Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Yeah, your opinion is unconvincing. Read the autopsy, try to understand it, and you might understand why your opinion is unconvincing. It's in the appendix of the WCR.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, your opinion is unconvincing. Read the autopsy, try to understand it, and you might understand why your opinion is unconvincing. It's in the appendix of the WCR.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
Just on the off chance we have any lurkers reading this, yawn.
You're making things up. Also, you can not "read the autopsy". The autopsy is an event that happened. You can't read it like a book. You can read the third draft of the autopsy report all you want, but you can not "read the autopsy".
You're making things up. Also, you can not "read the autopsy". The autopsy is an event that happened. You can't read it like a book. You can read the third draft of the autopsy report all you want, but you can not "read the autopsy".
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
The autopsy records are freely available in the appendix of the WCR. You are the one making up a story about the entry wound being where you claim. I am telling you how to prove me wrong, and convince me you have an idea worth consideration. You are ignoring me. None of the reasons for doing that pay off in your benefit.
You are also the one who admitted being woefully uninformed from poor sources. There are no good reasons not to take the minimal effort to check them.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Just on the off-chance you post your opinion again - yawn.
You have a problem with an official document being rewritten to make it more precise and clear?
I sometimes go back in the allotted two hours and revise my posts (you may have noticed), adding additional info or an additional point or two and even correcting typos or grammar errors.
Do those revisions make them wrong in any fashion? What - exactly - is your problem with the published document? Is it simply that it was revised a few times?
Question for you - if there was anything nefarious about the revisions, do you think Humes would have admitted to them in his Warren Commission testimony?
Hank
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
We could always check the autopsy, with the photographs and x-rays. Oh look. They support the autopsy records too...
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Any lurkers interested in the subject matter will be capable of reading the thread and will see who is "making things up" and they'll be able to suss out who the fantasist posters are.
In particular one happy fantasist that asserted "the best snipers in the world" said LHO couldn't have fired the shots, and the one that asserted a suppressed weapon using a subsonic projectile had to be in the mix because...well evidently, just because.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Agreed. And as Hank notes, it's not as if this is anything new. This thread was in full swing with the present regulars years before MicahJava even began his research, debunking the same questions he's bringing up de novo. And this is only one of many forums in which the same questions are discussed
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,266
Welllll this lurker thinks you're peddling BS and the others are wise and know the subject....
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
I think everybody here understands the problems I'm bringing up, and they can't refute anything, so they've resorting to arguing with the audience rather than arguing with me.
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I'm sure they can make up their own minds without you yelling so anti-confidently at them.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Maybe if you bolded it will be more true.
Or perhaps putting it in a bigger font?
Hank
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You seem to have no problem arguing with the audience, if any -- nay, even boldly begging that they believe you over your critics.
I see two problems with your approach. There may be others, but in the ten minutes I have to write this post I'll mention the two.
First, you don't seem to know the difference between evidence and assertion. I see your critics asking you left and right to substantiate the expectations against which you're measuring the facts of the case. It may sound trite, but you really do come across as simply making stuff up as "the way things ought to have been" and then using that as a means of deflecting evidence that doesn't fit your theory. Your "the best snipers in the world" gaffe seems to be the most salient.
Second, you seem to be avoiding questions and rebuttals. While this does achieve an obstructionist end -- making your critics ask questions and make points over and over again, then they lose interest when it's clear you won't engage -- it's not a rational basis from which you can defensibly say "they can't refute anything." You may believe that, but only if your evasion is unintentional. Your critics will continue to make points, regardless of whether you address them. Accusing them of playing to the audience, when you won't play, is rather disingenuous.
Hans
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 10, 2007
- Messages
- 9,266
They've refuted everything you've come up with because it's old stuff.
Your personal incredulity is not evidence.
I suggest you try the chauffeur shot the president or 'JFK' was a stand in....lol
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Tippit shot from the Depository and Ruby shot from the overpass - according to Thomas Buchanan anyway.
https://www.amazon.com/Who-killed-Kennedy-Thomas-Buchanan/dp/B00005X6M4?ref_=pe_623860_70668520
Coincidentally, of course, Tippit was shot while riding in the Presidential limo as the stand-in for JFK... according to another conspiracy theorist, George Thomson.
https://whoshotjfk.wikispaces.com/The+Mother+of+All+Conspiracy+Theories
And of course his body was substituted for JFK's at the autopsy, according to Robert Morningstar.
https://redice.tv/news/the-ultimate-jfk-secret-who-is-really-buried-in-arlington
You read enough conspiracy nonsense, your head will spin.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,041
Nobody here can refute the problems surrounding the EOP wound. Games aren't evidence. Trolling isn't evidence. Years ago a room full of people like you guys came up with the brilliant idea that everybody who saw the body was wrong.
You see those orange splotches? That's the president's blood. This face sheet is literally verified by the President's blood on the paper.
Look at the placement of the small head wound in relation to the ears. NOBODY who attended the autopsy placed the small head wound above the level of the ears. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was LOW in the head, and elliptical. Near the external occipital protuberance.
You can't beat that.
It's also verified by the signature of Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. George Burkley, seen on the lower left of the page. He always thought it was a conspiracy.
So even if you want to deny that the open-cranium photographs show the EOP wound, one can not play dumb games on forums to deny that the evidence points to the small head wound being low in the head. What's on the X-ray? Whatever that fracture is, that's not what the evidence says is the real wound. What's on the photograph? Maybe a dried drop of blood, maybe a mild blemish on the scalp. That's not what the evidence says is the real wound.
The cowlick theory is almost certainly a hoax. This is a dumb debate. Wounds don't move around in real life serious murder cases.
Back to one of my basic questions: If the small bullet wound of the head had any connection to the large bullet wound on the top-right side of the head, why wasn't there more damage to the cerebellum?
You see those orange splotches? That's the president's blood. This face sheet is literally verified by the President's blood on the paper.
Look at the placement of the small head wound in relation to the ears. NOBODY who attended the autopsy placed the small head wound above the level of the ears. The autopsy report says that the small head wound was LOW in the head, and elliptical. Near the external occipital protuberance.
You can't beat that.
It's also verified by the signature of Kennedy's personal physician, Dr. George Burkley, seen on the lower left of the page. He always thought it was a conspiracy.
So even if you want to deny that the open-cranium photographs show the EOP wound, one can not play dumb games on forums to deny that the evidence points to the small head wound being low in the head. What's on the X-ray? Whatever that fracture is, that's not what the evidence says is the real wound. What's on the photograph? Maybe a dried drop of blood, maybe a mild blemish on the scalp. That's not what the evidence says is the real wound.
The cowlick theory is almost certainly a hoax. This is a dumb debate. Wounds don't move around in real life serious murder cases.
Back to one of my basic questions: If the small bullet wound of the head had any connection to the large bullet wound on the top-right side of the head, why wasn't there more damage to the cerebellum?
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Then why are you wasting your time here? Go make your millions, because you're the first person in several decades to solve this hotly debated case and have the evidence to prove it. Or does your confidence evaporate the moment you step outside the safety of this forum and the obscurity and anonymity it provides?
How many murder cases have you investigated from start to finish?
Fringe reset.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Because 9 months/years/days/nanoseconds provides all you need.
Especially if one exclusively reads, as claimed, conspiracy authors.
The answer is none at all. He/she has no clue
Yup.
That's great new! Finally, the evil forces of THEY will be thwarted! Would you mind posting some of your evidence? All I've see so far has been personal incredulity and some truly awful stuff recycled from Pat Speer who, as I recall, recycled most of his stuff from Weisberg. Weisburg's stuff was all debunked 40 years ago by the HSCA.
Axxman300
Philosopher
There's only one bullet wound to the head.
Your alleged entry point is too low, and you're assuming Kennedy's brain is identical to generic illustrations. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that there are individual variations from brain to brain.
A while back I posted the video from the 6th Floor Museum folks featuring the two surviving Parkland doctors who worked on JFK when they brought him...you never bothered to watch it...the doctors disagreed about what they saw. One swears the President was hit from the front, the other (who is a gunshot wound expert) says he was struck from the back, and neither opinion has changed since 1963.
I also posted 6th Floor Museum video of the surviving Secret Service detail, and they have different opinions on if two or three bullets struck the limo.
You can bring up all the CT "experts" you want, but if the best eye witnesses can't agree about what they saw, then you have to go with the physical evidence, and that points to Oswald.
- Status