JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[beachnut]

Nope, I posted an autopsy photograph...

Nope, you posted proof you were fooled by JFK CT claims.

If you had evidence, you could team with a newspaper and earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate... how is that going

 

[BStrong]

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.

At face value, you've proven that people disagree.

Now what?

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

To put it a different way than others, you still have to account how several different panels of people have come to the same conclusion that the autopsy doctors did. They all agree that Kennedy was killed by a shot that entered at the back of the head and exited somewhere farther forward.

There has been some dispute about the exact location of the wounds, but the general pattern of "entrance wound in the back, exit wound farther forward" has held up in all official investigations.

So, when it comes to the doctors who have reached those conclusion, we are left with a question. Were they part of the conspiracy? Now we are back to writing checks to pay all these people. Were they threatened by the conspiracy, and changed their story? All that does is shift the burden. Now you have to write checks to your goons instead of the doctors, but you still have to worry about the possibility that the doctors will squeal, despite the threats. That version creates an even bigger, more complex, conspiracy.

Were they incompetent, and just got it wrong? But wait, a whole lot of booksellers managed to get it right. How did they manage to see things the doctors didn't? It seems to me that if the doctors see one thing and the authors something else, the doctors have more credibility.

And all of this effort is to protect the single gunman theory, which benefits....whom? Why are the conspirators framing one person when they could frame one person plus an unnamed and undiscovered accomplice? I just don't see the point of this alleged evidence forgery. I don't know how to make it happen, and I don't understand why anyone would want to do it.

 

[MicahJava]

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


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


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

None.

We are done here.

Hank

Usually your kind of person on the internet chooses to remain anonymous. I commend you as the ultimate time waster! Meanwhile you still missed my point and are pretending to not grasp what I'm saying.

 

[MicahJava]

Nope, you posted proof you were fooled by JFK CT claims.

If you had evidence, you could team with a newspaper and earn the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate... how is that going

Not a valid rebuttal to any issue raised on this thread. Do you have any specific argument?

 

[BStrong]

Usually your kind of person on the internet chooses to remain anonymous. I commend you as the ultimate time waster! Meanwhile you still missed my point and are pretending to not grasp what I'm saying.

Or it could be that what you assert doesn't meet the standard of a reasonable arguing point.

You've adopted a position while refusing to state what your position means in the context of the totality of the evidence.

Simply repeating what someone else asserted about the evidence that you wish to cite does not improve your argument.

I've asked you - people disagree. Now What? how about an explanation from you about the evidence you cite and how that evidence changes the conclusion of LHO murdering JFK and Tippet? If you can't articulate why that evidence is important, your citation is useless.

 

[HSienzant]

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

Usually your kind of person on the internet chooses to remain anonymous. I commend you as the ultimate time waster!

So you can't cite anything other than your own opinion and your own interpretations of some out of context recollections from 15 or 33 years after the assassination and will resort to calling me names instead of citing any valid evidence or any actual expert opinions.

That's what I've been saying all along.

Meanwhile you still missed my point and are pretending to not grasp what I'm saying.

No. If I missed your point you would explain it again, slower and in more detail. You just made a claim of victory so you could take your ball home.

You then accuse me (falsely) of pretending to not grasp what you're saying. That's not true. I think I grasp exactly what you're saying, and I think I pointed out the precise flaws in your argument. Your are presuming what you need to prove. Your interpretations of recollections from decades after the fact don't override the autopsy conclusions made with the body in front of the autopsists, especially when the autopsists conclusions were confirmed by every forensic pathologist who has subsequently examined the extant autopsy materials.

You have a big bag labelled 'conspiracy evidence', but when we open that bag, we see an big bag of nothing.

For example, we're still waiting for your clarification here:

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

Your silly little claim about Marilyn and Jackie ("Marilyn Monroe crouching in the back seat and Jackie's jealous rage") doesn't withstand scrutiny.

The fact that you still can't account for where the shooters were, what bullets struck whom, and what happened to those bullets -- after 53 years! -- is sufficient evidence to conclude you never will be able to muster a satisfactory account that overturns the Warren Commission version of events and explains more of the evidence.

Your calling me 'the ultimate time waster' doesn't help establish your claims whatsoever.

You need to realize that.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, the skull cavity can be seen on the back wound photograph. It's too wide for the depressed cowlick fracture to still be there for Finck to see when he arrived. You don't seem to be acknowledging that. This is foolish.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Hank, the skull cavity can be seen on the back wound photograph. It's too wide for the depressed cowlick fracture to still be there for Finck to see when he arrived. You don't seem to be acknowledging that. This is foolish.

Not accepting your unsupported opinion of what a wound should look like is not foolish. It seems somewhat wise, given how little reason we have to assume you have the faintest idea what wounds should like.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, the skull cavity can be seen on the back wound photograph. It's too wide for the depressed cowlick fracture to still be there for Finck to see when he arrived. You don't seem to be acknowledging that. This is foolish.

Already told you, repeatedly, your conclusions / opinions / assertions are not evidence. You are telling us your opinion, contrasting it with some known facts, and then arguing the known facts are wrong.

You don't appear to understand that approach is never going to be appropriate.

I'll ask again: Where in his testimony did Humes mention the cutting into the skull and detail what was necessary to remove the brain? Where in the official autopsy report is the sawing of the skull mentioned and what does the autopsy report say about that skull cutting?

Can you cite the official evidence in regards to this supposed sawing of the skull you conjecture?

Or are you going to continue to repeat this same unconvincing argument in various forms, posting a photo or drawing, telling us what you think of it, and then telling us why the official conclusions are therefore wrong (or why someone's testimony must therefore be false)?

Again, that will NEVER be convincing. You have to understand your opinions don't mean - to put it inelegantly - doodly-squat.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Already told you, repeatedly, your conclusions / opinions / assertions are not evidence. You are telling us your opinion, contrasting it with some known facts, and then arguing the known facts are wrong.

You don't appear to understand that approach is never going to be appropriate.

I'll ask again: Where in his testimony did Humes mention the cutting into the skull and detail what was necessary to remove the brain? Where in the official autopsy report is the sawing of the skull mentioned and what does the autopsy report say about that skull cutting?

Can you cite the official evidence in regards to this supposed sawing of the skull you conjecture that confirms your argument?

Or are you going to continue to repeat this same unconvincing argument in various forms, posting a photo or drawing, telling us what you think of it, and then telling us why the official conclusions are therefore wrong (or why someone's testimony must therefore be false)?

Again, that will NEVER be convincing. You have to understand your opinions don't mean - to put it inelegantly - doodly-squat.

Hank

What are you on about? Humes said in his Warren Commission testimony "...We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these portions of the skull...", and in his ARRB testimony "...we had to cut some bone as well". Tom Robinson and Ed Reed said they saw sawing. You can see what's on the autopsy photo as well as I can, a skull cavity that extends to the left of the midline and down to the occipital bone just above the level of the ears. That's half as much that they remove in a normal autopsy, any smaller and they probably couldn't fit their hands in. The photograph shows it.

NSFW - autopsy photo

NSFW - autopsy photo

NSFW - autopsy photo

 

[BStrong]

Hank, the skull cavity can be seen on the back wound photograph. It's too wide for the depressed cowlick fracture to still be there for Finck to see when he arrived. You don't seem to be acknowledging that. This is foolish.

Yes.

Your continued fixation on playing pin the head wound on the body outside of the established evidence is foolish, and your continued avoidance of explaining why such a discrepancy (if it exists) changes the conclusion that LHO murdered JFK and Tippet.

Maybe check with the "Worlds Best Snipers" to see what they have to say on the subject.

 

[Axxman300]

If only the headshot was caught on film...oh wait, it was.

If only the headshot was caught on film from 2 different angles...oh wait, it was.

Guess what?

The shot came from the 6th floor.

Guess what?

The shattering of the skull is consistent with being struck by a 6.5x52mm Carcano round.

Guess what?

Oswald had a Carcano.

Weird how evidence works.

 

[MicahJava]

Yes.

Your continued fixation on playing pin the head wound on the body outside of the established evidence is foolish, and your continued avoidance of explaining why such a discrepancy (if it exists) changes the conclusion that LHO murdered JFK and Tippet.

Maybe check with the "Worlds Best Snipers" to see what they have to say on the subject.

I already have, several times. We have plenty of reasons to seriously doubt the 313 shot could've entered somewhere above the cerebellum. Official X-rays, autopsy photographs and testimony from the doctors don't indicate that a bullet could've gone in to or out of the cerebellum. What's left after that? A bullet going under the cerebellum. If that happened, how could the large head wound be created? More than one head shot. Either that or there is some kind of bizarre cover-up in the medical evidence. Maybe one day some of you will try saying world's-best-sniper Oswald got off two head shots.

 

[BStrong]

I already have, several times. We have plenty of reasons to seriously doubt the 313 shot could've hit above the cerebellum. Official X-rays, autopsy photographs and testimony from the doctors don't indicate that a bullet could've gone in to or out of the cerebellum. What's left after that? The bullet going under the cerebellum. If that happened, what created the large head wound? More than one head shot. Maybe one day some of you will try saying world's-best-sniper Oswald got off two head shots.

1. Assertions aren't facts. You haven't established anything past the fact that there are different accounts of the headwound location. Anything past that is speculation based on your confirmation bias.

2. No reason to lie. LHO got his hits and called it a day. He was an average shooter with professional training. It's the SM's and PCR's of the CT universe that feel compelled to cite nameless or dead sources to back up their fantasies - oh, I forgot, MJ too.

 

[Axxman300]

You can see where the bullet struck in BOTH films.

It is not the mystery you want it to be.

 

[beachnut]

I already have, several times. We have plenty of reasons to seriously doubt the 313 shot could've entered somewhere above the cerebellum. Official X-rays, autopsy photographs and testimony from the doctors don't indicate that a bullet could've gone in to or out of the cerebellum. What's left after that? A bullet going under the cerebellum. If that happened, how could the large head wound be created? More than one head shot. Either that or there is some kind of bizarre cover-up in the medical evidence. Maybe one day some of you will try saying world's-best-sniper Oswald got off two head shots.

You said you were in Dallas, but call Oswald best-sniper for a shot that was easy... (not the shot that never happened)

What is stopping you from taking this to a newspaper and earning the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate? Wow, you solved JFK after all the other super JFK guys like Fetzer failed. Which newspaper have you contacted? Did you tell the FBI, or are they in on it too. Who chanced the film to hide the second shot?

Pulitzer? Quick, take your evidence and earn it. Why is your outstanding work stuck here in CT land, where lies and failed opinions die, in what appears to be long draw out slow death of repetitive BS. You could sing High Hopes as you spin the tall tail of CT.

 

[No Other]

Already told you, repeatedly, your conclusions / opinions / assertions are not evidence. You are telling us your opinion, contrasting it with some known facts, and then arguing the known facts are wrong.

This is an astute recognition, too bad you were not engaged with this in 1964 so that you could admonish the WC as they did exactly what you are claiming Micahjava is doing.

Or are you going to continue to repeat this same unconvincing argument in various forms, posting a photo or drawing, telling us what you think of it, and then telling us why the officialfirst hand observations conclusions are therefore wrong (or why someone's testimony must therefore be false)?

I modified your comment to reflect how the WC treated some witnesses.

Again, that will NEVER be convincing. You have to understand your opinions don't mean - to put it inelegantly - doodly-squat.

After 50 plus years and there is still a discussion going on about the assassination makes this last paragraph all the more accurate about the WC report.

 

[MicahJava]

Another person, a conspiracy theorist, told me that the spot on the back wound photograph I thought was a skull cavity is probably a cloth covering the top of the head. That would be pretty odd if true because it looks like you can see the edges of bone, but I'll go ahead and assume that's right. Nobody else here was suggesting anything else so I kept on thinking it was probably a skull cavity in that picture.

But the argument still stands. I challenge anybody to draw over a diagram of a skull to demonstrate how a skull cavity on the right side of the head can be opened wide enough to A. not disturb the area around the depressed cowlick fracture, and B. have the brain come out looking intact like this:

This is how craniotomies are usually done in autopsies in order to remove the brain:

This was not done in this case. For the JFK autopsy, pieces of bone around the large head wound naturally fell off and were cut away until the skull cavity was big enough to remove the brain.

Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and his statements always indicated that he could still see the small head wound, undisturbed, as a hole with bone around it. Not on the margin of the skull cavity or pieced together from previously-removed skull fragments.

Again, HOW COULD THEY POSSIBLY REMOVE THE BRAIN WITHOUT REMOVING THE PART OF THE SKULL WITH THE DEPRESSED COWLICK FRACTURE? This problem indicates that the depressed cowlick fracture is NOT the true entry wound and that it had to be much lower in the head.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I have no reason to believe your uninformed opinion or interpretation of Dr Fnicks testimony.

An unnnamed CTist, with no viable citation does not make your claim any more credible.