JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Tomtomkent]

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.

So instead of looking for accurate measurements, you are basing your conspiracy theory on a sketch location, not drawn or measured to scale?

 

[Tomtomkent]

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?

Because, despite your complaints, the autopsy record placed the bullet hole four inches higher.

We have photographs of it.
We have x-rays of it.
We have accurate records of it.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The cowlick theory is almost certainly a hoax. This is a dumb debate. Wounds don't move around in real life serious murder cases.

And yet that is what YOU are suggesting.

It was photographed. It was in the x-rays. And nobody is "denying" your open cranium photographs, only your interpretation.

So, let's look at the autopsy photographs you call "the cowlick".

Either: The autopsy team folded back the hair, to reveal "a red splotch" that you consider inconsequential, that, by pure coincidence meets the actual measurements for the autopsy, and the x-rays. Meanwhile there are not only no photographs of your proposed entry wound, it was deliberately obscured. Which seems a lot of effort to record an inconsequential blot.

Or: The "splotch" that looks like an entry wound, is an entry wound. That is why it matches the measurements. That is why it matches the x-rays (and lets not ask how you thought those were faked) and why it satisfies every qualified expert who looks at them. That explains why it looks like a wound, the right size, right shape, and... matches the reported damage to cerebellum.

You want to believe the bullet wound was lower, then somehow strayed up the skull, because you won't go and find the actual measurement?

Seems pretty weak to me.

 

[Wolrab]

Just who are these mythical lurkers that agree with MicahJava? I would imagine there must be some. Why wouldn't they step up and support his....evidences?

 

[turingtest]

So instead of looking for accurate measurements, you are basing your conspiracy theory on a sketch location, not drawn or measured to scale?

MJ has a theory? I haven't seen one; all I've seen (so far) is a conspiracy which amounts to a deity, and a "theory" about it which is no more than a belief which results from having read nothing but CT books as bibles. The conspiracy/deity isn't any better defined than whatever justifies asking uninformed questions totally disconnected from a consilient (and opposed) reality; the "theory" is a theology of self-referential assertion. Paul Bethke, in his "End Times" thread, follows the same methodology- there is no objective reality outside his Scripture, anything which doesn't measure up to that or support his theology is to be ignored. (Shrug) It's what happens when your entire context is a completely closed, self-referential system.

 

[BStrong]

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. ...snipped...

You refuse to acknowledge that humans are fallible, and that human frailty is a far better explanation for any discrepancy in the evidence than grand conspiracy.

If you'd been alive and cognizant at the time of the assassination you'd be old enough to have come to that realization through simple experience with the human race.

 

[vtbub]

TO ANY LURKERS READING THIS I HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND EVERYBODY ELSE ONLY HAS BS

You have nothing, and you know it.

Once you have a full theory of all the events that happened that day, share them.

 

[Hans]

Just who are these mythical lurkers that agree with MicahJava? I would imagine there must be some. Why wouldn't they step up and support his....evidences?

My cat does but she's an Arab cat and a bit of a fascist plus she thinks the fish are plotting against her.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Welllll this lurker thinks you're peddling BS and the others are wise and know the subject....

+1

 

[Agatha]

Let's not suggest, however obliquely, that other posters are idiots. It's not civil, it's not polite, and it makes the mod team cry*.

This last may be overstated.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[kookbreaker]

TO ANY LURKERS READING THIS I HAVE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND EVERYBODY ELSE ONLY HAS BS

Ooh! Do they support you in email?

 

[MicahJava]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12

I have not spent time arguing that the x-rays are altered, I might've only mentioned it as a possibility. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.

You lie that the autopsy report supports anything you say. The autopsy report says, with plain English and a diagram, that the real hole was low in the head. The red splotch on the photograph is circular and 20 mm in diameter, while the autopsy report says the real hole was 15 x 6mm. Nobody who was actually there thinks the red spot is the real wound. Maybe only a minor scalp defect. If you think it looks like anything other than that, it's probably a coincidence.

Worst of all, a lot of you are lying that the evidence for the EOP wound relies on "human recollection".

And for some reason, the more desperate the denials get, the more users join this thread. I was joking about the lurkers. Probably nobody is viewing this thread out of curiosity. You are impressing nobody. You are merely trying (poorly) to manufacture the illusion of ambiguity on some very simple issues.

 

[Tomtomkent]

. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.

You wish to argue the x-rays corroborate your story while showing, clearly, a wound 100mm higher on the skull than you claim?
No.

. You lie that the autopsy report supports anything you say.

It is also not in the sources you listed as having read. You offer no reason to believe you have read the autopsy, let alone have the ability to understand it.

. The autopsy report says, with plain English and a diagram, that the real hole was low in the head.

The diagram is not to scale, and is an aid-memoire.

. The red splotch on the photograph is circular and 20 mm in diameter, while the autopsy report says the real hole was 15 x 6mm.

Can you tell me on which page of the autopsy they describe the location, and diameter of the "splotch"?

. Worst of all, a lot of you are lying that the existence of the EOP wound relies on "human recollection".

It is all you have offered. Whereas, the known entry wound, confirmed by every expert who reviewed the records, can be proven by photographs and x-rays. Those same photographs, in which you have failed to identify a wound where you claim, and indeed offered several possible locations.

. And for some reason, the more desperate the denials get, the more users join this thread. I was joking about the lurkers. Probably nobody is viewing this thread out of curiosity. You are impressing nobody. You are merely trying (poorly) to manufacture the illusion of ambiguity on some very simple issues.

On the contrary. I am showing there is no ambiguity. You are plain, and simply wrong in your claims. What you call a "splotch" is clearly an entry wound, consistent with all other evidence. No ambiguity at all.

By the way... Why is the cerebellum visible in those open cranium photographs, and not damaged as you claimed? (Hint... The answers are posted up thread...)

 

[Axxman300]

I have not spent time arguing that the x-rays are altered, I might've only mentioned it as a possibility. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.

Actually they would all have to be fakes to show a second head wound.

And at least three times you have stated that the autopsy evidence had been tampered with, and this is a lie that has been debunked for decades now.

I was a JFK-CTist for 30 years, I bought into all of that crap because I thought the people spreading these lies were "experts", and "eye witnesses". Turns out that the "experts" were delusional at best, and every one of them had an agenda that embraced lies (many just to make money of the soft-headed). AS for the eye witnesses - guess what? Many are just wrong. Your autopsy witnesses are all wrong about seeing the cerebellum and most admit that they were mistaken now - something you ignore.

There is NO evidence of more than one gunshot wound to the head. There is no ambiguity about this. No sane person would advance this theory. Think about it: Nobody saw him get hit in the head prior to the kill-shot, and the majority of the people were behind the limo giving them ALL a perfect view.

Not one person saw it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Yet 52 years later you want us to believe that the hundred or so people with a clear line of sight to the back of JFK's head all missed it...and the Secret Service agents missed it...and the autopsy pathologists missed it (or as you have already implied: they were silenced)...and you wonder why we can't take your "research" seriously?

 

[BStrong]

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited breach of rule 12 in quote

I have not spent time arguing that the x-rays are altered, I might've only mentioned it as a possibility. The x-rays do not have to be altered for me to be right.

You lie that the autopsy report supports anything you say. The autopsy report says, with plain English and a diagram, that the real hole was low in the head. The red splotch on the photograph is circular and 20 mm in diameter, while the autopsy report says the real hole was 15 x 6mm. Nobody who was actually there thinks the red spot is the real wound. Maybe only a minor scalp defect. If you think it looks like anything other than that, it's probably a coincidence.

Worst of all, a lot of you are lying that the evidence for the EOP wound relies on "human recollection".

And for some reason, the more desperate the denials get, the more users join this thread. I was joking about the lurkers. Probably nobody is viewing this thread out of curiosity. You are impressing nobody. You are merely trying (poorly) to manufacture the illusion of ambiguity on some very simple issues.

Sounds like Black Knight syndrome to me, but have at it.

Pointing your finger at bad information and exclaiming See! See! does not a cognizant argument make - and asserting that those who disagree with you are liars is pretty much a bush league move here or anywhere else.

I and other posters in this thread have repeatedly pointed out that your interpretation of evidence - both bonafide and questionable is simply mistaken - no one I can recall has accused you of lying (well, I think when you said you burned a copy of the WCR because it was trash was flat out ********) because, and I hate to bring it up again, humans make mistakes every day of the week in all sorts of endeavors and if someone doesn't have the experience or training to suss out the facts from background noise it doesn't make them a liar.

You're communicating with a wide range of personalities on this website. I have my own little corner of the universe that I know like I know what a banana is, and other posters in this particular thread have their own areas of expertise and many of these posters have been following this story since the day the assassination occurred. If you are to be believed, you're in on 11 months of interest in this case. Do you believe that you have brought evidence to the discussion that I and other posters haven't already weighed?

I'd advise you to go back to the Language Award thread and read TomTomKent's explanation of how to convince others that their conspiracy theory is correct, and form an argument for your conclusion using that advice as a basis for discussion.

 

[MicahJava]

Just peeking my head in to post a couple of gems for safekeeping. No big deal.

Journal of American Medical Association article from January 4, 1964:

"Kennedy Shot Twice in Back. - President Kennedy was shot twice from the rear by the assassin who struck him down in Dallas. This unofficial finding by a team of pathologists who performed an autopsy on the President's body cleared up confusion over whether Kennedy was shot once or twice and whether both bullets came from the same direction. The autopsy was performed at Bathesda Naval Hospital on the night of Nov 22 after Kennedy's body was brought back to Washington from Dallas.

The first bullet reportedly hit Kennedy in the upper part of the right back shoulder. The bullet did not go through his body and was recovered during the autopsy. The second bullet hit Texas Gov. John B. Connally who was riding in the President's car. The third bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the right side of the head. A small fragment of this bullet also angled down and passed out through Kennedy's throat. Kennedy might have survived the first bullet, which may have ricocheted off the limousine before striking him, according to reports."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1161559

Warren Commission executive session, January 27, 1964:

(Chief Counsel Lee) Rankin: "Then there is a great range of material in regards to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite appare now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/pdf/WcEx0127.pdf

What the hell autopsy report were these guys reading? Was that version destroyed for national security purposes? I thought the doctors were supposed to think the throat hole was a bad tracheotomy until after the autopsy. Why was the throat wound so big in the autopsy materials anyhow? The throat wound at Parkland was tiny, and his tracheotomy was nice and neat. If you say it was from a probe-rod, that doesn't really sound like they thought it was just a tracheotomy the whole time. Why lie? Again, what comes to mind is Richard Lipsey's HSCA interview in which he describes the doctors literally debating over what the throat hole represented, and from what he understood they concluded a bullet entered low in the head and exited the throat, a trajectory they tested with a probe-rod. The same thing the 11/23/1963 Boston Globe article said, vaguely referring to "it is now believed" that a bullet entered the head and exited the throat, with this diagram:

As pointed out before, Parkland Doctor Robert McClelland had an early report that said "The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea." (link). But the JAMA report and Lee Rankin at the Warren Commission meeting are talking about the autopsy professionals themselves thinking the throat wound was caused by a fragment of a bullet, and from a bullet that hit the head. That's pretty darn specific for a simple misinterpretation. Just some food for thought.

 

[Tomtomkent]

And where did the journal get this information? Why should we consider it more accurate than the autopsy, photographs and x-rays?

 

[MicahJava]

Of course, you are just playing silly games when you say the autopsy report, photographs and x-rays don't support the EOP wound.

There were early news reports repeating a lot of nonsense theories, like Kennedy turning around and having a bullet enter his throat and exit the back of his head. But when you have credible sources saying that the autopsy doctors thought a bullet entered the head and a piece of shrapnel exited the throat, that's a different story. It matches exactly what Lipsey said in his HSCA interview.

So, who here still thinks the autopsy professionals considered the throat hole a tracheotomy until afterwards?

 

[Axxman300]

What the hell autopsy report were these guys reading? Was that version destroyed for national security purposes?

They weren't reading anything, it's all speculation. The investigation was ongoing at the time, and the author had little accurate information to go on.

And this is the fifth time you allege that information was destroyed or altered while you insist you make no such statements.

The Warren Commission excerpt is just a discussion of possibilities, not a final medical assessment. This shows that the Warren Commission DID have an open collective minds while investigating the assassination.

You're lack of research on the throat wound is glaringly obvious.

 

[MicahJava]

They weren't reading anything, it's all speculation. The investigation was ongoing at the time, and the author had little accurate information to go on.

And this is the fifth time you allege that information was destroyed or altered while you insist you make no such statements.

The Warren Commission excerpt is just a discussion of possibilities, not a final medical assessment. This shows that the Warren Commission DID have an open collective minds while investigating the assassination.

You're lack of research on the throat wound is glaringly obvious.

Um, I'm pretty sure I know how to read, so your attempts at lying are just to soften the impact of this information. Also, destroying evidence and lying isn't the same as saying that films have been altered.

From my understanding, the official story is that the doctors thought the throat wound was a bad tracheotomy during the entire autopsy. No?