JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

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.

You're misstating the premise of my argument.

In both cases, 1972 to Lifton, and in 1993 to the ARRB, Stringer was relating his recollections of the autopsy, and what the wounds to JFK looked like.

One was nine years after the assassination, the other was 30 years after the assassination.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

In his 1972 recollection, he says the massive exit wound was in the back of the head. In the 1993 ARRB recollection, he says the small entry wound was in the back of the head.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

Why should we trust the latter one, the one you cite?

Why should we trust either?

Don't misstate my point again.

That's a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Please read and familiarize yourself with this logical fallacy, not so you can use it more frequently and more facilely, but to avoid it altogether.

Thanks so much.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Great, then show us the evidence of exactly that - including the evidence of two shooters. And two bullets. From what I'm aware of, all the pathologists who examined the body or the extant autopsy materials believe there is evidence of one entry and one exit.

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

Can you quote where the forensic pathology panel reached that conclusion? Or the three autopsy doctors? I'm unfamiliar with either of those groups reaching that conclusion.

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

And he could provide no evidence Braden had a weapon, used a weapon, left with a weapon, or left one behind. Where's the evidence Braden was an assassin? There is none, right? That's exactly what Robert Harris found when he was on here discussing Jim Braden. Perhaps you have evidence unknown to Robert Harris you would like to share?

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

Hearsay. Produce this bullet. You understand that the writer of that memo [Belmont] was NOT at the autopsy and the writer was at least once removed from anyone at the autopsy, if not more so? Who is the original source of this claim, and if you can't link this claim to someone at the autopsy, why do you think it's anything more than a misunderstanding?

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

List that supposed 'evidence' here. Let's discuss.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You're misstating the premise of my argument.

In both cases, 1972 to Lifton, and in 1993 to the ARRB, Stringer was relating his recollections of the autopsy, and what the wounds to JFK looked like.

One was nine years after the assassination, the other was 30 years after the assassination.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

In his 1972 recollection, he says the massive exit wound was in the back of the head. In the 1993 ARRB recollection, he says the small entry wound was in the back of the head.

Those recollections conflict. Greatly.

Why should we trust the latter one, the one you cite?

Why should we trust either?

Don't misstate my point again.

That's a logical fallacy known as a straw man argument.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Please read and familiarize yourself with this logical fallacy, not so you can use it more frequently and more facilely, but to avoid it altogether.

Thanks so much.

Hank

From what I understand, most witnesses who saw the big something on the back of the head placed it somewhere above the ears. As Doug Horne has theorized, the small EOP wound can co-exist with the hypothetical exit wound on the BOH. The open-cranium photos show a lot of bone missing from the BOH as well as the EOP wound.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Good point. That escaped me. The autopsy concluded about midnight, so unless the FBI agents in Bethesda were calling in updates during the autopsy, the source of this appears to be someone external to the autopsy proper.

Which makes it really questionable.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Well, I think it can. Where do you propose we go from here?

I think the next step is for you to provide some more evidence showing the source of Belmont's claim (Belmont wasn't at the autopsy) was someone actually at the autopsy and that this someone actually provided said details about said bullet external to Belmont's mention.

Otherwise, it's simply hunting for an anomaly in a mountain of FBI documents - AKA cherry-picking.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

From what I understand, most witnesses who saw the big something on the back of the head placed it somewhere above the ears. As Doug Horne has theorized, the small EOP wound can co-exist with the hypothetical exit wound on the BOH. The open-cranium photos show a lot of bone missing from the BOH as well as the EOP wound.

A conspiracy theorist has theorized a theory? I'm stunned at this turn of events. Absolutely stunned.

Can you tell us what autopsy surgeons or forensic pathologists agree with the theory that there is evidence of two separate impacts to the President's head, as I asked above?

And you are avoiding explaining why you're not explaining the conflict in Stringer's recollections between 1972 and 1993, and why we should put any trust in the 1993 one you cited.

Stringer denied in 1993 there was a large hole in the back of the President's head. So if you're arguing for both wounds in the back of the head, you're arguing Stringer's 1993 recollection is wrong.

[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.


So when Stringer said it came in the back, he was right, but when he said it came out the side, he was wrong?

Isn't "in the back, out the right top side" exactly what the autopsy photos show?

And where is the evidence of a shooter lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD?

We're still awaiting that.

Hank

 

[sackett]

Micah Java, all you ever do is start over again. So do the other (fewer all the time) JFK conspiracists.

Once again: Who shot Kennedy?

 

[HSienzant]

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.

And a few pages later, we get a early precursor to the junk-food diet defense:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268&search="lodged_behind"#relPageId=120&tab=page

"In the future people will be just shot down in the street, for no reason at all, by some overly sugar-crazed individuals".

Tell us why everything noted in an FBI memo is worthy of credence or why something like that can't be discounted with the way things are.

I missed that memo. Maybe it's later in the cited document?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

A conspiracy theorist has theorized a theory? I'm stunned at this turn of events. Absolutely stunned.

Can you tell us what autopsy surgeons or forensic pathologists agree with the theory that there is evidence of two separate impacts to the President's head, as I asked above?

I'm getting pretty overwhelmed at this point, so for today I will just say that I've seen those references buried throughout Speer's book and Horne's book.

And you are avoiding explaining why you're not explaining the conflict in Stringer's recollections between 1972 and 1993, and why we should put any trust in the 1993 one you cited.

Stringer denied in 1993 there was a large hole in the back of the President's head. So if you're arguing for both wounds in the back of the head, you're arguing Stringer's 1993 recollection is wrong.

[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.


So when Stringer said it came in the back, he was right, but when he said it came out the side, he was wrong?

Isn't "in the back, out the right top side" exactly what the autopsy photos show?

And where is the evidence of a shooter lower than the sixth floor of the TSBD?

We're still awaiting that.

Hank

I think Lifton's interview is kind of confusing. Instead of asking questions about specific parts of the anatomy, Lifton said something about what side of your head is touching the tile of a bathtub when you're laying down. So what? The point stands that Stringer specifically denied that the red spot is the entry wound.

 

[HSienzant]

I'm getting pretty overwhelmed at this point, so for today I will just say that I've seen those references buried throughout Speer's book and Horne's book.

I'm stunned, absolutely stunned, that you tell me you saw it someplace but can't cite for it at this time.

I think Lifton's interview is kind of confusing. Instead of asking questions about specific parts of the anatomy, Lifton said something about what side of your head is touching the tile of a bathtub when you're laying down. So what?

He asked about it a number of different ways. That was a way of localizing the large exit wound. And you know where that description puts it: In the occiput. Which is where Stringer later put the entry wound.

So what? So this - Stringer's 1972 recollection conflicts with Stringer's 1993 recollection, and you choose the 1993 recollection over the 1972 recollection or the HSCA forensic panel's determination.

I find that curious. I find it particularly curious that you would think his memory improved between 1972 and 1993.

The point stands that Stringer specifically denied that the red spot is the entry wound.

Yes, we understand that. But there's more to this story, isn't there? In 1993 he denied that. In 1972, he said that was where the exit wound was located.

We have a conflict in his recollection, which calls into question his recollections. Doesn't it?

And if so, why do you cherry-pick the recollections you like, and discard the rest?

Hank

 

[Hans]

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.

Sure it can it was written the same day as the assassination - or you saying that you know that everything was known perfectly and no false ideas or leads were followed on the same day?

What would be very strange would be there being no false steps or ideas being give out on first day.

Perhaps you could tell us how many hours did it take the FBI to fully understand all aspects of the assassination attempt? To have so done within the 22nd of November you have less than 12 hours - did they do so in less than 12 hours?

 

[Axxman300]

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.

The memo was written on the day of the assassination while the President's body was in transit on Air Force One. There had been no examination of the body beyond emergency room procedures, and nobody had probed the skull yet.

So this is a misstatement written in haste by a guy who just had the weight of the free world land on his field office. There was no second bullet found. Only on bullet struck JFK's head.

It's on film, and there is no confusion. 1 round to the head from behind.

 

[MicahJava]

What's the point of even arguing further?

HSienzant is here trying to say that Stringer's recollection and retraction of an exit wound in the back of the head somehow benefits the official story.

Axxman300 for some reason thinks that the Belmont memo was made before Air Force One landed.

Gah! Forget about it! What's the point of even going further than page 1 of the official autopsy report? The location and shape of the small head wound is certainly a giant problem with the official story. The very elliptical shape of the wound (about 3x1) is what you would get from subsonic ammunition, not 6.5 Carcano rounds which always create circular bullet holes. The lack of major brain damage acknowledged in that area, and the ridiculous deflection required is also a simple indicator that Kennedy was shot in the head more than once.

Whoever is still stretching out the argument that a blemish on the scalp and a small fracture on an x-ray represents the true entry wound is starting to resemble Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force only being able to transform into the shape of a hot dog or an igloo.

 

[catsmate]

What's your theory?

Lee Harvey Oswald.

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

Yeah, Red Dwarf did it better.

 

[MicahJava]

Lee Harvey Oswald.


Yeah, Red Dwarf did it better.

Let's say for a moment that the damage to John Kennedy is consistent with anything Oswald could have done. Can you propose a shooting sequence?

 

[zooterkin]

Let's say for a moment that the damage to John Kennedy is consistent with anything Oswald could have done. Can you propose a shooting sequence?

LHO fired three times, one after the other.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let's say for a moment that the damage to John Kennedy is consistent with anything Oswald could have done. Can you propose a shooting sequence?

Yes.

But it is only compatible with actual evidence, like the z flm, autopsy records, autopsy photographs, etc. So I expect you will discount it in favour of silenced weapons and unevidenced wounds you want to believe were there.

 

[BStrong]

What's the point of even arguing further?

HSienzant is here trying to say that Stringer's recollection and retraction of an exit wound in the back of the head somehow benefits the official story.

Axxman300 for some reason thinks that the Belmont memo was made before Air Force One landed.

Gah! Forget about it! What's the point of even going further than page 1 of the official autopsy report? The location and shape of the small head wound is certainly a giant problem with the official story. The very elliptical shape of the wound (about 3x1) is what you would get from subsonic ammunition, not 6.5 Carcano rounds which always create circular bullet holes.The lack of major brain damage acknowledged in that area, and the ridiculous deflection required is also a simple indicator that Kennedy was shot in the head more than once.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/dpo8Wjl.png[/qimg]

Whoever is still stretching out the argument that a blemish on the scalp and a small fracture on an x-ray represents the true entry wound is starting to resemble Meatwad from Aqua Teen Hunger Force only being able to transform into the shape of a hot dog or an igloo.

Did you learn the bolded from "the worlds best snipers?"

The primary difference between a wound caused by a subsonic projectile and a supersonic projectile is depth of penetration, not the shape of the entry/exit wound.

If you have evidence that any small arms projectile "always create circular bullet holes" I'd be very interested in seeing it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Did you learn the bolded from "the worlds best snipers?"

The primary difference between a wound caused by a subsonic projectile and a supersonic projectile is depth of penetration, not the shape of the entry/exit wound.

If you have evidence that any small arms projectile "always create circular bullet holes" I'd be very interested in seeing it.

I mean, just imagine if the projectile hit a curved object like a skull, at a tangentile angle because the person was leaning forwards slightly...

 

[abaddon]

Did you learn the bolded from "the worlds best snipers?"

The primary difference between a wound caused by a subsonic projectile and a supersonic projectile is depth of penetration, not the shape of the entry/exit wound.

If you have evidence that any small arms projectile "always create circular bullet holes" I'd be very interested in seeing it.

He is working from the Hollywood version of reality, so good luck with that request.