JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

The entry wound, and the notch on the exit.
The rest was trauma damage.

Your asking suggests you have little idea of how bullet wounds work.

So you think the bullet created so much trauma damage that it extended all the way down to the floor of the skull? As in, almost half of the cranium was smashed as a consequence of the bullet?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So you think the bullet created so much trauma damage that it extended all the way down to the floor of the skull? As in, almost half of the cranium was smashed as a consequence of the bullet?

How much pressure was required for the massive ejecta seen in the Z film?
What happens when that pressure wave meets other surfaces?

 

[MicahJava]

How much pressure was required for the massive ejecta seen in the Z film?
What happens when that pressure wave meets other surfaces?

If the Z film is authentic, I think it probably shows a tangential wound at frame 313.

Nobody who saw the skull said the cracking extended that far down.

NSFW - drawing of injuries

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Boswell01.JPG

 

[BStrong]

So you think the bullet created so much trauma damage that it extended all the way down to the floor of the skull? As in, almost half of the cranium was smashed as a consequence of the bullet?

Supersonic projectiles tend to do just that.

Brain tissue doesn't peacefully co-exist with any type of penetrating projectile, and even less so w/ a supersonic velocity projectile.

 

[BStrong]

If the Z film is authentic, I think it probably shows a tangential wound at frame 313.

Nobody who saw the skull said the cracking extended that far down.

[qimg]http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/Boswell01.JPG[/qimg]

1. The film is as authentic as it gets.

2. Your expertise in this subject comes from...where?

 

[MicahJava]

Supersonic projectiles tend to do just that.

Brain tissue doesn't peacefully co-exist with any type of penetrating projectile, and even less so w/ a supersonic velocity projectile.

That might be a neat idea to entertain if the bullet entered high in the skull.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It is interesting.
"Nobody who saw the skull said..." following so soon after "probably because they are shills who..."

Those who saw the skull when JFK was alive were working on the large exit wound, trying to save his life. They didn't lift the head to be able to examine the damage.

Those who studied the skull after death were apparently untrustworthy shills...

Whom is being referred to?

 

[Tomtomkent]

That might be a neat idea to entertain if the bullet entered high in the skull.

About four inches higher than you have been claiming. Where it can be seen in photographs, x-rays, and was recorded by the autopsy?

Wow. What an idea! Let's entertain the actual evidence instead of your unsupported claims!

 

[MicahJava]

It is interesting.
"Nobody who saw the skull said..." following so soon after "probably because they are shills who..."

Those who saw the skull when JFK was alive were working on the large exit wound, trying to save his life. They didn't lift the head to be able to examine the damage.

Those who studied the skull after death were apparently untrustworthy shills...

Whom is being referred to?

Turn a skeptical eye to some of the things the autopsy professionals said, but especially don't trust some johnny-come-lately's moving wounds around for convinence. They never saw the body.

 

[MicahJava]

About four inches higher than you have been claiming. Where it can be seen in photographs, x-rays, and was recorded by the autopsy?

Wow. What an idea! Let's entertain the actual evidence instead of your unsupported claims!

You are either confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. The strongest evidence points to the small head wound existing low, near the EOP.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Turn a skeptical eye to some of the things the autopsy professionals said, but especially don't trust some johnny-come-lately's moving wounds around for convinence. They never saw the body.

Would you care to show why the timescale of their investigations make their opinions less valid?

And I would love to know how they "moved" the wound?

The photographs, despite your opinion, shows the wound where they claim (what you call the "cowlick" wound for some reason). As does the autopsy report (which I am now convinced you have never read).

You are trying to suggest the wound was described in a different position after the autopsy. Yet it was not.

You said you didn't need witnesses because the autopsy proved the entry wound was "slightly" above the occipital protrubence. It puts it 100mm above.

 

[MicahJava]

Do you have any person who saw the body and placed the small head wound above the level of the ears?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are either confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. The strongest evidence points to the small head wound existing low, near the EOP.

No. It does not. You have kept saying that, but you have never been able to show it.

The strongest evidence being the autopsy, the x rays, the photographs, all show the wound 100mm above the protrubence. This has consistently been confirmed, by all experts who look at the records and the material.

 

[BStrong]

That might be a neat idea to entertain if the bullet entered high in the skull.

Facts are not required to be entertaining.

Fiction usually must be.

The simple explanation that you wish to hand wave away is that people make mistakes, and the subject under discussion is no different that any other event humans get involved with - folks made mistakes across the board, and in CT land human frailty is not a recognized or accepted phenomenon.

Again, how do we go from "Hundreds" dead to 63 in the '89 earthquake?

Were "Hundreds" dead? was the number covered up later and downsized to 63? was the difference a deliberate act, or could every question be answered by an acknowledgement that humans make mistakes, or guess, or flat out make **** up now and then?

 

[MicahJava]

No. It does not. You have kept saying that, but you have never been able to show it.

The strongest evidence being the autopsy, the x rays, the photographs, all show the wound 100mm above the protrubence. This has consistently been confirmed, by all experts who look at the records and the material.

You have nothing except for a skull fracture on the x-ray and a red splotch on the skin which doesn't match any of the information given by the autopsy professionals.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you have any person who saw the body and placed the small head wound above the level of the ears?

On the level of the ears measured from where.

The autopsy places the wound 100mm (or 4 inches depending on which scale you prefer) above the protrubence. Are you claiming the autopsy was performed without seeing the body? Because you keep saying "nobody who saw the body..." And yet we have their records.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You have nothing except for a skull fracture on the x-ray and a red splotch on the skin which doesn't match any of the information given by the autopsy professionals.

It doesn't match any information given by the autopsy professionals, except being the focus of the photographs, clearly an entry wound, and measurably where they describe it.

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that you have not read, or have not understood the autopsy. You keep arguing that it says something it simply does not.

 

[BStrong]

You are either confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. The strongest evidence points to the small head wound existing low, near the EOP.

Note to lurkers:

This is what grown-ups call an gratuitous assertion. When you hear someone make a gratuitous assertion, point at them and laugh.

 

[MicahJava]

You are confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. If you mean the large head wound being identified as an exit wound, we've already gone over information showing that this could be a revision.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are confused or are trying to confuse lurkers. If you mean the large head wound being identified as an exit wound, we've already gone over information showing that this could be a revision.

No... we are discussing the entry wound. It is the one 100mm above the protrubence. You said it was "slightly" above the protrubence, but have never offered any evidence of this.