JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

100% of forensic pathologists agree that when a bullet enters the cerebellum, it severely damages it. So we're left with discussing how the cerebellum on the (official) brain didn't have severe damage. Was the entry wound higher than contended before? Nope, the evidence doesn't point to that. Some experts like Larry Sturdivan and Peter Cummings have tried to say it could've been one head shot that entered the EOP, went along the occipital lobe and exited the top of his head, but they do little to explain lack of cerebellar damage. It doesn't help that all (or most) of the bullet fragments appear to be in the parietal-frontal area, in a downward trail. And a trajectory that goes sharply upwards even accounting for the decline in Elm street and Kennedy's leaning head.

You just cited some of the evidence that points to that. Thanks.

(a) cerebellum on the (official) brain didn't have severe damage.
(b) 100% of forensic pathologists agree that when a bullet enters the cerebellum, it severely damages it.
(c) all (or most) of the bullet fragments appear to be in the parietal-frontal area, in a downward trail.
(d) a trajectory that goes sharply upwards even accounting for the decline in Elm street and Kennedy's leaning head.

Taken together, these pieces fit a rear shooter hitting the back of the head above the occipital protuberance and with an exit in the top right part of the skull -- both wounds where the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel placed them. And the wound wasn't low in the head as you like to argue, because the cerebellum wasn't damaged severely. Ergo, no bullet entered there. These conclusions follow directly from the points you provided in your post above.

A new batch of forensic experts examining the X-rays would really help this case.

No, you don't believe - and you reject - the unanimous conclusions of all the original forensic pathologists. Why would you believe the next batch of forensic pathologists? Do you presume to think that the new conclusions will be different than the old conclusions and suddenly be more to your liking?

And once more, with feeling:

Why do you bother to tell us what you think on subjects where no one is asking for your opinion but are so reticent to tell us what you think on the subjects that people are seeking your opinion?

Like, your overall narrative of the assassination? Who planned it, and how? How many shooters and where were they? How'd they get Oswald's rifle to plant in the Depository? Where'd the bullet recovered in Parkland come from, if it was neither a legit bullet that fell out of a victim nor a planted bullet? And a few dozen more you'll never acknowledge.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Did you believe the three forensic experts hired by the ARRB? They couldn't identify the oh-so-obvious cowlick entry as an entry. I'm pretty convinced that a new batch of experts working on the case won't be too crazy about the cowlick fracture, and would say it's probably just a fracture related to the large head wound.

 

[Praktik]

"But that's really anomalous!"

"no, it really isn't"

- sums about 99% of all conspiracy theory arguments, including with respect to JFK.

-----

The way the cerebellum is "supposed to look" after the "official story" is applied is anomalous.

But wait, no it isn't.

------

"that's a magic bullet!"

"No - it isn't, its a normal bullet. You forget the rear seats were raised in the vehicle in question, and so the bullet vectors aren't so strange with this taken into account"

-----

"that flag rippling on the moon landing shot shouldn't be rippling like that - there's no wind! - its anomalous!"

"No it isn't, you don't know how it works in space and how its still moving from the action of planting it, since there is no air there is nothing to really slow the swinging back and forth, and so you see a flag "fluttering", as if there's wind, when in fact the cause is not wind but something else"

------

"Fire doesn't melt steel beams!"

"steel doesn't have to melt, it can weaken, to create the conditions explaining the collapse of the towers!"

-----

"Those clouds shouldn't look that way, some jet contrails dissipate quickly, others stay in the sky - those are chemtrails!"

"No they aren't, your premise that all contrails from all planes in one visible sky should dissipate at the same rate is faulty, because you don't know the varying ribbons of temperature and humidity layered over you, and you forget planes fly at different altitudes."

----

Essentially arguing with conspiracy theorists is all about arguing about anomalies, and trying to walk back someone from ill-founded incredulity that stems from a lack of knowledge.

 

[MicahJava]

You talk like all you know about this stuff comes from Skeptic magazine.

 

[Praktik]

I talk from first hand experience - almost all those things were related to me in real life by believers i know: my sister and her husband, and a good friend from the 00's Toronto scene i was into...

Its all anomaly hunting, at core, and a whole pile of incredulity - this is what leads people, through "gateway facts" (magic bullets, fire/steel beams, rippling flags) and this rhetorical approach of incredulity, to believe ONLY the conspiracy, since "you'd have to have a screw loose" to believe anything else, since its so OBVIOUS this is anomalous!

But it really isn't - its the speaker's lack of knowledge around the phenomenoae in question that breeds the appearance of anomaly. But were they well educated in these matters - the appearance of say, airplane contrails in the sky, wouldn't be so suspicious.

Right here on JFK's cerebellum -it was another perfect case in point.

 

[cmikes]

Did you believe the three forensic experts hired by the ARRB? They couldn't identify the oh-so-obvious cowlick entry as an entry. I'm pretty convinced that a new batch of experts working on the case won't be too crazy about the cowlick fracture, and would say it's probably just a fracture related to the large head wound.

Do you believe the following list of forensic pathologists? Every single one states that one bullet entered the back JFK's head and exited through the right front.

Dr. James Humes
Dr. J. Thornton Boswell
Dr. Pierre Finck
Dr. John Coe
Dr. Joseph Davis
Dr. George Loquvam
Dr. Charles Petty
Dr. Earl Rose
Dr. Werner Spitz
Dr. Cyril Wecht
Dr. James Weston
Dr. William Carnes
Dr. Russell Fisher
Dr. Russell Morgan
Dr. Alan Mortiz
Dr. Robert McMeekin
Dr. Richard Lindenberg
Dr. Fred Hodges

This is at least the third time that I've posted this list and you still haven't explained what degree or experience you have that means we should listen to your opinion rather than their professional findings.

And you still haven't explained why it matters. If Oswald's bullet entered JFK's skull one inch above and slightly to the right of the EOP, he'd still be just as dead as he is now that Oswald's bullet entered three inches above and slightly to the right of the EOP. Could you please explain why that two inches is so important to your theory of the assassination?

Actually, could you please just give your theory of the assassination?

 

[bknight]

Did you believe the three forensic experts hired by the ARRB? They couldn't identify the oh-so-obvious cowlick entry as an entry. I'm pretty convinced that a new batch of experts working on the case won't be too crazy about the cowlick fracture, and would say it's probably just a fracture related to the large head wound.

Let me get this straight, you don't believe what forensic experts examining the evidence DON'T say? (Sorry for the double negative, but it seemed the best way to ask)

 

[HSienzant]

You talk like all you know about this stuff comes from Skeptic magazine.

I talk from first hand experience - almost all those things were related to me in real life by believers i know: my sister and her husband, and a good friend from the 00's Toronto scene i was into...

Its all anomaly hunting, at core, and a whole pile of incredulity - this is what leads people, through "gateway facts" (magic bullets, fire/steel beams, rippling flags) and this rhetorical approach of incredulity, to believe ONLY the conspiracy, since "you'd have to have a screw loose" to believe anything else, since its so OBVIOUS this is anomalous!

But it really isn't - its the speaker's lack of knowledge around the phenomenoae in question that breeds the appearance of anomaly. But were they well educated in these matters - the appearance of say, airplane contrails in the sky, wouldn't be so suspicious.

Right here on JFK's cerebellum -it was another perfect case in point.

You'll also notice he didn't attempt to refute any of your examples either.

He simply denigrated them by suggesting you've been reading Skeptic Magazine.

That's another thing common to conspiracy theorists. They seldom take on the points directly and will just make snide remarks or the like to denigrate the poster, his points, or his sources.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Did you believe the three forensic experts hired by the ARRB? They couldn't identify the oh-so-obvious cowlick entry as an entry. I'm pretty convinced that a new batch of experts working on the case won't be too crazy about the cowlick fracture, and would say it's probably just a fracture related to the large head wound.

You post a picture of the entry wound and then say it's not the entry wound because a handful of "experts" that you CHOOSE to believe don't think it is.

Congratulations, you are now a certified ghost hunter. Willfully misinterpreting photographs can be tricky, but you're a natural. At this pace I should be able to get you a MUFON investigator card too.

There are not enough photographs in the public domain to counter the facts.

More importantly - you are not a medical docotor, and yet here you are feebly assessing forensics, a discipline within medicine which requires many years of additional schooling to achieve, trying to scam your way through four or five photographs to justify your ridiculous theory that there were more than two head shots.

This in spite of the fact that the Zapruder Film shows only one head shot and one back shot.

Go big or go home I guess. Maybe now that you're ghost hunter you can go back to Dallas and do EVPs to find the real killers.

 

[HSienzant]

Did you believe the three forensic experts hired by the ARRB? They couldn't identify the oh-so-obvious cowlick entry as an entry.

Citation? (To clear up any confusion, I'm looking for a link to the actual testimony of the "three forensic experts hired by the ARRB"). Not to what some conspiracy theorist says another conspiracy theorist said in some blog about how he interprets their testimony.

I'm pretty convinced that a new batch of experts working on the case won't be too crazy about the cowlick fracture, and would say it's probably just a fracture related to the large head wound.

Nobody cares what you're pretty convinced of. For some reason, you keep giving us your opinion, when we're looking for expert opinion.

And you just answered my questions in the affirmative, didn't you?

These:

No, you don't believe - and you reject - the unanimous conclusions of all the original forensic pathologists. Why would you believe the next batch of forensic pathologists? Do you presume to think that the new conclusions will be different than the old conclusions and suddenly be more to your liking?

So your answer is, "Yes, my presumption is that the next batch of experts will conclude something different than all the prior experts. That's what I'm counting on, and that's why I'm ignoring all the prior experts, and their unanimous opinion about what the body of JFK shows."

Good of you to admit you got nothing except wishful thinking.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I talk from first hand experience - almost all those things were related to me in real life by believers i know: my sister and her husband, and a good friend from the 00's Toronto scene i was into...

Its all anomaly hunting, at core, and a whole pile of incredulity - this is what leads people, through "gateway facts" (magic bullets, fire/steel beams, rippling flags) and this rhetorical approach of incredulity, to believe ONLY the conspiracy, since "you'd have to have a screw loose" to believe anything else, since its so OBVIOUS this is anomalous!

But it really isn't - its the speaker's lack of knowledge around the phenomenoae in question that breeds the appearance of anomaly. But were they well educated in these matters - the appearance of say, airplane contrails in the sky, wouldn't be so suspicious.

Right here on JFK's cerebellum -it was another perfect case in point.

Your sister? Your in-law? You can't refute page 1 of the official autopsy report. That's all I'm defending here.

 

[HSienzant]

More importantly - you are not a medical docotor, and yet here you are feebly assessing forensics, a discipline within medicine which requires many years of additional schooling to achieve, trying to scam your way through four or five photographs to justify your ridiculous theory that there were more than two head shots.

You misspoke. He's trying to claim there was more than one head shot. The extant evidence shows an entry wound in the back of the head and an exit wound in the top right of the head. That's all.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Your sister? Your in-law? You can't refute page 1 of the official autopsy report.

In my copy, page one says JFK died of a gunshot wound (singular) to the head: "CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound, head"
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf
What does your copy say?

That's all I'm defending here.

Really? No, you're not. You're the one attempting to refute page one of the official autopsy report.

How many bullets did that official autopsy report say struck the President in the head?

ONE.

How many bullets are you arguing struck the President in the head?

TWO.

Surely, one is not equal to two, and just as surely, you are NOT DEFENDING the official autopsy report. That report lists only two missile wounds to the President, one to the head and one to the upper back.

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

Hank

 

[No Other]

You might want to read a few books too. JFK and RFK directed those assassination attempts. Many lines of investigation after the assassination of JFK were terminated by RFK to keep that a secret, not because they lead to Dallas, but to protect his brother's legacy.

Now, did I say that JFK and others DID NOT get engaged in attempted assassination attempts on Castro? No, what I highlighted was that Hank said the CIA did not and the Mafia was the one attempted to kill Castro.

 

[No Other]

Most CTs refuse to offer a theory or narrative beyond occasionally that LHO was innocent. There are a few out there (LBJ got Mac Wallace to do the shooting, etc), but most CTists will only pick convenient cherries from any one theory and ignore other bits. Rarely does it fit together to a whole.

Robert Prey in the earlier incarnations of this thread is a prime example. He would offer lengthy posts about how this witness proves a conspiracy, because a Cuban kid said so, that the medical witnesses were forced to lie, that LBJ called the hospital, and that Oswald was a communist CIA spy....

But even writing a lengthy "essay" he can't offer an actual theory, just a lot of jumbled things he thinks might have happened.

You just described a Poster on this thread and it is not MicahJava.

 

[No Other]

No Other:

Still looking for some answers to these softball questions:

Again, I am not taking a stance on who shot who. It is more fun to point out your lack of knowledge.

And if you're going to persist in arguing it wasn't a rifle that Oswald brought into the Depository, please tell us:

I am not advocating that LHO brought anything into the building. My comments have been on the WC ignoring portions of one witness and then heavily relying on that same witness for the cornerstone of LHO bringing the rifle into the building.

(a) what was in the package Oswald brought to the Depository that morning,

How would I know what was in a package and what does that have to do with anything? My lack of knowing what was in any package has nothing to do with the comments I made.

(b) what happened to what was in the blanket stored in the Paine garage,

who said anything was in the blanket? I don't recall LHO making such a claim.

(c) where'd the 'whatever' that Oswald brought into the Depository wound up,

if it was his lunch, I will take a guess that he ate it but I have no idea what if anything was brought into the building.

(d) why was the sack found on the sixth floor determined to be long enough to contain the disassembled rifle,

I am sure the bag could also be long enough to contain a flag pole but I do not recall any picture of any bag being taken outside of the bag that had chicken bones in it.

(e) why that sack found on the sixth floor was made in the recent past with Depository paper,

a bag made from Depository paper was found in the Depository... woo, call the FBI that should never happen, the Depository should be using paper from the building next to it. Wow, you really asked this question...

(f) why it had Oswald's prints on it,

LHO worked in the building, his prints along with many others will be found all over the place... nothing earth shattering in that revelation.

(g) How did Oswald's rifle get into the Depository, and

I believe the rifle was ordered by a A. Hidell and the real question is "how did A. Hidell pick up the weapon at a Post Office Box that was not in his name? Riddle me that one...

(h) please, tell us why Oswald denied in custody he brought any long sack to the Depository that morning, going as far as claiming Frazier must be mistaken and thinking of some other time?

Sounds like LHO used the WC approach on mistaken and faulty memory. Frazier is the only employee that said LHO brought a package into the building, if you can find another witness who saw LHO bring in a package, that would be the person to ask otherwise anybody can say anything and until it is corroborated it is just one person's claim.

 

[HSienzant]

I talk from first hand experience - almost all those things were related to me in real life by believers i know: my sister and her husband, and a good friend from the 00's Toronto scene i was into...

Its all anomaly hunting, at core, and a whole pile of incredulity - this is what leads people, through "gateway facts" (magic bullets, fire/steel beams, rippling flags) and this rhetorical approach of incredulity, to believe ONLY the conspiracy, since "you'd have to have a screw loose" to believe anything else, since its so OBVIOUS this is anomalous!

But it really isn't - its the speaker's lack of knowledge around the phenomenoae in question that breeds the appearance of anomaly. But were they well educated in these matters - the appearance of say, airplane contrails in the sky, wouldn't be so suspicious.

Right here on JFK's cerebellum -it was another perfect case in point.

All this has been explained patiently and innumerable times to the current conspiracy poster (as well as his predecessor CTs). For some reason, none of them think this applies to them, despite the fact that mostly all they do is post their opinions (or other CTs opinions) of what they think are anomalies all the time.

The backyard photos of Oswald in the hands of Jack White are a classic example of anomaly hunting.

• The shadows don't look right.
• Oswald's face looks the same in two pictures.
• Part of his arm appears missing.
• His fingernails are missing.
• He has two thumbs on his left hand.
• You'll fall over if you try to stand like that.
• Why is he holding two rival communist papers?
• etc. etc. etc.

The other favorite scheme is denial of all reasonable conclusions. Case in point, CT No Other's post immediately above this one. If it's not established to the Nth degree squared - beyond an absolute certainty - it's not established at all.

Reasonable conclusions? They dismiss those before breakfast.

Hank

 

[No Other]

Assume for a second you are right. That Klein happened to receive Oswald's order when they were shipping 40inch models, but for whatever reason happened to send Oswald a shorter model. Just assume for a second he happened to have hidden that rifle somewhere that no authority has ever found it, and he owned the rifle he was photographed with, with his prints on it, and matched to the killer bullets to the exclusion of all other rifles.

What exactly is your point?

That the WC made a reasonable mistake when tracking two rare, easily mistakable rifles, of simaller make and model, because the paper trail indicated that the order was received when the 40inch model was being phased in and the 36 inch model phased out?

How is that suspicious? How does it change what happened on the day?

Klein's did not make this claim, nobody said a mistake took place. You wanting me to assume and then answer your question will be taken completely out of context by certain Posters in this thread, I will go down that path. What I am pointing out is the weak story that Hank and others profess to have in supporting the unsupportable. If a similar rifle was accidentally shipped wouldn't Klein's have said as much? Their silence on this lends credence that they did not make a mistake because a mistake could easily be audited by conducting an inventory accuracy count and compare that to the rifles they shipped to their Customers.

 

[HSienzant]

Now, did I say that JFK and others DID NOT get engaged in attempted assassination attempts on Castro? No, what I highlighted was that Hank said the CIA did not and the Mafia was the one attempted to kill Castro.

What the actual conversation was:

The CIA tried to kill Castro how many times (CIA says 8 and Castro says 638)? None of them were successful

It was the mob that actually carried out the attempts, not the CIA, as I understand it. What's your point, that the mob wasn't really trying to kill Castro, or that they were lousy at assassinations?

I did not deny the CIA put the mob up to it. I said the mob was the instrument via which the attempts happened.

Here's what the Schweiker-Hart report says, for instance: "Many government officials were aware that the CIA used the underworld in attempts to assassinate Castro".

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/church/reports/book5/html/ChurchVol5_0037b.htm

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Klein's did not make this claim, nobody said a mistake took place. You wanting me to assume and then answer your question will be taken completely out of context by certain Posters in this thread, I will go down that path. What I am pointing out is the weak story that Hank and others profess to have in supporting the unsupportable. If a similar rifle was accidentally shipped wouldn't Klein's have said as much? Their silence on this lends credence that they did not make a mistake because a mistake could easily be audited by conducting an inventory accuracy count and compare that to the rifles they shipped to their Customers.

There is nothing weak about it. It is documented up and down and seven ways to Sunday.

Klein's business records shows Klein's shipped the rifle bearing the serial number C2766 to Oswald's PO Box.

Oswald's rifle fired the bullet that most likely struck the skull of the President (two large fragments of a bullet, each traceable via ballistics to Oswald's weapon bearing the serial number C2766 to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world, were recovered from the limo after the assassination).

Oswald's rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was recovered in the Depository after the assassination.

Oswald's prints are on that weapon, and he was photographed holding that weapon seven months earlier.

Witnesses outside the Depository saw a man in an upper floor window on the south-east side of the building matching Oswald's description. Some saw him with a rifle during the shooting, others without prior to the shooting.

Hank