JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

HSienzant, can you respond to the stuff about the cranial opening? In the back wound photo it does appear that the head opening it got as large as going within the left of the midline.

Already pointed out the problems... you're putting your money on a horse that's starting 33 years behind the others. I think you're wasting your money.

We already saw testimony that the brain was removed without any special sawing. That alone destroys your argument... and you presented that testimony.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Already pointed out the problems... you're putting your money on a horse that's starting 33 years behind the others. I think you're wasting your money.

We already saw testimony that the brain was removed without any special sawing. That alone destroys your argument... and you presented that testimony.

Hank

Dr. Finck probably wrote that there was no special sawing because he got there before the brain was removed. Dr. Humes said there was sawing. Tom Robinson said there was sawing.

Can you respond to me original post about how the head opening appears to be in the back wound photographs?

If we concede that the open-cranium photographs show the back of the head, that probably shows that the brain was removed without extending the head opening all the way to the left of the midline, but in the back wound photographs the opening appears to be larger and more clean-cut on the bottom. But of course you probably orient the open-cranium photographs to show the forehead.

 

[HSienzant]

But actually it’s even worse than that. When Thompson went looking a few years ago for security officer Wright, he learned that he had passed away. But he did manage to locate his widow who had also worked at Parkland Hospital at the time of the assassination as one of the nursing supervisors. She reported to Thompson that on the day of the assassination, more than one nurse approached her and said they had also picked up bullets that day...

So Parkland Hospital was just inundated with bullets that day... and hardly any were collected... and most clearly would have no corresponding wound to match up to in either victim. And nobody thought to report those bullets to the Dallas Police or the FBI. Right?

Is that your FINAL answer?

Or will you reconsider when I point out the statement from Wright's widow is decades after the fact AND hearsay only. Wright's widow didn't say she saw any extra bullets, did she?

Unfortunately, this is what passes for 'evidence' among conspiracy theorists. It's actually anything but.

This is sounding more and more like the stories emanating from a small town in New Mexico where a UFO supposedly crashed in 1947.

The principles told one story, and as you get further away from the principles and start interviewing relatives of the principles, the stories get more outlandish ("My Dad told me...").

Still need your scenario for how a bullet wound up on a stretcher to be found by Darrel Tomlinson. I think you know mine.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Finck probably wrote that there was no special sawing because he got there before the brain was removed. Dr. Humes said there was sawing. Tom Robinson said there was sawing.

Pertinent to this discussion is when each man gave those statements.

You know that.

A statement made 33 years after the event doesn't carry the same weight as a statement made within the first six months of the assassination.

You know that as well.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Pertinent to this discussion is when each man gave those statements.

You know that.

A statement made 33 years after the event doesn't carry the same weight as a statement made within the first six months of the assassination.

You know that as well.

Hank

Except, of course, Dr. Finck is describing the situation he arrived to in his 1965 report describing the autopsy, after the cranial opening was enlarged to remove the brain. So there is actually nothing contradicting that sawing of the skull was done.

Can you respond to this post? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11760059&postcount=2532

 

[HSienzant]

Except, of course, Dr. Finck is describing the situation he arrived to in his 1965 report describing the autopsy, after the cranial opening was enlarged to remove the brain. So there is actually nothing contradicting that sawing of the skull was done.

Can you respond to this post? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11760059&postcount=2532

Don't see the cite to the supposed Finck 1965 statement therein.

 

[MicahJava]

Don't see the cite to the supposed Finck 1965 statement therein.

"I arrived at the Naval Hospotal at 2030 hours."

That's 8:30 PM. The autopsy started at about 8:00 PM.

Next page:

"The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=142&tab=page

Response to the post I linked, please?

 

[Meadmaker]

I have trouble with a planted bullet too, but I can't rule it out. Any 6.5 mm fired carcano bullet would do and then let investigators figure out the trajectory and impact. I understand several folks saw Jack Ruby at Parkland around 1:30 or so on the 22nd. I do not know if that's credible or not.

In some sense, the planted bullet theory can't be ruled out, as long as you are willing to say that any given individual could have been part of the conspiracy, and that the conspiracy consisted of any number of people. You need a bullet planted? Fine. You have someone who can do that. Photographs altered? Great. You can hire photo technicians. Riflemen for actually pulling the trigger? Just spread a few benjamins and lots of people will eagerly sign up for the job. And you need not fear that any of them will blow the cover off the operation, either before or after the assassination, because they know that you have also hired a large number of enforcers to keep track of and dispose of anyone who squeals. (And make it look like cancer. It wouldn't do to have a bunch of people drop dead from gunshot wounds. Not very subtle.)

It's a big job. The last big organizational event I took part in was as a volunteer helping put on a high school robotics competition. There were about 80 of us working on it. This assassination/coverup thing was even bigger and more complicated. You really need a lot of people to make sure everything goes right on a job like this. You're going to need a good accountant, for sure.

The Limo damage is great physical evidence. There were about 6 people who witnessed a hole in the windshield. Some said about the size of a pencil. These seem very credible witnesses. There was also damage to the rear of the rear view mirror, as well as that dent on the windshield frame, which appears to have been an intact bullet, not a fragment. It's difficult for me to imagine that those bullets fragmented that much. That's a very solid
bullet and we know one of them stayed intact with little damage.

The limo is indeed great physical evidence, but the eyewitness accounts of what they saw that day are eyewitness evidence, and we know that eyewitness evidence just isn't all that good. When those eyewitnesses saw a hole, did they mean a hole through the glass, or a chip? We know what the windshield actually looks like. Would that damage be described as "a hole" by some people, especially under the circumstances when they saw it?

Of course, maybe the windshield was tampered with after the fact. Ok. That's possible.........but that's more checks for that accountant to write. You'll need one or two auto glass specialists and they have to do their work while it is being held as evidence in the ultimate high profile murder case. Be prepared to pay some pretty big bribes for you to get at that windshield to do the adjustments necessary.

Finally, why do you say that the windshield frame appears to have been damaged by an intact bullet, as opposed to a fragment?

 

[Reheat]

The National Archives has high resolution photos for you:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

Many contend that's fake since the refurbishing factory said it was destroyed. Sorry, I don't have a link at the moment. I suspect you're familiar.

 

[Reheat]

Finally, why do you say that the windshield frame appears to have been damaged by an intact bullet, as opposed to a fragment?

Well, it does have the appearance of the shape of a bullet nose. So many bullets, where did they go? Their accounts fees obviously got out of hand with so many. It's difficult to keep track.

As I just posted above, the refurbishing folks supposedly destroyed the old windshield. Apparently, they forgot to do that.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well, it does have the appearance of the shape of a bullet nose. So many bullets, where did they go? Their accounts fees obviously got out of hand with so many. It's difficult to keep track.

As I just posted above, the refurbishing folks supposedly destroyed the old windshield. Apparently, they forgot to do that.

I must admit I'm going to be a bit lazy here. I'm not going to look up the picture, or the commentaries.

If that damage could not have been caused by a bullet fragment, in other words if it could only have been caused by a whole bullet, then there is a conspiracy.

Lee Oswald could not have fired four shots. We know that one bullet hit Kennedy in the head. The second bullet that we have is consistent with all the other wounds. That windshield damage is not consistent with a pristine bullet fired from a Mannlicher-Carcanno. If it was caused by a bullet, then that bullet had to come from some gun other than Oswald's. QED.

A lot of people think that the damage to the Limo is consistent with fragments. Moreover, they are consistent with fragments of either one bullet, or the presidential cranium that was destroyed by that same bullet. If you can prove that they are wrong, then there's a conspiracy.

 

[Axxman300]

Many contend that's fake since the refurbishing factory said it was destroyed. Sorry, I don't have a link at the moment. I suspect you're familiar.

I am familiar, and it's bunk.

The chain of evidence it solid, and I've already posted the nose of the bullet from the headshot which struck the windshield...it's almost the size of a .22.

If you're looking for abnormal the bigger issue was not retiring the entire limo into evidence instead of reupholstering it and putting it back into service. The honest answer is that the government felt it was too expensive to get a new one. That sounds weird today, but they were tighter with money then, but had LBJ insisted I'm sure the Congress would have footed the bill.

 

[Axxman300]

I must admit I'm going to be a bit lazy here. I'm not going to look up the picture, or the commentaries.

If that damage could not have been caused by a bullet fragment, in other words if it could only have been caused by a whole bullet, then there is a conspiracy.

Lee Oswald could not have fired four shots. We know that one bullet hit Kennedy in the head. The second bullet that we have is consistent with all the other wounds. That windshield damage is not consistent with a pristine bullet fired from a Mannlicher-Carcanno. If it was caused by a bullet, then that bullet had to come from some gun other than Oswald's. QED.

A lot of people think that the damage to the Limo is consistent with fragments. Moreover, they are consistent with fragments of either one bullet, or the presidential cranium that was destroyed by that same bullet. If you can prove that they are wrong, then there's a conspiracy.

The nose of the bullet found in the front of the limo. Note its size:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

 

[MicahJava]

Many contend that's fake since the refurbishing factory said it was destroyed. Sorry, I don't have a link at the moment. I suspect you're familiar.

Reheat, if you're interested in the theory that the limousine windshield was substituted for a windshield that contained cracks rather than a through-and-through bullet hole, check out page 570 of this pdf:

http://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf

And here's a 1999 presentation by researcher Doug Weldon on the windshield issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OACTLn75I30

I don't know if this is every single piece of information about the windshield, but it's close.

 

[MicahJava]

The National Archives has high resolution photos for you:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305143

Are those pictures of the windshield in it's alleged original condition, with a metal fragment still embedded in there?

I've mostly only seen this photograph which makes the spot look whiter:

 

[HSienzant]

Well, it does have the appearance of the shape of a bullet nose. So many bullets, where did they go?

Two or three, at most. If we discount the one that missed the car (and maybe hit Tague), we have one that struck two men and remained nearly intact, and another that fragmented striking the skull. Three large pieces of metal were recovered from the test shot discussed earlier:
(1) Much of the lead interior as one fragment
(2) The top exterior of this bullet as another fragment
(3) The bottom exterior of this bullet as another fragment

From the actual head shot, items 2 & 3 above were recovered in the limo. Item 1 was not recovered.

However, could those three pieces cause the damage to the limo you're aware of? Be aware that the interior portion of the mirror is damaged (the portion opposite the passengers). This could only be damaged by a rebound fragment after it hit the chrome or something else. It does give one an idea how much kinetic energy was in one of Oswald's bullets.

Their accounts fees obviously got out of hand with so many. It's difficult to keep track.

Not sure what point you're trying to make.

As I just posted above, the refurbishing folks supposedly destroyed the old windshield.

That's evidence, why would they do that?

Apparently, they forgot to do that.

Or it's just a 20-year after the fact claim having no basis in actual fact.

Care to cite the actual documents and discuss?

Hank

 

[traxy]

Reheat, if you're interested in the theory that the limousine windshield was substituted for a windshield that contained cracks rather than a through-and-through bullet hole, check out page 570 of this pdf:
.

There is a photo of the limo sitting outside of Parkland hospital minutes after arriving. There was no hole in the windshield, just a chip that corresponds exactly to the chip seen in Altgens 7 and the chip visible in the windshield in the archives.

 

[MicahJava]

There is a photo of the limo sitting outside of Parkland hospital minutes after arriving. There was no hole in the windshield, just a chip that corresponds exactly to the chip seen in Altgens 7 and the chip visible in the windshield in the archives.

I think that's all subject to Rorschach test stuff, I don't know of any photographs of the windshield at that time that are really clear and up close.

 

[BStrong]

BStrong is BS-strong. Just google "silencer", "noise", "opposite direction" and you'll find people on gun forums discussing this well-known phenomenon, to the point of some suggesting it's benefit in hunting. Why do you have to lie instead of honestly debate?

Insecure table pounding noted.

The "phenomenon" you reference is nothing more than the perception of the earwitness and is not related to the use of a suppressor.

Let's review what you posted about suppressors:

Noise suppressors can distort the sound of a gunshot to seem like it came from the opposite direction. But of course, noise suppressors don't make the muzzle blast completely silent.

You are asserting that a suppressor as a device causes an earwitness to believe that the shooter is in the opposite direction from the actual position of the shooter.

This isn't a phenomenon that is caused by the can. As I've pointed out repeatedly, earwitness testimony can be unreliable for a number of reasons.

I posted my most embarrassing moment with my "it's gotta be a shotgun" 911 call and in the example of one of my friends that witnessed the murder, he didn't hear the pistol being fired within ten feet of him and the piece wasn't suppressed. He target fixated on the gun and the victim, saw the thing cycle and eject the empty case but didn't hear the shot.

For the purposes of your fantasy, a ventriloquist suppressor might be a very cool thing, but there is no such thing. People who hear loud noises react to and interpret to those noises in different ways. If a person is untrained they might not even notice the sound of a projectile passing close by, or someone hearing the same projectile at a different point in the projectile's trajectory nearby static objects might interpret that single projectile as being multiple projectiles due to the "crack" as passes them.

Smart well-trained guy might be completely wrong about a sound they heard.

No suppressor needed.

What I'd like to see from you is some evidence of one of these cool ventriloquist suppressors. It would go great with my Hush-a-Bomb.

As far as lying goes. I can't even turn it around on you.

You don't know enough about the subject matter to lie about it. You do confuse fact, fantasy and wish fulfillment, but that's par for the course. And that's why when you're going to stick your baby toe into the ocean of facts concerning firearms in general and this case in particular you're not going to like the bath that you'll end up taking.

A debate requires two or more well informed individuals to participate.

In this arena you do not qualify as being well informed.

 

[Reheat]

Insecure table pounding noted.

The "phenomenon" you reference is nothing more than the perception of the earwitness and is not related to the use of a suppressor.

Not that you need any help, but you are, of course, absolutely correct. The phenomenon that causes the bullet to sound as if it's coming from the opposite or another direction is the supersonic shock wave creating a loud noise or zing on it's path as it goes supersonic. No suppressor required. A suppressor could reduce the muzzle blast sound so that from a distance the only sound heard might be the supersonic "crack".

Heck, even an air rifle pellet will do this if the speed of the pellet is > ~ 1000 fps at standard sea level temperature.

That's why soldiers are taught to listen for the "thump" sound of the rifle as opposed to the later supersonic shock wave sound in order to determine the location of the firearm. The sound of the firearm (it's doesn't have to be a rifle) occurs first.

There is a lengthy discussion of this in the Suppressor Thread in Politics.