JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

And no doubt you feel that a day's Googling makes you an expert on the subject.



Your diagram appears to show the liver being close to the left nipple, and nowhere near the right one. Would you like to reconsider your theory at this point?

Dave

I think you're confusing the liver with the spleen.

 

[HSienzant]

A high-velocity bullet just going near your liver can cause serious damage to it. And all of these articles and books say that a tumbling high-velocity bullet can make an even bigger temporary cavity. Meanwhile, a low-velocity (subsonic) bullet may give a better explanation for why Connally wasn't killed.

Now that you presume yourself an expert on cavitation, please explain what damage a high powered bullet hitting the back of JFK's head would cause upon exiting the head?

Would it look anything like what we see in the Zapruder film?

Support your answer with evidence.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Okay, so I've been Googling literature on the temporary cavitation of bullets for about a day now.

Oh good lord, a whole day? You must be tuckered out.

So John Connally was hit in his back to the right of the shoulder, had his fifth rib shattered, and had the missile exit below his right nipple, right? Considering the temporary cavitation of a low-velocity tumbling bullet, how did that not cause serious damage to his liver, which would have been within an inch or so near the fifth rib/exit point? There was never mention of serious damage to Connally's liver.

I'm no doctor, but for a bullet to cause damage to the liver it needs to hit the liver. You know, the same way my liver wasn't damaged when they took my gallbladder out...because they were careful not to slice into it...

A high-velocity bullet just going near your liver can cause serious damage to it. And all of these articles and books say that a tumbling high-velocity bullet can make an even bigger temporary cavity. Meanwhile, a low-velocity (subsonic) bullet may give a better explanation for why Connally wasn't killed.

What do you call a high-velocity round after it hits something?

A low velocity round.


All you are describing is a 6.5x52mm round AFTER it had already passed through ANOTHER HUMAN BODY, which means you're posted cut& paste supports the single bullet theory.

Remember, the bullet had slowed enough to exit the body mostly intact.

Google "painting yourself into a corner"....

 

[MicahJava]

Which should tell you your non-expert uneducated opinion is wrong. But it likely won't. You will no doubt beat it like you beat JFK's head wound, putting your opinion ahead of all the doctors who examined Connally, ignoring what they concluded, and pretending once more your opinion takes primacy. It does not. We'll give non-expert uneducated opinion all the consideration it is due (none).

You avoided answering any of the questions I asked of you concerning JFK's head wounds, and you are now changing the subject.

Are we supposed to not notice any of this and just continue to play your game of "I've got a question"?

Ok, then let me ask you a few:

• Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?
  
• Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?
  
• Or on Connally's stretcher?
  
• Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?
  
• If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?
  
• Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?
  
• And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?
  
• How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

We'll need this information to determine how much credibility to put into your assessments of the damage the liver should have suffered, and whether a low-velocity bullet was used.

You're not the only one who can ask questions, you know.

Seems like it's your turn to answer a few.

Hank

PS: My prediction is you will ignore all the questions.

Oh yeah, I forgot I should trust the FBI, and trust their totally thorough examination on the night of November 22.

"Late Sunday evening, November 24, the guards were removed from the vehicle and SA Gies and Special Officer Davis and White House Police Officer Hutch began to remove the blood stains and the debris from the car. At that time there were still fragments of bone and hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI search team."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Car%20Presidential/Item%2005.pdf

Yeah right. So at least from a lawyer's argumentative standpoint, there was no thorough examination of the limousine, especially since Fraizer et. al never even tried saying they used a metal detector or magnifying glass. By the way, where are those bone fragments today?

Now on to the science, please.

 

[MicahJava]

Oh good lord, a whole day? You must be tuckered out.

I'm no doctor, but for a bullet to cause damage to the liver it needs to hit the liver. You know, the same way my liver wasn't damaged when they took my gallbladder out...because they were careful not to slice into it...

If you even bothered to use Google, you would know that a high-velocity bullet just passing near the liver can cause serious damage to it. The bullet itself does not have to touch the liver to have life-threatening injuries from it.

What do you call a high-velocity round after it hits something?

A low velocity round.


All you are describing is a 6.5x52mm round AFTER it had already passed through ANOTHER HUMAN BODY, which means you're posted cut& paste supports the single bullet theory.

Remember, the bullet had slowed enough to exit the body mostly intact.

Google "painting yourself into a corner"....

Except, of course, you should know that the single bullet theory posits that it was still traveling much faster than the speed of sound while tumbling when it struck Connally.

 

[MicahJava]

Now that you presume yourself an expert on cavitation, please explain what damage a high powered bullet hitting the back of JFK's head would cause upon exiting the head?

Would it look anything like what we see in the Zapruder film?

Support your answer with evidence.

Hank

A high-powered rifle bullet? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that would cause more damage than the skull and brain area around the EOP and the base of the head, but of course that's assuming it's a high-powered bullet.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think you're confusing the liver with the spleen.

Ah, you're right. But even so, it seems you're looking at the projection and not taking the third dimension into account. The highest point of the liver may well be only an inch or so below the fifth rib, but that point isn't at the front of the body, so if the bullet's track was downwards, it must have passed well above the liver. And also, we're talking about a bullet that had already passed through Kennedy's throat; how fast was it going after that? It may have been subsonic by the time it hit Connally, or by the time it passed closest to his liver, but that doesn't mean it must have been subsonic at the time it was fired. All you really have here is an appeal to incredulity.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Except, of course, you should know that the single bullet theory posits that it was still traveling much faster than the speed of sound while tumbling when it struck Connally.

Citation, please.

Dave

 

[HSienzant]

Ok, then let me ask you a few:

• Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?
  
• Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?
  
• Or on Connally's stretcher?
  
• Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?
  
• If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?
  
• Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?
  
• And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?
  
• How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

PS: My prediction is you will ignore all the questions.

Oh yeah, I forgot I should trust the FBI, and trust their totally thorough examination on the night of November 22.

"Late Sunday evening, November 24, the guards were removed from the vehicle and SA Gies and Special Officer Davis and White House Police Officer Hutch began to remove the blood stains and the debris from the car. At that time there were still fragments of bone and hair in the debris of the car which had not been removed by the FBI search team."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Car%20Presidential/Item%2005.pdf

Yeah right. So at least from a lawyer's argumentative standpoint, there was no thorough examination of the limousine, especially since Fraizer et. al never even tried saying they used a metal detector or magnifying glass. By the way, where are those bone fragments today?

Now on to the science, please.

So exactly as predicted, then. You ignored all the questions, simply to raise a non-issue (exactly what evidence of any value was left in the car? Any bullet fragments? No. Just hair and bone. Any doubt whose hair and bone that was? No - it was JFK's).

And just as clearly, the remaining hair and bone was judged to be of no evidentiary value. Ball in your court - establish the evidentiary value of this remaining hair and bone. So all you did was raise another question you have to answer.

What's your reason for raising this non-issue? Simply to deflect from your inability to answer any of the earlier questions about your latest non-expert opinion.

We are not fooled by that.

You are very predictable - go ahead, ignore the questions you find difficult and simply reiterate your opinion once more. We are on to that. It's nothing new from the CT side.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Citation, please.

Dave

From Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony:


Mr. FAUNTROY . The bullet left the gun at 2,000 feet . Do you think at the point it would have struck the first body it was going at about 1,700?

Mr. STURDIVAN . 1,700 to 1,800 .

Mr. FAUNTROY . Feet . It would have lost how much going through, you said?

Mr. STURDIVAN . About a 100 . So it is after going through it is perhaps 1,700 feet per second, or a little less, at striking the second body . There it would lose another 400-plus feet per second and exited, say, somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300 feet per second, roughly .

Mr . FAUNTROY . That is velocity at which it is moving?

Mr . STURDIVAN . At the exit of the second target .

Mr . FAUNTROY . Would that be enough velocity to shatter a wrist bone?

Mr . STURDIVAN . Oh, yes . My calculations, rough calculations have shown that when striking the bone it would comminute the bone at anything above about 700 feet per second . So it still has nearly twice that velocity and certainly it would have enough to comminute a bone

Ah, you're right. But even so, it seems you're looking at the projection and not taking the third dimension into account. The highest point of the liver may well be only an inch or so below the fifth rib, but that point isn't at the front of the body, so if the bullet's track was downwards, it must have passed well above the liver. And also, we're talking about a bullet that had already passed through Kennedy's throat; how fast was it going after that? It may have been subsonic by the time it hit Connally, or by the time it passed closest to his liver, but that doesn't mean it must have been subsonic at the time it was fired. All you really have here is an appeal to incredulity.

The liver lies somewhat behind the lung. I'm wondering if it's common for the liver to be significantly below the lung, as some diagrams show it, but I get the impression it's just made that way in certain diagrams for the viewer to get a clearer view of the organs. To show the liver behind the lung in a 2D diagram, you would have to show the lung as somewhat transparent.

 

[HSienzant]

From Larry Sturdivan's HSCA testimony:


Mr. FAUNTROY . The bullet left the gun at 2,000 feet . Do you think at the point it would have struck the first body it was going at about 1,700?

Mr. STURDIVAN . 1,700 to 1,800 .

Mr. FAUNTROY . Feet . It would have lost how much going through, you said?

Mr. STURDIVAN . About a 100 . So it is after going through it is perhaps 1,700 feet per second, or a little less, at striking the second body . There it would lose another 400-plus feet per second and exited, say, somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300 feet per second, roughly .

Mr . FAUNTROY . That is velocity at which it is moving?

Mr . STURDIVAN . At the exit of the second target .

Mr . FAUNTROY . Would that be enough velocity to shatter a wrist bone?

Mr . STURDIVAN . Oh, yes . My calculations, rough calculations have shown that when striking the bone it would comminute the bone at anything above about 700 feet per second . So it still has nearly twice that velocity and certainly it would have enough to comminute a bone

So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Doesn't this testimony mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Where's the evidence for the shooter or the bullets?

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Hank

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mr. STURDIVAN . About a 100 . So it is after going through it is perhaps 1,700 feet per second, or a little less, at striking the second body . There it would lose another 400-plus feet per second and exited, say, somewhere between 1,100 and 1,300 feet per second, roughly .

Not necessarily supersonic, then; the speed of sound is 1125 feet per second. So at the bottom end of the speed range cavitation wouldn't be expected.

The liver lies somewhat behind the lung.

As in, not at the front. So the bullet passed well above the liver.

You haven't established either of your premises, let alone both.

Dave

 

[MicahJava]

So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Hank

I don't know if it could, but 700 feet per second is well below subsonic at 477 mph. If the pointed bullet discovered on the stretcher was actually involved in the shooting, I also don't know if it could do all of that and remain intact unless somehow that one was solely responsible for the thigh wound.

Meanwhile, you have never answered by most important questions without invoking gibberish.

 

[HSienzant]

A high-powered rifle bullet? I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that would cause more damage than the skull and brain area around the EOP and the base of the head, but of course that's assuming it's a high-powered bullet.

FAIL.

What part of "Support your answer with evidence" did you not understand?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Not necessarily supersonic, then; the speed of sound is 1125 feet per second. So at the bottom end of the speed range cavitation wouldn't be expected.

Such a drop in speed would be largely due to the fifth rib wounding. The ribs are in front of the lungs and liver.

As in, not at the front. So the bullet passed well above the liver.

You haven't established either of your premises, let alone both.

Dave

Not sure what you mean. The human liver is a good sized organ, not thin like a beef liver.

 

[MicahJava]

FAIL.

What part of "Support your answer with evidence" did you not understand?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head?

Hank

The idea of more than three shots goes hand-in-hand with the idea of subsonic ammunition.

So, did you figure out what you think the autopsy skull photographs show?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Such a drop in speed would be largely due to the fifth rib wounding. The ribs are in front of the lungs and liver.

Appealing to your own authority, I see.

Not sure what you mean.

I mean that you haven't established that the bullet passed close enough to the liver at a high enough speed to cause serious liver damage; you've simply speculated on the basis of negligible expertise.

Dave

 

[Axxman300]

If you even bothered to use Google, you would know that a high-velocity bullet just passing near the liver can cause serious damage to it. The bullet itself does not have to touch the liver to have life-threatening injuries from it.

1. This assumes ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME, which is a lie.

2. This assumes that the governor had no muscles or tendons between his skin and skeleton, which - if he did have musculature & tendons - would have come into play in slowing the bullet further during penetration.

3. This assumes that the governor sat flush against the seat, and that his vital organs were as depicted in a diagram, and that they never move (compress/expand etc as some do).

4. If you left the house more you'd meet people. Then you'd hear stories about how some people survived things that should have killed them, and you'll hear stories about people who died from something ridiculous, and that's because people are different.

Except, of course, you should know that the single bullet theory posits that it was still traveling much faster than the speed of sound while tumbling when it struck Connally.

Neat, and I also know that the bullet bled off energy pretty fast once inside the body. I know this because it didn't continue into the Secret Service Agent in front of him.

If you spend more than one day Googling cavitation you'll learn that where a spinning bullet goes once it's in the body is largely random. Fact is there's a 50% chance the bullet destroys the governor's liver and we bury four men in November, 1963 instead of three.

 

[HSienzant]

What I asked:

So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Doesn't this testimony mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Where's the evidence for the shooter or the bullets?

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Hank

What you quoted, with no notation showing anything was deleted:

So doesn't this expert's testimony establish a high-powered bullet was used, as otherwise a low-powered bullet would not have sufficient speed when exiting Connally's trunk to break the wrist as it did?

Try answering my questions for a change.

Your sole response:

I don't know if it could, but 700 feet per second is well below subsonic at 477 mph. If the pointed bullet discovered on the stretcher was actually involved in the shooting, I also don't know if it could do all of that and remain intact unless somehow that one was solely responsible for the thigh wound.

Meanwhile, you have never answered by most important questions without invoking gibberish.

Let's go through your response, sentence by sentence:

I don't know if it could, but 700 feet per second is well below subsonic at 477 mph.

My questions had nothing to do with subsonic or supersonic. Your response here doesn't approach answering anything I asked. If you're conjecturing this bullet struck Connally at 700 feet per second, would it be able to penetrate Connally's trunk, his wrist, and wound his thigh, given that initial speed?

If not, then:
Doesn't this testimony mean that at least two bullets would have to have hit Connally, both of which vanished into thin air and were never recovered, along with the gunman firing these bullets likewise vanishing?

Where's the evidence for the shooter or the bullets?

Doesn't your argument mean 90% of the witnesses are wrong, as that's about how many heard three shots?

Doesn't this call into question witnesses like John Connally, who heard only two shots and felt a third (between the two he heard)?

If the pointed bullet discovered on the stretcher was actually involved in the shooting...

I asked about Commission Exhibit 399 not at all. That bullet was a high-powered bullet. I asked about the implications stemming from your theory of a low-powered bullet striking Connally. You avoided answering any questions about your theory.

...I also don't know if it could do all of that and remain intact unless somehow that one was solely responsible for the thigh wound.[

I asked about remaining intact not at all. I asked about the high powered round found at Parkland not at all.

Congratulations. You are batting a thousand. I predicted you would answer none of my questions and you're doing your best to ensure that prediction comes true.

Meanwhile, you have never answered by [my]most important questions without invoking gibberish.

Really? What response to what questions did you consider gibberish?

Hank

PS: In case you forgot, you still owe me answers to these questions:
Where's the low velocity bullet that you *conjecture*?

Why wasn't this bullet found in Connally's body?

Or on Connally's stretcher?

Would a low velocity bullet penetrate Connally's back, his wrist, and end up wounding his thigh?

If your answer to the above is no, where's the other bullet(s) that would have caused the other wound(s) this low velocity bullet didn't cause?

Would this bullet emerge undamaged from Connally, and fall out of his wound onto his stretcher?

And by tracing back Connally's wounds, where do you think this supposed second shooter was located?

How come no witness out of the 500 or so in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination came forward to say this saw this second shooter?

 

[HSienzant]

Now that you presume yourself an expert on cavitation, please explain what damage a high powered bullet hitting the back of JFK's head would cause upon exiting the head?

Would it look anything like what we see in the Zapruder film?

Support your answer with evidence.

Hank

FAIL.

What part of "Support your answer with evidence" did you not understand?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head?

Hank

The idea of more than three shots goes hand-in-hand with the idea of subsonic ammunition.

Yes, I understand that. That's why I asked the questions I did.

You answered my questions not at all.

Where's the evidence of this subsonic ammo being found in the body or in the limo?

Where's the evidence of a second shooter?

Would subsonic ammo cause the large cavitation of JFK's skull as we see in the Zapruder film?

Why did 90% of the witnesses here only three shots, not four or more?

How many subsonic bullets struck Connally in your theory, and why is there no evidence for any of them?

If we trace Connally's wounds back, where is this supposed second shooter firing subsonic ammo located?

And why would you conjecture anything but a high-powered bullet striking JFK's head, as the two large fragments recovered from the limo were remnants of a high-powered bullet, and could only be from a bullet striking the head.

Show your work, cite your evidence.

Or keep punting.

So, did you figure out what you think the autopsy skull photographs show?

Did you? I'm not the one doubting the official reports and conclusions. You need to support your opinions with evidence. You have yet to do so, and I have pointed that out repeatedly. Your interpretations of some statement by someone 33 years after the fact is not evidence, and doesn't support your opinion. It's just more of your opinion. Statements by experts is evidence. Asking me what I think about your opinions / theories is just an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Hank