JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

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.

Why don't you cite just three instances of where the Warren Commission ignored the expert testimony and the hard evidence to reach a conclusion at odds with that expert testimony and hard evidence? Let's discuss.

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 first hand observations are therefore wrong (or why someone's testimony must therefore be false)?

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

Nonsense. Many times - in all cases, not just this one - witnesses will disagree. Is it your contention that eyewitnesses are always correct? If not, given that FACT that we know eyewitnesses are not infalliable, given we know the eyewitnesses themselves contradict each other, what should the Warren Commission have relied on to break the deadlock? A coin flip? The hard evidence? What? What would you have done in the same circumstance?

Cite the witnesses you think the Warren Commission treated poorly, and explain why you feel that way. Let's discuss.

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.

"Discussion" likewise means doodly-squat. You're assuming that the points raised in conspiracy books and here online are valid points, and point to a failure of the Warren Commission to properly assess the evidence. Yet after nearly 54 years, where's your evidence of conspiracy? Where's your overall theory of the assassination? All you have is nitpicks of the 26 volumes of evidence, and faulty recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact that you use to attempt to overturn the hard evidence. Let's hear your solution to the crime, that explains more of the hard evidence and more of the expert testimony and more of the eyewitness testimony, and doesn't rely on picking out anomalous claims by some eyewitnesses, presuming they are correct, and then using those anomalous claims to disregard the other eyewitnesses, the experts, and the hard evidence at your convenience. That's what conspiracy theorists do. That's not what the Warren Commission did.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...B. have the brain come out looking intact like this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/2Hkj0zP.png[/qimg]

Intact?

You think that brain is INTACT? Or looks INTACT?

Hilarious! Seriously, that's funny.

From the autopsy report: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

"... it is our conclusion that the wound of the skull produced such extensive damage to the brain as to preclude the possibility of the deceased surviving this injury."

"Extensive damage to the brain" was what the autopsy doctors who had the body (and the brain) in front of them determined.

Your contrary, uneducated, inexpert opinion is that the brain is intact.

You can't even look at a drawing of a brain and understand the entire right hemisphere has been massively disrupted and looks nothing like the left hemisphere.

Guess whose opinion has standing in a court of law? Guess which one counts here, there, and everywhere?

Hint: It's not your opinion.

Nobody cares about your opinion. Learn that. Stop citing your opinion as if it is fact. It is not.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Anonymous Ctist said it?

Case Closed!

 

[MicahJava]

Intact?

You think that brain is INTACT? Or looks INTACT?

Hilarious! Seriously, that's funny.

From the autopsy report: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

"... it is our conclusion that the wound of the skull produced such extensive damage to the brain as to preclude the possibility of the deceased surviving this injury."

"Extensive damage to the brain" was what the autopsy doctors who had the body (and the brain) in front of them determined.

Your contrary, uneducated, inexpert opinion is that the brain is intact.

You can't even look at a drawing of a brain and understand the entire right hemisphere has been massively disrupted and looks nothing like the left hemisphere.

Guess whose opinion has standing in a court of law? Guess which one counts here, there, and everywhere?

Hint: It's not your opinion.

Nobody cares about your opinion. Learn that. Stop citing your opinion as if it is fact. It is not.

Hank

The autopsy report said the brain weighed about the same as an average complete adult male brain. It's very much intact compared to the few witnesses who estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone. My point is still clear and unchallenged: How do you get the skull cavity wide enough to remove the brain without also removing the area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture?

It's a very simple question of shape, volume, and space.

 

[MicahJava]

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.

It's not like Dr. Finck's statements have been discussed here, or are freely available on the internet.

 

[Axxman300]

True story:

I got to an Oakland A's game late. Mark McGwire hit a homerun while I was still in the parking lot.

Here's the thing, I only heard 28,000 people cheering, and Bill King saying "Holy Toledo!" on a nearby radio, but I never saw the homerun with my own eyes.

The homer went on the scoreboard, and the record books. Using MJs logic I should be able to dispute the homerun because I didn't actually see the homerun with my own eyes, and because I am a huge Steve Ellsworth fan I refuse to believe that McGwire could ever homer off the guy.

But I can't use MJ/CTer logic, I have to make judgements based on reality, and thus McGwire's homer stays in the books, and I just have to accept that it happened even though I never saw it. Another thing I'd never do is dispute the accounts of the people who were inside the stadium who saw the homer, even though what kind of pitch was thrown depends on who you ask, and just like the differing accounts of the pitch, the swing, and the ball flying over the fence you have differing accounts of what happened in Dealey Plaza.

And because Fink WAS LATE to the autopsy he can only guess what had happened before he arrived, and so we can throw out everything he says that is speculation.

I should add that Mike Greenwell foul-tipped a pitch straight back into the upper deck where I was sitting, the ball was caught three rows in front of me. If you asked me how big that baseball was I'd testify under oath that it was about the size of a watermelon.

*edited for historical accuracy. link to game stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BOS/BOS198805170.shtml

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy report said the brain weighed about the same as an average complete adult male brain.

Now you apparently don't understand what the word average means. Hint: It's not the max, nor does it specify the possible deviation between weights of complete adult male brains.

It's very much intact compared to the few witnesses who estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone.

So the drawing shows the brain massively disrupted, the autopsists described it as "extensive damage to the brain", some of the witnesses "estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone", and the Zapruder film shows the massive exit wound and the brain matter and blood being expelled in frame Z313, and you think the best way to describe all that is "the brain [came] out looking intact".

I fail to understand your logic or your choice of wording there.

My point is still clear and unchallenged: How do you get the skull cavity wide enough to remove the brain without also removing the area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture?

You already saw how that happened. As described by Humes. The number of fractures and the extent of the fracturing was so extensive they could remove the brain without doing any sawing. Your conclusion is again presented as a fact. Your conclusions are not facts.

You still appear not to understand the points I made in post 3000:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11799847&postcount=3000

It's a very simple question of shape, volume, and space.

With you being designated by yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all that. Right? I decline to accept that designation. I've seen no evidence you're qualified to make the judgments you make.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

So the drawing shows the brain massively disrupted, the autopsists described it as "extensive damage to the brain", some of the witnesses "estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone", and the Zapruder film shows the massive exit wound and the brain matter and blood being expelled in frame Z313, and you think the best way to describe all that is "the brain [came] out looking intact".

Hank

That's the key, chunks of brain are visible spilling out of the wound has the the body goes limp, and the head tilts. That does not include the matter that explodes from the exit wound.

 

[HSienzant]

...The homer went on the scoreboard, and the record books. Using MJs logic I should be able to dispute the homerun because I didn't actually see the homerun with my own eyes, and because I am a huge Steve Ellsworth fan I refuse to believe that McGwire could ever homer off the guy.

But I can't use MJ/CTer logic...

No, you absolutely can, and with as much credibility. You do get to throw out all the hard evidence, all the contemporaneous documentation, and all the expert opinion if you can find somebody who disputes what any of that indicates. That's right where MicahJava is now. Finding the one guy in the crowd who had his head turned to talk to his friend and didn't see the homerun... since he didn't see it, it's solid evidence (according to conspiracy theorists) it never happened.

We're suppose to ignore the 28,000 who did see it, I guess, and the official scorer's account, and the newspaper accounts from the next day describing what transpired because we need to believe in a conspiracy for some reason.

Hank.

 

[MicahJava]

Now you apparently don't understand what the word average means. Hint: It's not the max, nor does it specify the possible deviation between weights of complete adult male brains.

So the drawing shows the brain massively disrupted, the autopsists described it as "extensive damage to the brain", some of the witnesses "estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone", and the Zapruder film shows the massive exit wound and the brain matter and blood being expelled in frame Z313, and you think the best way to describe all that is "the brain [came] out looking intact".

I fail to understand your logic or your choice of wording there.

Worst red herring ever. By the way, the red blob on the Zapruder Film is a bone flap, not the large head wound.

You already saw how that happened. As described by Humes. The number of fractures and the extent of the fracturing was so extensive they could remove the brain without doing any sawing. Your conclusion is again presented as a fact. Your conclusions are not facts.

You still appear not to understand the points I made in post 3000:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11799847&postcount=3000

Worst red herring ever. It doesn't matter if sawing of the skull was involved or not, your dilemma is still the same.

With you being designated by yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all that. Right? I decline to accept that designation. I've seen no evidence you're qualified to make the judgments you make.

Hank

You'll never give a straight answer to the question about the size of the skull cavity Dr. Finck arrived to see, will you? Would it be too much to hope that you simply use MS Paint to draw over a diagram of a skull?

 

[HSienzant]

Worst red herring ever. By the way, the red blob on the Zapruder Film is a bone flap, not the large head wound.

Worst red herring ever. It doesn't matter if sawing of the skull was involved or not, your dilemma is still the same.

You'll never give a straight answer to the question about the size of the skull cavity Dr. Finck arrived to see, will you? Would it be too much to hope that you simply use MS Paint to draw over a diagram of a skull?

Red Herring is another term you don't understand.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/150/Red_Herring

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue that to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

My arguments were directly to the points you were making. They were NOT red herrings. Your argument that I employed red herrings is a red herring, in that you're attempting to redirect the argument and you ignored my points entirely. You also bring up straw arguments I never made, in an apparent further attempt to redirect the discussion: ("By the way, the red blob on the Zapruder Film is a bone flap, not the large head wound").

Here they are again. Try to actually address the points I made this time around.

The autopsy report said the brain weighed about the same as an average complete adult male brain.

Now you apparently don't understand what the word average means. Hint: It's not the max, nor does it specify the possible deviation between weights of complete adult male brains.

It's very much intact compared to the few witnesses who estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone.

So the drawing shows the brain massively disrupted, the autopsists described it as "extensive damage to the brain", some of the witnesses "estimated that the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 gone", and the Zapruder film shows the massive exit wound and the brain matter and blood being expelled in frame Z313, and you think the best way to describe all that is "the brain [came] out looking intact".

I fail to understand your logic or your choice of wording there.

My point is still clear and unchallenged: How do you get the skull cavity wide enough to remove the brain without also removing the area of skull with the depressed cowlick fracture?

You already saw how that happened. As described by Humes. The number of fractures and the extent of the fracturing was so extensive they could remove the brain without doing any sawing. Your conclusion is again presented as a fact. Your conclusions are not facts.

You still appear not to understand the points I made in post 3000:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11799847&postcount=3000

It's a very simple question of shape, volume, and space.

With you being designated by yourself as the ultimate arbiter of all that. Right? I decline to accept that designation. I've seen no evidence you're qualified to make the judgments you make.

Hank

So: Address the brain weight YOU BROUGHT UP and show how it's significant, and how it shows the brain was intact as you claimed. Or duck that issue and simply repost your opinion once more.

Address the fact that all the evidence (including the Z-film, the drawing you submitted, the witnesses you referenced, and the autopsy report says the brain was extensively damaged and all that evidence shows the brain was therefore NOT intact, contrary to your claim. Or duck that issue and simply repost your opinion once more.

Address the fact that Humes said the skull was extensively fractured and the brain could be removed without resorting to the normal procedure of sawing into the skull. Or duck that issue and simply repost your opinion once more.

Address the fact that you're pretending you're the ultimate arbiter of what the evidence shows. As noted multiple times in the past, you are not that arbiter. Or duck that issue and simply repost your opinion once more.


Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Jesus, man. Several pages on, and you haven't given any indication that you even comprehend the simple question I'm asking you.

Here are 2 HSCA diagrams of Kennedy:

https://i.imgur.com/d5ePARt.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lG9XvO1.jpg

Try drawing an outline of a skull cavity big enough to remove the entire brain without going over the alleged entry in the cowlick.

 

[HSienzant]

Jesus, man.

You can call me Hank.

Several pages on, and you haven't given any indication that you even comprehend the simple question I'm asking you.

... Try drawing an outline of a skull cavity big enough to remove the entire brain without going over the alleged entry in the cowlick.

I comprehend. You apparently either don't comprehend my responses and the evidence I cite, or simply reject them outright because they conflict with your beliefs. As you will reject the drawings below, showing the massive exit wound above JFK's right ear.

Lattimer, who has the requisite medical expertise you and I lack, drew this after examination of the autopsy x-rays and autopsy photos:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lateral.gif

Ida Dox was commissioned by the HSCA to draw the head wound. This is her representation:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dox2big.jpg

With a hole in the top of JFK's head that big, and the extensive fracturing of the rest of the skull, nothing other than manipulation of the skull bones would be necessary to excise the brain.

I'm sorry if you don't understand that. Or choose to ignore it.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You would have to enlarge the skull cavity by removing pieces of skull in order to properly take out the brain. I don't know what situation you're imagining where you can just reach your hands into the large head wound and not have any skull fragments come out of that area. You have to separate the brainstem/spinal cord to remove a brain.

 

[BStrong]

Jesus, man. Several pages on, and you haven't given any indication that you even comprehend the simple question I'm asking you.

Here are 2 HSCA diagrams of Kennedy:

https://i.imgur.com/d5ePARt.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/lG9XvO1.jpg

Try drawing an outline of a skull cavity big enough to remove the entire brain without going over the alleged entry in the cowlick.

And you refuse to answer the question I've posted several times.

At face value, you prove that people disagree.

What does your fixation on pinning the headwound on the drawing have to do with the hard evidence that LHO assassinated JFK and murdered Tippet?

 

[HSienzant]

You would have to enlarge the skull cavity by removing pieces of skull in order to properly take out the brain.

Thank you for you uneducated, non-expert opinion. As noted previously, your opinion here is meaningless. What expert's testimony are you quoting here, or are you just making this up as you go along?

I don't know what situation you're imagining where you can just reach your hands into the large head wound...

Another straw man argument.

... and not have any skull fragments come out of that area. You have to separate the brainstem/spinal cord to remove a brain.

Again, your opinion is not evidence. Please don't confuse the two. What did Humes say about how much cutting of the skull was necessary? What does the autopsy report say about the supposed cutting your conjecture? Please tell us.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What does your fixation on pinning the headwound on the drawing have to do with the hard evidence that LHO assassinated JFK and murdered Tippet?

Good point. At the end of the day, we still are left with Oswald's rifle in the Depository being the only one seen & recovered, and the fragments recovered from the limo and the bullet recovered in Parkland coming from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

He wants to quibble about how big the exit hole was because all the evidence points to Oswald as the assassin.

And of course, as the killer of police officer J.D.Tippit as well.

So let's avoid all that and talk about how big the exit wound in JFK's head was, and where precisely the entry wound was.

Han

 

[MicahJava]

I have no idea how you are suggesting they removed the brain without the part of the skull with the cowlick fracture somehow not coming off. Maybe they just teleported the brain out, Hank. I didn't think of that!

 

[BStrong]

I have no idea how you are suggesting they removed the brain without the part of the skull with the cowlick fracture somehow not coming off. Maybe they just teleported the brain out, Hank. I didn't think of that!

Or maybe you don't understand that jiving around with the entry wound isn't getting you anywhere, and much like your "maybe it was..." jive with ventriloquist suppressors and sabot projectiles you're not getting any traction and need to do the wash, rinse and repeat reset exercise.

 

[MicahJava]

Or maybe you don't understand that jiving around with the entry wound isn't getting you anywhere, and much like your "maybe it was..." jive with ventriloquist suppressors and sabot projectiles you're not getting any traction and need to do the wash, rinse and repeat reset exercise.

The lack of progress in this discussion is on the fault of the lone nutters.