JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[BStrong]

Maybe nothing ever happened ever.

It's well established that "something" happened.

It's your job to actually provide something other than "maybes" to establish that your (or whoever's work you choose to believe) version of events out weighs the accepted version of events.

Starting out with a subsonic projectile and apparently a suppressed firearm to crowbar a "shot nobody heard" and can't be documented by forensic evidence into the facts is about the best example of bad primo passo you're going to find.

 

[MicahJava]

It's well established that "something" happened.

It's your job to actually provide something other than "maybes" to establish that your (or whoever's work you choose to believe) version of events out weighs the accepted version of events.

Starting out with a subsonic projectile and apparently a suppressed firearm to crowbar a "shot nobody heard" and can't be documented by forensic evidence into the facts is about the best example of bad primo passo you're going to find.

Since we have established that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and just above the EOP, can you use medical evidence to show that the damage to the brain was consistent with the small head wound having any relation to the large head wound? Even a quote would do, although it won't help your case either if you bring up the people who said they thought over a third of the brain was missing. If the small head wound had any relation to the large head wound, there would probably be more damage to the cerebellum.

 

[abaddon]

Since we have established that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and just above the EOP,

Nope

can you use medical evidence to show that the damage to the brain was consistent with the small head wound having any relation to the large head wound?

Can you?

Even a quote would do, although it won't help your case either if you bring up the people who said they thought over a third of the brain was missing.

Then how does it help your case?

If the small head wound had any relation to the large head wound, there would probably be more damage to the cerebellum.

Except it didn't.

You still have not resolved your claims that you have been only researching this for days/weeks/months/years/decades. Why?

 

[MicahJava]

A lot of people here stalling and underhandedly arguing like a Stormfront poster.

When I started posting to this thread is around when I started researching. My only sources are basically Barry Krusch's book, Pat Speer's book, Jim Dieugenio's book Reclaiming Parkland, and Doug Horne's presentations.

 

[Axxman300]

The experts, including a person who was actually there, disagree with you.

I'll let you in on a little known secret: All three shots were the same volume.

What people heard depended on where they stood.

 

[Axxman300]

Since we have established that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and just above the EOP, can you use medical evidence to show that the damage to the brain was consistent with the small head wound having any relation to the large head wound? Even a quote would do, although it won't help your case either if you bring up the people who said they thought over a third of the brain was missing. If the small head wound had any relation to the large head wound, there would probably be more damage to the cerebellum.

No, "We" haven't established anything. You are postulating using bad evidence, and medical evidence that you don't understand.

There is only one head wound, and the damage to the skull, and brain are consistent with the Carcano round.

More to the point, had Kennedy been struck earlier the first small caliber wound would have produced a fountain of blood visible to all. There is no blood coming out of his head, only his throat, until the LONE rifle shot to the head, and the spectacular way his skull was blasted open is consistent with the lone high powered rifle recovered at the crime scene.

 

[MicahJava]

No, "We" haven't established anything. You are postulating using bad evidence, and medical evidence that you don't understand.

There is only one head wound, and the damage to the skull, and brain are consistent with the Carcano round.

There had to be an entry wound, right? If one existed, it existed low in the head.

More to the point, had Kennedy been struck earlier the first small caliber wound would have produced a fountain of blood visible to all. There is no blood coming out of his head, only his throat, until the LONE rifle shot to the head, and the spectacular way his skull was blasted open is consistent with the lone high powered rifle recovered at the crime scene.

A fountain of blood? This isn't Monty Python. The EOP bullet grazed the brain and smashed the floor of the skull. The blood would've been on the inside of the head. A lot of blood was indeed reported to be coming out of Kennedy's mouth.

 

[traxy]

My only sources are basically Barry Krusch's book, Pat Speer's book, Jim Dieugenio's book Reclaiming Parkland, and Doug Horne's presentations.

I notice you didn't list the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee, the Church panel or any of the other actual investigations. You started with conspiracy spin and apparently you'd prefer to stay there.

Try picking up First Day Evidence by Gary Savage. See how convinced you still are of a conspiracy after reading that.

 

[MicahJava]

I notice you didn't list the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee, the Church panel or any of the other actual investigations. You started with conspiracy spin and apparently you'd prefer to stay there.

Try picking up First Day Evidence by Gary Savage. See how convinced you still are of a conspiracy after reading that.

It's probably called First Day Evidence because a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's probably called First Day Evidence because a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.

I think Worzel needs to stop and put his thinking head on.

What does this say about your theories? It seems to suggest you are unwise to rely so heavily on witnesses who were caught up in the confusion, with all the honest mistakes and wrong conclusions they jumped to, over the slower, more methodical autopsy evidence.

Claims of other shooters and entry wounds originate from the best guesses given at the hospital press conference, that spread like wildfire, before the full autopsy had been recorded.

 

[MicahJava]

I think Worzel needs to stop and put his thinking head on.

What does this say about your theories? It seems to suggest you are unwise to rely so heavily on witnesses who were caught up in the confusion, with all the honest mistakes and wrong conclusions they jumped to, over the slower, more methodical autopsy evidence.

Claims of other shooters and entry wounds originate from the best guesses given at the hospital press conference, that spread like wildfire, before the full autopsy had been recorded.

I don't need witnesses. You can't even refute evidence found on page 1 of the official autopsy report.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't need witnesses. You can't even refute evidence found on page 1 of the official autopsy report.

Then why claim the "official story" is wrong, and try so very hard to pretend it means something other than what the report says plainly?

Why constantly try to move the wounds it is clear about?

 

[BStrong]

Since we have established that the small head wound was 2 centimeters to the right and just above the EOP, can you use medical evidence to show that the damage to the brain was consistent with the small head wound having any relation to the large head wound? Even a quote would do, although it won't help your case either if you bring up the people who said they thought over a third of the brain was missing. If the small head wound had any relation to the large head wound, there would probably be more damage to the cerebellum.

What do you men "we" white man?

I don't work your side of the street.

You want to dispute the WC findings, by ll means have at it, but you (or to be more accurate, whatever CT hobbyist you wish to rely on) have to prove that your version of events is correct.

So far you haven't, and you still haven't proven your subsonic/suppressed weapon proposition.

I'll ask the question again:

Other than your assertion and wish fulfillment, where is the evidence for a subsonic projectile?

 

[BStrong]

It's probably called First Day Evidence because a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get it's pants on.

Yeah, in exactly the same way the morning edition of the S.F. Chronicle on 18 October 1989 ran the Headline Hundreds Dead in Huge Quake.

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Chronicle-Covers-When-the-Loma-Prieta-quake-9961593.php

Actual casualties were 63 dead.

Were they lying or was it a mistake? Or were hundreds actually killed and it was covered up by THEM?

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

A lot of people here stalling and underhandedly arguing like a Stormfront poster.

When I started posting to this thread is around when I started researching. My only sources are basically Barry Krusch's book, Pat Speer's book, Jim Dieugenio's book Reclaiming Parkland, and Doug Horne's presentations.

Wow. That you can admit—even proudly proclaim—that indicates you don't know how this "research" thing is done.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Given this:

When I started posting to this thread is around when I started researching. My only sources are basically Barry Krusch's book, Pat Speer's book, Jim Dieugenio's book Reclaiming Parkland, and Doug Horne's presentations.

One has to wonder about this:

I don't need witnesses. You can't even refute evidence found on page 1 of the official autopsy report.

Has MichaJava read the autopsy?

When I initially responded to his "Page one" quote I gave the benefit of the doubt and wondered if he meant the broad findings. Now I am not so sure...

 

[Tomtomkent]

The autopsy is Appendix 9 of the WCR, for anybody who wants to go and compare what MichaJava claims it says about various wounds, to the actual reports. It would go a long way to explaining why nobody in the conversation seems convinced he has relocated wounds, or correctly interpreted the photographs.

 

[MicahJava]

Then why claim the "official story" is wrong, and try so very hard to pretend it means something other than what the report says plainly?

Why constantly try to move the wounds it is clear about?

Was that a joke? Do you think the small head wound was low in the skull or do you believe the Johnny-come-lately's who placed it four inches above where everyone who saw the body said it was?

The autopsy is Appendix 9 of the WCR, for anybody who wants to go and compare what MichaJava claims it says about various wounds, to the actual reports. It would go a long way to explaining why nobody in the conversation seems convinced he has relocated wounds, or correctly interpreted the photographs.

It's also important to keep in mind that "the autopsy report" is the government-approved third draft. The first two and the autopsy notes were disappeared.

The autopsy is Appendix 9 of the WCR, for anybody who wants to go and compare what MichaJava claims it says about various wounds, to the actual reports. It would go a long way to explaining why nobody in the conversation seems convinced he has relocated wounds, or correctly interpreted the photographs.

Tomtomkent, what you YOU think that object on the open-cranium photographs that looks a lot like a hole in the skull is?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Was that a joke? Do you think the small head wound was low in the skull or do you believe the Johnny-come-lately's who placed it four inches above where everyone who saw the body said it was?

You keep saying "Everybody who saw the body", yet ignore the autopsy, and those who performed it, disagree with you.

But, as has been pointed out before, that doesn't matter.

We can SEE the wound, in the photographs. Despite your bleating something is only a red smear, we can see it is a wound, with depth, exactly where the autopsy places it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's also important to keep in mind that "the autopsy report" is the government-approved third draft. The first two and the autopsy notes were disappeared.

And why is that suspicious to anybody who:
1) Bothers to find out how reports are gathered
2) Bothers to check the report, rather than citing conspiracy books as their only source
3) Checks for accuracy against the photographic record?

Have you read the autopsy?