JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Axxman300]

LHO is a classic example of a borderline personality disorder.

He wasn't promoted to the rank of Commandant of the Marine Corps, so he blew the Corps off to run to Russia. The Soviets didn't appoint him Premier, so he took his ball and went home.

He lands back in the U.S.A. with a wife to support with no ability to get into and keep a decent enough job to support his family and he didn't have the ambition or drive to work two jobs to support his family.

He had a rifle and a handgun though, and he wanted into the history books in the worst way, eventually doing so literally.

Plus, the first thing he says to his mother when she picks him and Marina up at the airport is "Where are all the reporters?" He thought being a defector would make him famous in Russia, and then when he returned to the US.

He was a smart guy, but lazy. He could have moved near one of the Texas universities and tutored students in Russian. He could have gone to college after getting his high school diploma, and in 1962 that would have been affordable even to him.

But no.

Then there's his Fair Play for Cuba adventures in the summer before the assassination. This got him attention, he appeared on local radio talk shows three times, including this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2a9mRWkso

The man was a weapons-grade BS artist.

 

[Allen773]

Also, the fact that Oswald was rightly seen by the FBI as a two-bit Communist wannabe who had been unceremoniously rejected by the USSR and yet was still deeply alienated from American society is exactly why he successfully "slipped through the cracks." Keep in mind that both the US intelligence community and domestic law enforcement was (and still is, to a significant extent) far more concerned with state actors - or groups backed by state actors, at the very least - than they are with random disaffected individuals who more than 99 times out of 100, pose no serious threat.

Thus, the "lone wolves" are often the most dangerous, because they are the ones whom you'd least suspect to actually successfully carry out attacks. Unfortunately, they are also the same people who have the least to lose. Lee Harvey Oswald had far, far less to lose than the USSR (let alone the CIA or the FBI or even the Mafia). And besides, it's much easier for one man to slip through the cracks than it is for a large, well-organized conspiracy. I think that this is precisely what happened in this instance.

 

[Axxman300]

Oswald only had to get lucky once.

 

[BStrong]

Also, the fact that Oswald was rightly seen by the FBI as a two-bit Communist wannabe who had been unceremoniously rejected by the USSR and yet was still deeply alienated from American society is exactly why he successfully "slipped through the cracks." Keep in mind that both the US intelligence community and domestic law enforcement was (and still is, to a significant extent) far more concerned with state actors - or groups backed by state actors, at the very least - than they are with random disaffected individuals who more than 99 times out of 100, pose no serious threat.

Thus, the "lone wolves" are often the most dangerous, because they are the ones whom you'd least suspect to actually successfully carry out attacks. Unfortunately, they are also the same people who have the least to lose. Lee Harvey Oswald had far, far less to lose than the USSR (let alone the CIA or the FBI or even the Mafia). And besides, it's much easier for one man to slip through the cracks than it is for a large, well-organized conspiracy. I think that this is precisely what happened in this instance.

It doesn't matter if it's a surprise birthday party or a mafiosi retirement party.

The more folks that know, the less successful the surprise.

 

[MicahJava]

He posted an X-ray where the President's arms are stretched out from the body which alters the musculature slightly, so a real doctor would have to understand where those muscles would be when the arms are at his side ( or get a second X-ray with the arms down.

But whatever.

Can you explain how stretching the arms from side to side can make this:

turn into this:

???

You guys have a hard enough time convincing people that the shirt was bunched, now you're trying to say the musculature was bunched?

Also, the "dark squiggly line" is clearly extending sharply up into the middle neck area.

Meanwhile, such a bullet track down from the back of the head, down the neck, and to the throat would also explain the red bruise on the right side of the neck apparent on autopsy photos.

 

[BStrong]

Can you explain how stretching the arms from side to side can make this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Fi3ZnD5.jpg[/qimg]

turn into this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/Uru4EU0.jpg[/qimg]


???

You guys have a hard enough time convincing people that a shirt was bunched, now you're trying to say the musculature was bunched?

Meanwhile, such a bullet track down from the back of the head, down the neck, and to the throat would also explain the red bruise on the right side of the neck apparent on autopsy photos.

Can do easy.

Someone ********** up.

 

[Axxman300]

Here's the thing, I'm not an MD.

I can't tell you how rigor mortis effects the muscles in any single part of the body, especially in the upper part where so many muscle groups come together.

But then neither can you. The difference is that I don't argue medical evidence out of context like you do. The fact is that what you are seeing is what a Carcano round can do to a human being, and even today most GWS experts have not seen the 6.5x52mm's work in person.

I do know a thing or two about bullets. I know that you can shoot 50 living, moving targets with the same weapon, and you will get 50 variations of the bullet track. Some will go through and through, others will bounce around the inside of the thorax like a pinball, and a few will not make any sense.

Your graphics are subjective, not absolutes, but drawn and INTERPRETED by the artist technician.

The combined evidence is clear, Oswald from behind on the 6th floor alone.

 

[MicahJava]

Here's the thing, I'm not an MD.

I can't tell you how rigor mortis effects the muscles in any single part of the body, especially in the upper part where so many muscle groups come together.

But then neither can you. The difference is that I don't argue medical evidence out of context like you do. The fact is that what you are seeing is what a Carcano round can do to a human being, and even today most GWS experts have not seen the 6.5x52mm's work in person.

I do know a thing or two about bullets. I know that you can shoot 50 living, moving targets with the same weapon, and you will get 50 variations of the bullet track. Some will go through and through, others will bounce around the inside of the thorax like a pinball, and a few will not make any sense.

Your graphics are subjective, not absolutes, but drawn and INTERPRETED by the artist technician.

The combined evidence is clear, Oswald from behind on the 6th floor alone.

Axxman300, how do we have a T1 back wound, slightly lower than the throat wound, and have it leave a visible track obviously going downwards within the neck?

 

[MicahJava]

No, it was right where the Warren Commission said it was.

Combined with the fiber evidence you have ONE bullet enter from the rear and exit the front of the body as advertised.

Let's assume the hole(s) in the front of the shirt were caused by the projectile that created the throat wound.

First of all, no traces of copper were found on the front of the shirt like they were on the back of the shirt.

Second, it has been known for a long time that protruding fibers in clothing doesn't always mean an exit.

See here: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/54ac8901e4b0cf1d82a548c7/t/54d2dbbee4b01d2175605c8f/1423104958569/AFTE+-+Entry+Holes+Paper_Jason%26Haag.pdf

"The fact that such protruding fibers can be, and often are present around the margin of an entry bullet hole in cloth or clothing is counter-intuitive. Relying on the direction of such protruding fibers as a determinator of the direction of bullet travel in the absence of other critically important information is clearly ill-advised and can result in a serious error."

Third, Fraizer specifically said that even if the slits on the shirt did represent an exit, the nature of the projectile that exited is ambiguous.

Mr. FRAZIER. In each instance for these holes, the one through the button line and the one through the buttonhole line, the hole amounts to a ragged slit approximately one-half inch in height. It is oriented vertically, and the fibers of the cloth are protruding outward, that is, have been pushed from the inside out. I could not actually determine from the characteristics of the hole whether or not it was caused by a bullet. However, I can say that it was caused by a projectile of some type which exited from the shirt at that point and that is again assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made.

Mr. SPECTER. What characteristics differ between the hole in the rear of the shirt and the holes in the front of the shirt which lead you to conclude that the hole in the rear of the shirt was caused by a bullet but which are absent as to the holes in the front of the shirt?

Mr. FRAZIER. The hole in the front of the shirt does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it. But that is not specifically characteristic of a bullethole to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile.

Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described all of the characteristics of the front of the shirt holes which you consider to be important?

Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question there. If the bullet, after entering, hit something that made it tumble or change, would that account for this change in the appearance of the exit through the shirt?

Mr. FRAZIER. I think not. In my opinion it would not have been necessary, if I may put it that way, for the bullet to have turned sideways or partially sideways in order to make an elongated hole.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Mr. FRAZIER. I think the effect in the front of the shirt is due more to the strength of the material being more in the horizontal rather than the vertical direction which caused the cloth to tear vertically rather than due to a change in the shape or size of the bullet or projectile.

Mr. DULLES. Or possibly the velocity of the bullet at that place, would that have anything to do with it?

Mr. FRAZIER. I think the hole would not have been affected unless it was a very large change in velocity.

Fourth, notice how Fraizer said "...assuming that when I first examined the shirt it was--it had not been altered from the condition it was in at the time the hole was made". In his book Post Mortem, Harold Weisberg found the very first FBI document regarding an examination of Kennedy's clothing, and it did not mention the protruding fibers (I don't have a digital copy of Post Mortem, and can't find this FBI document on the internet). The protruding fibers appear to have been noted only when the shirt was examined yet again.

The HSCA final report finally stated:

(256) While the FBI laboratory's initial description did not offer evidence concerning the direction of the fibers, the observations in this letter were substantive evidence of the direction of the penetration, provided that the position of the threads had not changed in the interim. As stated previously, the panel itself cannot assess evidentiary significance to the fiber direction because of the numerous intervening examinations.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=101&tab=page

And has there ever been an actual experiment to prove that a high-velocity whole bullet exiting in a straight line can create strange slits like that? Did the Warren Commission ever show that? Discovery Channel?

 

[HSienzant]

Let's assume the hole(s) in the front of the shirt were caused by the projectile that created the throat wound.

First of all, no traces of copper were found on the front of the shirt like they were on the back of the shirt.

Second, it has been known for a long time that protruding fibers in clothing doesn't always mean an exit.

I'd rather hear your all-encompassing theory of where the shooters were and where the wounds were and what happened to all the bullets.

Got one?

Or is all you got is littłe nitpicks against the Warren Commissin conclusions? That's been done to death and you're flailing away trying to get a dead horse to get up and walk.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I'd rather hear your all-encompassing theory of where the shooters were and where the wounds were and what happened to all the bullets.

Got one?

Or is all you got is littłe nitpicks against the Warren Commissin conclusions? That's been done to death and you're flailing away trying to get a dead horse to get up and walk.

Hank

Marilyn Monroe crouching in the back seat and Jackie's jealous rage.

 

[Axxman300]

Let's assume the hole(s) in the front of the shirt were caused by the projectile that created the throat wound.

First of all, no traces of copper were found on the front of the shirt like they were on the back of the shirt.

Weird, it's almost as if the bullet passed through something. I'll call Los Alamos right now.

Second, it has been known for a long time that protruding fibers in clothing doesn't always mean an exit.

Known by whom? And in what context?

And has there ever been an actual experiment to prove that a high-velocity whole bullet exiting in a straight line can create strange slits like that? Did the Warren Commission ever show that? Discovery Channel?

Yes, it's called Chicago.

Are you seriously asking if the United States of America is lacking experience and knowledge of gunshot wounds?

How about joining the real world at some point.

 

[MicahJava]

NSFW - autopsy photograph

Is it possible that Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy on November 22, 1963 at 8:30 PM and saw an entry wound in the skull that DIDN'T EVEN EXIST because that part of the skull was removed to take out the brain?

The only other option is to say that Dr. Finck only say the entry wound when it was pieced together from skull fragments.

 

[cmikes]

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/EkQIwmg.jpg[/qimg]

Is it possible that Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy on November 22, 1963 at 8:30 PM and saw an entry wound in the skull that DIDN'T EVEN EXIST because that part of the skull was removed to take out the brain?

The only other option is to say that Dr. Finck only say the entry wound when it was pieced together from skull fragments.

Do you have a cite for your claim? The only citation I've seen you offer is that from Humes 33 years later that he might have had to saw the skull in places to remove the brain. Besides Humes saying that it was difficult to recall, he also never said that he removed the section that had the entry wound of Oswald's bullet in it. So even if Humes' 33 year old memory is correct, why would he remove the portion of skull that had Oswald's bullet hole in it? Especially if he knew that someone far more familiar with bullet wounds was coming in to join the autopsy?

In your scenario, was Humes a member of THEY trying to hide evidence from the more experienced Finck?

And you still haven't explained what difference it makes if the entry wound caused by Oswald's bullet was one inch above and slightly to the right of the EOP or if the entry wound caused by Oswald's bullet was three inches above and slightly to right of the EOP?

Could you explain how your conspiracy theory is different if the entry wound was two inches lower than it actually was?

Why exactly would THEY have to make sure that the wound caused by Oswald's bullet was three inches about the EOP?

 

[MicahJava]

That was so confused and incoherent, I couldn't believe what I was reading. I posted autopsy photographs compared to a HSCA sketch showing the location of the depressed cowlick fracture. The area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture was chipped away in order to get the skull opening large enough for the doctors to stick their hands in and remove the brain. Dr. Pierre Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain was removed. Dr. Finck made several statements describing the entry the scalp and skull. Finck never made any statement that clarified that he only saw the entry in the skull when pieces of previously-removed skull fragments were pieced together. This issue indicates that the small head wound was at a different location, lower in the head, under the enlarged skull opening.

 

[HSienzant]

Marilyn Monroe crouching in the back seat and Jackie's jealous rage.

Let me ask again, because it's apparent you didn't understand what was requested:

I'd rather hear your all-encompassing theory of where the shooters were and where the wounds were and what happened to all the bullets.

Got one?

Or is all you got is littłe nitpicks against the Warren Commissin conclusions? That's been done to death and you're flailing away trying to get a dead horse to get up and walk.

The above was requested here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11796506&postcount=2990

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That was so confused and incoherent, I couldn't believe what I was reading. I posted autopsy photographs compared to a HSCA sketch showing the location of the depressed cowlick fracture. The area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture was chipped away in order to get the skull opening large enough for the doctors to stick their hands in and remove the brain. Dr. Pierre Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain was removed. Dr. Finck made several statements describing the entry the scalp and skull. Finck never made any statement that clarified that he only saw the entry in the skull when pieces of previously-removed skull fragments were pieced together. This issue indicates that the small head wound was at a different location, lower in the head, under the enlarged skull opening.

The bolded is your conclusion only. It's not from any contemporaneous testimony of anyone present at the autopsy. You reach your conclusion via a mish-mash of various recollections made to the HSCA (15 years after the assassination) and to the ARRB (33 years after the assassination).

You don't get to present your conclusion, contrast it with the evidence, and then discard the evidence because it disagrees with your conclusion.

But that's precisely what you're doing above.

And that's why you're not convincing anyone here. Your conclusions don't take primacy, the evidence does. You don't seem to understand that.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Nope, I posted an autopsy photograph that shows how large the cranial opening got. It makes total sense too, how could they possibly remove the brain without first removing that part of skull? Usually in an autopsy the whole skullcap is removed. It appears that the uncropped back wound photo shows a very clear view of the cranial opening.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Posting autopsy photos is not proof you understand them.
Nor do they support the specifics of your claim.

 

[HSienzant]

Nope, I posted an autopsy photograph that shows how large the cranial opening got.

It shows how large the cranial opening WAS. You are presuming the enlargement of the cranial opening at the autopsy. What did Humes testify too? Does the autopsy report mention having to saw the skull to remove the brain?

It makes total sense too, how could they possibly remove the brain without first removing that part of skull? Usually in an autopsy the whole skullcap is removed.

What did Humes testify to in his Warren Commission testimony?
What does the autopsy report say about cutting the skull?

It appears that the uncropped back wound photo shows a very clear view of the cranial opening.

You have no standing to tell us what you perceive the appearances are. What experts can you cite?

None.

We are done here.

Hank