JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

According to official materials, the brain recovered was relatively intact. The doctors did not squeeze the brain out of an opening too small in the head. They chipped and cut away skull fragments until the opening was large enough to remove the brain like they would with a normal craniotomy.

Quote those official materials.

Here's one: "Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere."

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

We have differing definitions of "relatively intact" apparently.

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

Hank

 

[BStrong]

The only thing your link has to say about the small head wound is "it was higher because it makes more sense when Oswald did it". Wow, brilliant science. Of course, if the large head wound was a tangential shot from behind, you could make virtually the same argument, albeit while acknowledging the separate bastard EOP shot.

Still no answer to now what?

Let's pretend! I know you're familiar with that concept.

Let's pretend the bullet hit JFK exactly at the spot where your source (didn't you admit you have no opinions of your own and are just asking questions...) believes and there is no question of it being anywhere else.

Now What?

State (or more likely, cut and paste someones work) what it means and why it exonerates LHO.

If you or someone else can't articulate what your version of the headwound entrance would indicate outside of the known facts, why the hell should your argument be worth considering?

LHO's rifle. LHO's wheelgun dead POTUS, wounded Gov. dead Cop. LHO w/ murder weapon in hand.

Where does the alternative entrance wound work out given those facts?

 

[HSienzant]

So you are saying it is technically possible, and I am saying it is extraordinarily unlikely. To me, the first thing that happens when an expert marksman buys a guy is that he sights it in and then takes care of it after that. I am done here, thanks.

So nothing to rebut my points except your own opinion. We've covered that ground pretty adequately with MicahJava. Your opinion does not matter. And regardless of what you think Oswald did or might have done, the evidence indicates exactly what he did do. Claiming "he wouldn't do that!" when the evidence indicates he did precisely that is beyond silly. You are now arguing with the evidence, not with me. Exactly how well do you want to insist he did take care of his weapon, considering it was normally stored in a garage within a blanket in a dismantled state?

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Quote those official materials.

Here's one: "Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere."

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

We have differing definitions of "relatively intact" apparently.

Hank

When someone has no experience with the subject matter all kinds of mistakes can be made.

When someone has no experience in the subject matter and a popular fiction based understanding of what they believe to be the subject matter, attacks of dumb ass to the head are the rule, not the exception.

 

[HSienzant]

The only thing your link has to say about the small head wound is "it was higher because it makes more sense when Oswald did it". Wow, brilliant science.

No, that's a straw man argument. I admonished you previously that if you can't summarize your opponent's argument accurately you can't begin to rebut their points. And you prove it again.

The argument laid out in the cited paper is thus:

*** Neither group is willing to budge about the height of the head wound. Even though there is persuasive evidence that the high position is the correct one and that the autopsy physicians made a mistake, let us assume for the sake or argument that we cannot know. The following chain of logic shows that this intractable problem can indeed be worked around, that is, the height doesn't really matter in getting to the right answer about the assassination.
1. The bullet entered somewhere in the rear of JFK's head.
2. The bullet did not stay in his head.
3. The bullet exited somewhere on the right side of his head.
4. Two large fragments of one or two bullets, a base and a tip (Q2,3), were found in the front seat of the car.
5. Two pieces of damage to the inside of the windshield area (chrome strip and windshield proper) were found.
6. The lead fragments retrieved from JFK's brain (Q4,5) were tied compositionally to the front-seat bullet (Q2) by NAA.
7. Q2 was tied to Oswald's rifle (C2766) by ballistics.
8. Therefore the bullet whose fragments hit the windshield area came unambiguously from Oswald's rifle and passed through JFK's head, where it left telltale fragments.
9. Once this three-point trajectory is established, the details of passage through the head become inessential. Therefore we don't need to know exactly where the bullet entered the head.

Now, rebut the actual argument.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

So nothing to rebut my points except your own opinion. We've covered that ground pretty adequately with MicahJava. Your opinion does not matter. And regardless of what you think Oswald did or might have done, the evidence indicates exactly what he did do. Claiming "he wouldn't do that!" when the evidence indicates he did precisely that is beyond silly. You are now arguing with the evidence, not with me. Exactly how well do you want to insist he did take care of his weapon, considering it was normal stored in a garage within a blanket in a dismantled state?

Hank

It's hard to respect someone that has strongly held opinions but will not articulate why their strongly held opinion matters.

My friend the puts the jerk in "knee-jerk conservative" at least can explain why he's right and everyone else is wrong and why it matters. My musician friend that believes in every CT can do likewise.

CTists in this thread? not so much.

 

[Joey McGee]

normal stored in a garage within a blanket in a dismantled state?

Hank

Let's skip the theatrics and bloviation, maybe he liked to clean his gun before he shot it and being disassembled was part of that process? What's so wrong about a blanket? You have to qualify statements. I don't understand what him storing like this has to do with the gun being in average condition. It's beyond stretching really.

 

[BStrong]

Let's skip the theatrics and bloviation, maybe he liked to clean his gun before he shot it and being disassembled was part of that process? What's so wrong about a blanket? You have to qualify statements. I don't understand what him storing like this has to do with the gun being in average condition. It's beyond stretching really.

Marina Oswald testified he practiced with it, cleaned it and practiced operating the action and dry fired it.

He also took a shot at General Walker but didn't get the job done.

 

[MicahJava]

Quote those official materials.

Here's one: "Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere."

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

We have differing definitions of "relatively intact" apparently.

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

Hank

What are you suggesting?

Maybe they squeezed the whole thing out of his nose and had it come out looking like this

???

Oh but please continue to ignore and my simple questions.

 

[MicahJava]

Marina Oswald testified he practiced with it, cleaned it and practiced operating the action and dry fired it.

He also took a shot at General Walker but didn't get the job done.

In one of Marina's first Secret Service interviews, she said (with her acquaintance Peter Paul Gregory translating) that she didn't know rifles with scopes existed until she saw news reports of the assassination on television.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10745&search=%22she_did+not+know+that+rifles+with+scopes+existed%22#relPageId=25&tab=page

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/National%20Archives%20Files/National%20Archives%20Notes/Item%2012.pdf

 

[Joey McGee]

He also took a shot at General Walker but didn't get the job done.

He missed the first shot both times and had no second chance with Walker so whatever right.

 

[MicahJava]

In one of Marina's first Secret Service interviews, she said (with her acquaintance Peter Paul Gregory translating) that she didn't know rifles with scopes existed until she saw news reports of the assassination on television.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10745&search=%22she_did+not+know+that+rifles+with+scopes+existed%22#relPageId=25&tab=page

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/N%20Disk/National%20Archives%20Files/National%20Archives%20Notes/Item%2012.pdf

A discussion of this translation relating to the rifle is in Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics And The Death Of JFK, page 243: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2D48FF1E8D302CDF426C1F9D9335D403

 

[Tomtomkent]

Marina confirmed she took the photographs of Oswald holding the murder weapons. Does it matter if she knew what the scope was?

 

[BStrong]

He missed the first shot both times and had no second chance with Walker so whatever right.

Buck fever.

 

[BStrong]

What are you suggesting?

Maybe they squeezed the whole thing out of his nose and had it come out looking like this

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/zT6RjDZ.png[/qimg]

???

Oh but please continue to ignore and my simple questions.

Projection? just as you ignore What Now?

C'mon MJ, it's 4/20! pick up your thinking bong and take a swag.

 

[HSienzant]

What are you suggesting? Maybe they squeezed the whole thing out of his nose...

Straw man argument. Once again, "if you can't summarize your opponent's argument accurately you can't begin to rebut their points."

Oh but please continue to ignore and my simple questions.

I have responded to your points. You, for your part, have mostly ignored those responses and continued to repeat your argument ad infinitum.

For example, I asked you to "Quote those official materials". You had claimed, "According to official materials, the brain recovered was relatively intact." You have yet to quote anything official that the brain was intact.

I quoted from the autopsy report itself (certainly that would fall under the category of official materials) to show the brain was not intact. The drawing you yourself cited shows the brain was not intact as well.

You've repeatedly put primacy on your own inexpert opinion, using it to attempt to cast doubt on official materials, despite my own cautions to you that your opinions don't supersede the official materials, and the official materials take primacy over your own inexpert opinion. You simply repeat the claims, as if repetition will somehow change that circumstance.

You ask others to address your points even after they have been addressed, while you ignore all requests from others to address issues with your arguments. For example, I asked repeatedly (as did others) for your theory of the assassination. You have yet to even acknowledge those requests, let alone respond to them meaningfully.

Another poster pointed out the logic of Rahn to establish that the precise location of the wound in the rear of the President's head wasn't necessary to establish Oswald shot JFK. You dismissed that with a straw argument and have yet to address the actual argument presented.

Really, at this point do you think you're going to make any headway with repeating all those tactics?

You won't.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

No, that's a straw man argument. I admonished you previously that if you can't summarize your opponent's argument accurately you can't begin to rebut their points. And you prove it again.

The argument laid out in the cited paper is thus:


Now, rebut the actual argument.

Hank

He and his fellow travelers can't.

To simplify - We know it's LHO's rifle. The slugs match the rifle. JFK dead, two GSW's. Connally, wounds resultant from LHO's rifle. Tippet Dead. LHO revolver was the murder weapon. LHO arrested with murder weapon in hand.

CTist - There's so many questions. Who put the ram in the ram in the rama-lama ding dong? why didn't LHO use a better rifle? He said he wasn't guilty! Ad infinitum.

Until one of these Ctist's can explain why their questions even matter within the context of the actual known evidence they don't have enough traction to matter to anyone but themselves.

Look at this thread. MJ can't answer my question of "what now" because nobody every explained why that question matters in conspiracylandia.

Until someone else writes it, he won't have it.

 

[HSienzant]

In one of Marina's first Secret Service interviews, she said (with her acquaintance Peter Paul Gregory translating) that she didn't know rifles with scopes existed until she saw news reports of the assassination on television.

You're quibbling over minutia and ignoring the big picture. Oswald owned a rifle, and that it was stored in the Paine garage is a given. Marina, when the police arrived at the Paine home on the afternoon of the assassination, admitted Oswald owned a rifle and kept it stored in the Paine garage wrapped in a blanket.

First, here's Ruth Paine's recollection of what transpired:

Mr. JENNER - The police arrived and what occurred.
Mrs. PAINE - I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both the sheriff's office and the Dallas Police Office, showed me at least one package or two. I was very surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did you say anything?
Mrs. PAINE - I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my guests.
They then did search the house. I directed them to the fact that most of the Oswald's things were in storage in my garage and showed where the garage was, and to the room where Marina and the baby had stayed where they would find the other things which belonged to the Oswalds. Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage.
Mr. JENNER - How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here.
Mr. JENNER - Were you standing on the blanket when you advised--
Mrs. PAINE - When I translated. I then stepped off of it and the officer picked it up in the middle and it bent so.
Mr. JENNER - It hung limp just as it now hangs limp in your hand?
Mrs. PAINE - And at this moment I felt this man was in very deep trouble and may have done--

Here's Marina's recollection:
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you at any time open the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, only once.
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And what about Mrs. Paine? Did she look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. She didn't know about the rifle. Perhaps she did know. But she never told me about it. I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that.

Here's Dallas Police Detective Guy Rose's testimony on that point. He was a member of the search party that first arrived at the Paine home:
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.

Oswald owned a rifle. It was stored in the Paine home. Marina admitted to it when the police first arrived. Quibbling over whether she knew what a scope was is minutia and meaningless to resolving these issues. The big picture is Oswald was shipped from Kleins the rifle with the serial number C2766 and he clearly possessed it and clearly stored it at the Paine's home, in their garage.

A discussion of this translation relating to the rifle is in Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics And The Death Of JFK, page 243: http://libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=2D48FF1E8D302CDF426C1F9D9335D403

That link offers no details on whatever your point is. I believe you're trying to say Peter Dale Scott quibbled over whether the translation of Marina's words is faithful to what she actually said in Russian?

Isn't that par for the course for conspiracy theorists? Ignore the big picture and quibble over the minutia?

There was no translation of Mrs. Paine's or Guy Rose's testimony necessary. Both of them spoke English. They affirm the accuracy of the substance of the translation of the testimony of Marina Oswald, because they tell the same story as Marina. How did Peter Dale Scott deal with their testimony? Oh, he ignored it entirely? Thanks.

EDIT: Page 243 in the hard copy of that book (I went into my basement and dug out my copy, published in 1993) deals with "Oswald as an Informant for the Government" (that's the title of the chapter 15 that starts on page 242).
Perhaps you can specify the chapter Scott's quibbles about the translation could be found? (the word "rifle" appears nowhere in Scott's index. Neither does "blanket".

EDIT 2: Searching through all the pages where "Marina Oswald" is listed, it is as I surmised. Scott is quibbling over the translation. This is on page 271 in my hard cover copy. And of course, he brings up the claim that Marina "frequently changed her story to meet the latest demands of her interviewers."

This would not be true of her first mention of Lee's ownership of the rifle in the Paine home. She thought the rifle was safe and sound in the Paine garage, and even after Mrs. Paine denied Oswald owned a rifle, she corrected Mrs. Paine and led the police to the blanket where she believed the rifle was still stored. It wasn't. It had been recovered from the Depository a short while before.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Marina confirmed she took the photographs of Oswald holding the murder weapons. Does it matter if she knew what the scope was?

Yeah, she said she took a photograph. Oh wait, two photographs! Sorry! NO WAIT I MEAN THREE PHOTOGRAPHS SORRY HONEST MISTAKE AFTER ALL ITS SO EASY TO OPERATE THAT CAMERA I PROLLY TOOK TWO MORE ACCIDENTALLY JUST POINT AND CLICK RITE?

Actually I'd rather not talk about the backyard photos here. I'm not letting the brain issue go.

 

[MicahJava]

Straw man argument. Once again, "if you can't summarize your opponent's argument accurately you can't begin to rebut their points."

I have responded to your points. You, for your part, have mostly ignored those responses and continued to repeat your argument ad infinitum.

For example, I asked you to "Quote those official materials". You had claimed, "According to official materials, the brain recovered was relatively intact." You have yet to quote anything official that the brain was intact.

I quoted from the autopsy report itself (certainly that would fall under the category of official materials) to show the brain was not intact. The drawing you yourself cited shows the brain was not intact as well.

You've repeatedly put primacy on your own inexpert opinion, using it to attempt to cast doubt on official materials, despite my own cautions to you that your opinions don't supersede the official materials, and the official materials take primacy over your own inexpert opinion. You simply repeat the claims, as if repetition will somehow change that circumstance.

You ask others to address your points even after they have been addressed, while you ignore all requests from others to address issues with your arguments. For example, I asked repeatedly (as did others) for your theory of the assassination. You have yet to even acknowledge those requests, let alone respond to them meaningfully.

Another poster pointed out the logic of Rahn to establish that the precise location of the wound in the rear of the President's head wasn't necessary to establish Oswald shot JFK. You dismissed that with a straw argument and have yet to address the actual argument presented.

Really, at this point do you think you're going to make any headway with repeating all those tactics?

You won't.

Hank

Um, I think you're confused. The official story is that the brain was almost complete, like it shows on the photographs (or the sketch I linked). There are witnesses who said they thought the brain was 1/3 to 1/2 destroyed, but those witnesses go against the official story. It's your job to tell me how they got a nearly complete brain out of the skull cavity without disturbing the cowlick area of the skull. Let's try this thing while accepting the medical evidence as is.

Here is a video showing the consistency of an unfixed human brain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxyP-nUhUY

If you want a grand theory on the shooting, help me create one. But It's pointless to respond to theories like "it happened like this because it makes more sense when a single sixth floor sniper did it".