled evidence of at least one bullet recovered from the body in this book, starting on page 361 of the pdf.

That memo was written the day of assassination and the 'bullet behind the ears' was probably based on fragments that were recovered, ie no full bullet and certainly written before the autopsy was completed on the 23rd

 

[MicahJava]

That memo was written the day of assassination and the 'bullet behind the ears' was probably based on fragments that were recovered, ie no full bullet and certainly written before the autopsy was completed on the 23rd

In a world where everything in the JFK case makes total sense, we could perhaps write that memo off as someone overhearing something about a fragment or some kind of false information, but I don't think something like that can be discounted with the way things are.