JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't address my points nor answer my questions. You just appealed to your own ignorance...

A reminder: "I can't understand how this is possible" doesn't mean that it is impossible. It just means you can't understand it.

Not. My. Problem.



MicahJava said:
Maybe they just teleported the brain out, Hank. I didn't think of that!
Click to expand...

Straw man argument.

That's two logical fallacies utilized by you in one post.

Try offering some expert opinion, instead of your own opinion. Trying quoting from those experts to make your case, rather than telling us what you don't understand and trying to make a case out of your own ignorance. Try using contemporaneous evidence from 1963-1964 instead of recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact.

Absent any of that, you're not going to get the traction you seek.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
The lack of progress in this discussion is on the fault of the lone nutters.
Click to expand...

Of course, you would be a little biased in that assessment, wouldn't you?

Perhaps if you actually had a case to advance, complete with evidence, instead of an argument consisting almost wholly of your own interpretations of photos and x-rays, along with a heaping helping of recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact, you might see more progress.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
The lack of progress in this discussion is on the fault of the lone nutters.
Click to expand...

Projection is a symptom of insecurity.

Still no answer on why pin-the-headwound jive outweighs murder weapon in hand? Can't imagine why - Maybe there's some anonymous internet poster has an opinion you can cite.
 
HSienzant said:
You didn't address my points nor answer my questions. You just appealed to your own ignorance...

A reminder: "I can't understand how this is possible" doesn't mean that it is impossible. It just means you can't understand it.

Not. My. Problem.


Straw man argument.

That's two logical fallacies utilized by you in one post.

Try offering some expert opinion, instead of your own opinion. Trying quoting from those experts to make your case, rather than telling us what you don't understand and trying to make a case out of your own ignorance. Try using contemporaneous evidence from 1963-1964 instead of recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact.

Absent any of that, you're not going to get the traction you seek.

Hank
Click to expand...

Maybe you can use MS Paint really quick to draw over the Ida Dox sketches, because you're really not explaining what you're suggesting very well. In fact, it's starting to look like you're just throwing out gibberish to conceal a big hole in what you believe.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
It's not like Dr. Finck's statements have been discussed here, or are freely available on the internet.
Click to expand...

And?

Your statements show a complete lack of understanding. You can't offer actual reasons why wounds do not look how you want them to, or to support the story you wish to tell (apparently in spite of, not drawn from, the facts) so you cite nameless authorities. The worlds best snipers, or an unnamed CTist. When you do cite experts, you claim their conclusions are wrong... none of which is going to convince anybody.
 
To sum this up:

MJ: There must have been another bullet to the head, fired from a super-secret silenced weapon.

Us: No, evidence doesn't support this.

MJ: But look at these hand-drawn sketches, and 4 autopsy photos that I don't understand, but some guy on the internet says are hinky.

Us: The assassination is on film, you know that, right?

MJ: But look at these hand drawn sketches that I microsoft-painted on, and then match with cherry-pick quotes from the one doctor who was late to the autopsy.

Us: So where is the second shooter?

MJ: Lets look at the autopsy again.

:thumbsup:
 
HSienzant said:
Of course, you would be a little biased in that assessment, wouldn't you?

Perhaps if you actually had a case to advance, complete with evidence, instead of an argument consisting almost wholly of your own interpretations of photos and x-rays, along with a heaping helping of recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact, you might see more progress.
Hank
Click to expand...
But that's not what MJ (or most other CTists*) means by "progress"- to paraphrase JayUtah, for them, progress has nothing to do with actually solving the crime the discussion is about, but is simply to endlessly prolong the discussion itself. If everyone were to say "hey, you're right- how'd they get the brain out?" then ask, reasonably enough "now what?" the answer would be to jump to some other un-related point (witnesses who heard shots from somewhere other than the TSBD, etc.)- but never, under any circumstance, to tie all their uninformed doubts into any coherent whole as a solution to be subjected to the same sort of microscopic scrutiny they insist on applying to the "official story." These folks want to be Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot, but without the bother of actually resolving the question.

*TBF, there are a few who try to advance an actual competing theory- Robert Harris was one. His effort, though, simply illustrated their problem- you can't make a whole fabric out of the (largely imaginary) holes you've collected from another's cloth. Best not to even try- just let the continuing "discussion" be your cover. No Other was crowing that "after 50 plus years and there is still a discussion going on about the assassination"- that is their victory, and the only solution they're interested in.
 
turingtest said:
But that's not what MJ (or most other CTists*) means by "progress"- to paraphrase JayUtah, for them, progress has nothing to do with actually solving the crime the discussion is about, but is simply to endlessly prolong the discussion itself. If everyone were to say "hey, you're right- how'd they get the brain out?" then ask, reasonably enough "now what?" the answer would be to jump to some other un-related point (witnesses who heard shots from somewhere other than the TSBD, etc.)- but never, under any circumstance, to tie all their uninformed doubts into any coherent whole as a solution to be subjected to the same sort of microscopic scrutiny they insist on applying to the "official story." These folks want to be Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot, but without the bother of actually resolving the question.

*TBF, there are a few who try to advance an actual competing theory- Robert Harris was one. His effort, though, simply illustrated their problem- you can't make a whole fabric out of the (largely imaginary) holes you've collected from another's cloth. Best not to even try- just let the continuing "discussion" be your cover. No Other was crowing that "after 50 plus years and there is still a discussion going on about the assassination"- that is their victory, and the only solution they're interested in.
Click to expand...

The one true victory in all of this is that the name of the assassin is remembered - that was the goal, he wanted it in the worst way and that's how he got it.
 
MicahJava said:
Maybe you can use MS Paint really quick to draw over the Ida Dox sketches, because you're really not explaining what you're suggesting very well. In fact, it's starting to look like you're just throwing out gibberish to conceal a big hole in what you believe.
Click to expand...

Hell MJ, you can't even answer why your pin-the-headwound-on-the-drawing means anything past proving disagreement between parties.

Projection kiddo, it's generally recognized for what it is.
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...
You put a bullet through it.
 
BStrong said:
The one true victory in all of this is that the name of the assassin is remembered - that was the goal, he wanted it in the worst way and that's how he got it.
Click to expand...

That's true. Too many CTists go barking up the tree of "who profits?" thinking that a crime as grand as the assassination of a president demands a motive, and doer, just as grand. But LHO's motive was, in his small mind, sufficiently grand; put a gun in his hands (or Booth's, Guiteau's, and Czolgosz's), and the motive gets magnified to the point that the effect is the same, a profit indistinguishable from any other.
 
MicahJava said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to your question.

That's because I don't know much about brains, or bullet wounds in skulls, or how to read autopsy reports.

However, there are people who do know those answers, and who can be trusted to say whether or not such a thing can be done, and none of those people have examined the evidence and said that it couldn't be done. None of them have been suspicious of it. Even Dr. Cyril Wecht, he who cannot resist taking a contrarian view and casting suspicion on any celebrity death, doesn't go there.

So, I can't answer your question, but I know that the people who would know the answer don't find any reason to even ask it. Either they are all in on the conspiracy (more checks, please), or there' s nothing to see here.
 
Hank, I think you are the one prolonging this thread to get around this dilema. You seem like you care because you're still here. So can you give me a straight answer on this skull cavity business? None of your posts for the past several pages could be considered "answers" in the fullest sense of the word. I'd prefer you stay on topic because I think the true location of the small head wound is a very important issue.
 
Last edited:
Joey McGee said:
Why does this matter? The chances that the gun wasn't the same as the other guns is extremely minor, I guess we need a gun manufacturing expert to explain this to you, but, he probably will be working for the CIA so, no point.
Click to expand...

Per Agatha, we should not be discussing this in the other thread. So I am posting it here as well. Please respond to this thread.

Here's a link to the source post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11805849&postcount=64

No, it's not. It's not like these weapons were all fresh off the assembly line. They are war surplus weapons, and even the one Oswald bought had to be refurbished before it was fit for sale. While all are no doubt operable when sold into the American retail market, as I noted all have their own idiosyncrasies. Some might have an easier or harder bolt to work than Oswald's. Some might be less (or more) accurate.


Joey McGee said:
Buddy life is short, and I make fun of my best friends and family and they make fun of me, and it's funny. Even though I really disagree with you a lot I'd still dive into cold water to save you from drowning. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

You avoided the points I made entirely. Try responding on point next time.


Joey McGee said:
Everything you just said cancelled itself out. He was a Marine sharpshooter you'd have to be drunk as Joey Mcgee at 9 am on a monday to neglect to sight your rifle it's not possible.
Click to expand...

Again, it's his only weapon. So if he found out about the motorcade going past his place of work on Wednesday evening (11/20/1963) for instance, he didn't have much of an opportunity to sight in the rifle, did he?

So it was either use the unsighted rifle or none at all. Or if he found out on Sunday morning (11/17/63), then he could have taken that opportunity to take the weapon to a gun range, where some people affirm they saw him.

You don't know what he did, or what he thought, so stop trying to pretend you're a mind reader.


Joey McGee said:
Again, everything you said cancels the other half out. I don't know if you know what a US Marine is?
Click to expand...

You avoided every point I made entirely, claiming without any proof or argument that my points cancel each other out. Please elaborate and show us how.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, I think you are the one prolonging this thread to get around this dilema. You seem like you care because you're still here. So can you give me a straight answer on this skull cavity business? None of your posts for the past several pages could be considered "answers" in the fullest sense of the word. I'd prefer you stay on topic because I think the true location of the small head wound is a very important issue.
Click to expand...

I already gave you straight answers every time, in every one of my responses.

Your suspicions and doubts and opinions do not amount to a hill of beans. And most certainly don't need a response.

As an unqualified civilian, you are not qualified to assess the evidence and tell us what you think, nor does any of your thoughts on the matter somehow get elevated to the circumstance of being evidence in any sense of the word.

You are sharing your musings with the world, and asking others to explain how and why your musings are wrong. That's a logical fallacy known as "Shifting the Burden of Proof". I've pointed this out to you previously. We need not address your musings and show where you're wrong. The burden is on you to show you are right.

Really, how much more explicit need I be?

So, for example, when you ask "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 is not incumbent on us to provide an answer, because you have not shown the evidence indicates there was any need to remove any of the skull, nor can you quote from the autopsy report where any such procedure was done, nor can you quote any of the pathologists saying it was necessary to do what you suggest was done.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, I think you are the one prolonging this thread to get around this dilema. You seem like you care because you're still here. So can you give me a straight answer on this skull cavity business? None of your posts for the past several pages could be considered "answers" in the fullest sense of the word. I'd prefer you stay on topic because I think the true location of the small head wound is a very important issue.
Click to expand...

Answers have been given. You just ignore them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom