JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

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.

It's in the autopsy report, with a diagram. 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital pertruberence, 15x6mm, ragged, slanting.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It's in the autopsy report, with a diagram. 2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital pertruberence, 15x6mm, ragged, slanting.

Can you find anywhere in the autopsy a more accurate measurement than "slightly"?

Have you read the autopsy?

 

[Tomtomkent]

In point of fact, can you imagine why the measurements in the autopsy might be of importance for accuracy, rather than your personal interpretation of a scaled diagram?

 

[MicahJava]

Can you find anywhere in the autopsy a more accurate measurement than "slightly"?

Have you read the autopsy?

Yes, the diagram.

No, "slightly" doesn't mean "4 inches".

Yes.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, the diagram.

No, "slightly" doesn't mean "4 inches".

Yes.

Then please, explain what figure is given by the diagram other than "slightly". And I do mean figure, written, not your interpretation. If there is none written on the diagram you are looking in the wrong place.

 

[MicahJava]

Then please, explain what figure is given by the diagram other than "slightly". And I do mean figure, written, not your interpretation. If there is none written on the diagram you are looking in the wrong place.

The autopsy professionals couldn't be clearer on this issue. We've been over this.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The autopsy professionals couldn't be clearer on this issue. We've been over this.

Excellent. Then you should have no trouble providing a more precise measurement than "slightly". In fact, to substantiate your claims today, you should be able to show precise figures changing between the autopsy and later analysis.

Feel free to provide the exact, precise, measurement.

 

[MicahJava]

Excellent. Then you should have no trouble providing a more precise measurement than "slightly". In fact, to substantiate your claims today, you should be able to show precise figures changing between the autopsy and later analysis.

Feel free to provide the exact, precise, measurement.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/CE386.jpg

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for rule 5. Do not hotlink images

 

[Tomtomkent]

[qimg]http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/images/CE386.jpg[/qimg]

How odd, you seem not to understand what you are being asked:

Then please, explain what figure is given by the diagram other than "slightly". And I do mean figure, written, not your interpretation. If there is none written on the diagram you are looking in the wrong place.

Let me be blunt: There are precise measurements recorded in the autopsy, and the obvious reason for you to be ignoring them in favour of the diagrams you hope allow a looser interpretation. You giving the strong impression you know you are wrong, and will be shown to be wrong.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Prove you have read the autopsy, or are willing to actually consult a source, and provide a more precise figure than "slightly".

 

[MicahJava]

"Slightly above" doesn't mean four inches above, Tomtomkent.

 

[Tomtomkent]

"Slightly above" doesn't mean four inches above, Tomtomkent.

Probably not. But then you offer no reason to assume it is the conclusion of the autopsy that it was "slightly" above. You give a good reason to assume you have not read the autopsy and have no idea where it says the wound was, because you stated the ONLY sources you have used are conspiracy books.

I am pretty sure everybody reading this will be wondering why you are insisting on telling me what the word does not mean, rather than telling me what figure is in the autopsy, to prove you have a case to make. You are going to great lengths not to supply a figure.

Why?

 

[MicahJava]

Probably not. But then you offer no reason to assume it is the conclusion of the autopsy that it was "slightly" above. You give a good reason to assume you have not read the autopsy and have no idea where it says the wound was, because you stated the ONLY sources you have used are conspiracy books.

I am pretty sure everybody reading this will be wondering why you are insisting on telling me what the word does not mean, rather than telling me what figure is in the autopsy, to prove you have a case to make. You are going to great lengths not to supply a figure.

Why?

Alright. You win. You're the man.

 

[Axxman300]

Axxman - Just google "do gunshots to the head always create a large blood splatter?". You're making things up. And I'm saying the bullet only grazed the brain before smashing the posterior base of the skull. Of course, there's no expectation that any projectile would go in a straight line after this, so something could indeed exit the throat.

1 - I didn't large blood splatter, I said "bleeding" and even "a fountain of blood", which means you have spend zero time watching people get shot in the head (which is an awful way to spend your free time, but in your case an indispensable task).

2 - You are asking a lot from an subsonic round. Even under ideal conditions it's not going to have enough energy to do the damage you allege. A supersonic, high-gain-twist Carcano round on the other hand...

3- The Carcano round struck Kennedy in the back and exited the throat, and struck Connally. The Carcano round was notorious for multiple penetrations.

Your lack of knowledge of ballistics is dwarfed by your lack of knowledge of forensics.

The allegation that the medical evidence was tampered with and falsified is a lie, proven years ago to be a lie. The fact that you choose to believe a lie handicaps everything that you think you're doing. You are seeing things that aren't there because you have made the choice to trust liars.

You are no different than a Bigfooter, UFOlofist, or garden variety dime-store psychic.

 

[MicahJava]

1 - I didn't large blood splatter, I said "bleeding" and even "a fountain of blood", which means you have spend zero time watching people get shot in the head (which is an awful way to spend your free time, but in your case an indispensable task).

2 - You are asking a lot from an subsonic round. Even under ideal conditions it's not going to have enough energy to do the damage you allege. A supersonic, high-gain-twist Carcano round on the other hand...

3- The Carcano round struck Kennedy in the back and exited the throat, and struck Connally. The Carcano round was notorious for multiple penetrations.

Your lack of knowledge of ballistics is dwarfed by your lack of knowledge of forensics.

The allegation that the medical evidence was tampered with and falsified is a lie, proven years ago to be a lie. The fact that you choose to believe a lie handicaps everything that you think you're doing. You are seeing things that aren't there because you have made the choice to trust liars.

You are no different than a Bigfooter, UFOlofist, or garden variety dime-store psychic.

I think you're making things up.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Alright. You win. You're the man.

A likely reason you're finding your task difficult is that one can't make truth out of lies.

Oswald shot Kennedy. He then fled the scene and shot Tippit. The day's events occurred not long after he tried to shoot Walker. It's the way he chose to exert his will. Simple stuff, sadly all too common in our world.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I think you're making things up.

He isn't the one struggling to support the fundamentals with his theory and answer reasonable questions.

 

[MicahJava]

He isn't the one struggling to support the fundamentals with his theory and answer reasonable questions.

Just a while ago, one of you guys tried to claim that a subsonic bullet entering the EOP would exit out of the face, but of course there are penetrating fractures (and one could argue that the fractured base of the skull could represent an exit). Now you're trying to to tell me that a subsonic bullet entering the EOP wouldn't even have the energy to send a fragment out of the throat. Meanwhile, Carcano rounds apparently have every magic ability that fits the circumstances of the shooting.

 

[MicahJava]

So, if the small wound near the EOP had any relation to the large head wound, how come there wasn't more damage to the cerebellum (as far as the official record is concerned)?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Just a while ago, one of you guys tried to claim that a subsonic bullet entering the EOP would exit out of the face, but of course there are penetrating fractures (and one could argue that the fractured base of the skull could represent an exit). Now you're trying to to tell me that a subsonic bullet entering the EOP wouldn't even have the energy to send a fragment out of the throat. Meanwhile, Carcano rounds apparently have every magic ability that fits the circumstances of the shooting.

The idea that different bullets, of different calibres, at different speeds, might behave differently is hardly magic.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, if the small wound near the EOP had any relation to the large head wound, how come there wasn't more damage to the cerebellum (as far as the official record is concerned)?

Why do you expect there would be?