MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Spanish for "scatterbrained red herrings".
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
Spanish for "scatterbrained red herrings".
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The autopsy report says the small head wound, or entry wound, was 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. The fact sheet shows much of the same.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So how many times do you think Oswald shot JFK?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Non-responsiveness noted. You are not building credibility. Instead, "scatterbrained red herrings" might aptly describe your own inconsistent dabbling and random, lurid posting of anatomical images.
Willful? Do not pretend to understand my intent, you do not possess that in your arsenal word crafting. You are the perfect example of sanctimonious high road. For you to carry Hank's water is amazing, so you must know Hank very well as you reached into his mind to determine his persuasion... As for winning points, I did not realize that was an end-game... Go ahead and slice and dice my comments, I did what Hank did and that was abbreviate a descriptive title (Hank did a good job of explaining why he uses "CT" and "LN") into a convenient two "WC". So instead of setting aside the difference between Executive Sessions, Testimony, Evidence, and the final Report... I narrowed it down to WC. It was posted earlier by Hank that he went out and bought the entire set for quite a few dollars back in the day... so I assumed (I understand the dangers of assumption) that he read all of it.
It is easy for one who has only posted a few times to take aim and shoot at people (one of your first post was vilifying Hank, yet Hank let that go and Hank never lets anything go or least on this thread and that is such an outlier), your repeated use of "do not" certainly elevates in your own mind a level of authority and your duty to enforce said authority.
At the exact same time you scolded me on "Do not impute bad-faith motives to your opponent ('merely playing with others")" you immediately provided a bad-faith comment about fetish, WC Report and me.
If you care to discuss the topic, I will be a participant but if you want to put yourself above and beyond the scope of this topic, I am out. Send me a message and we can carry this off-line.
OK, your mischaracterization of Hank wasn't willful, if you say so. It must have been negligent, then. I never vilified Hank. You must have me confused with someone else. Please produce my vilification if you don't concede that point. And I have no interest in offline discussions. The kitchen is right here. It comes with a little heat, as kitchens usually do.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Axxman300
Philosopher
So...you no read deposition I link to. Got it.
The whole you see is not the hole. You can clearly see - in the undoctored version of the photo - hands holding the scalp in place for the picture.
The other photos have never been made public.
...weird, as if had never posted a link at all.
Yes, it is described in great detail in the link you never read.
Based on what evidence?
This is from the National Archives JFK Assassinations Page FAQ:
Everyone who has seen those photographs had to sign into a log, and this is public domain, so any CTer can write the NA and acquire a list. All of the photos are there.
The National Archives, the HSCA both have inventories. The photos and X-rays are all numbered.
That's a lie. They signed off on it.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Sure, if it was true, but it ain't.
The forensic evidence has been reconfirmed at least three times by the original pathologists.
The Kennedy family could have had all of those photographs and X-rays destroyed, but they didn't. Do you want to wager if they made copies? If you knew anything about the Kennedys you would know that you never cross them. You'd know they would have had private pathologists look at those photographs, and JFK's brain before it was re-interred with the body. If they had found anything pointing to a second gunman they would have given the information to the NY Times, and LIFE Magazine the next day.
You and other CTist forget that JFK was a real person, with a real family with a real track-record for crushing jerks who got in their way. They are the other 500-pound gorilla in this story which CTists ignore, and it's the best indicator that there was no viable conspiracy, or at the very least a second gunman.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Hilarious.
You mean this 3218? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11816229&postcount=3218
I see a complîment. But then, English is my first language. Do tell us how you thought "Hank's clever burlesque of CT rhetoric here--nicely done--" was vilifying me. Looking forward to your explanation.
Oh, I see... It appears you have no legitimate rebuttal, so you are going for straw man arguments in an attempt to redirect the discussion into something you're more comfortable with.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The JFK case has a funny way of testing the limits of what can be done with forensic evidence. Every LN thought NAA was the holy grail until courts stopped using it because it was debunked. And on the CT side, let's not forget the blunder with the alleged fingerprints of Mac Wallace on the Sixth Floor. Fingerprint expert Nathan Darby swore on a stack of bibles that the unidentified Sixth Floor fingerprint matched the print of Mac Wallace, but Joan Mellen got yet another expert who concluded that the print did not match. What does this say about the entire field of fingerprint analysis?
This issue is summarized in Jim DiEugenio's review of Faustian Bargains by Joan Mellen: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mellen-joan-faustian-bargains
I can't help but see a parallel here with the guys who said the X-ray showed an entry in the cowlick.
This issue is summarized in Jim DiEugenio's review of Faustian Bargains by Joan Mellen: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/mellen-joan-faustian-bargains
I can't help but see a parallel here with the guys who said the X-ray showed an entry in the cowlick.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
What part of Humes' ARRB testimony are you talking about? He said that the fractures emanating from the large skull defect were so many that pieces of bone would just naturally come off, with minimal sawing of bone necessary.
"...other than that, we probably made it like we normally do, in a circumferential fashion from books, like right above the ear around."
Does that sound like they left the area with the depressed cowlick fracture intact? Where do you get "lunchbox" from, Axxman?
Q. Did you identify a hole that you thought to be either an entrance or exit wound in the back of the cranium?
A. Definitely. Definitely. Entrance, there wasn't any question in our mind about it.
Q. Did the wound appear as something like a puncture in the bone, or was there a fragment of the bone that was missing and that there was an indentation?
A. No. It was directly beneath the scalp wound back there, directly beneath it. It was almost round, but a little bit more ovoid, and the inner margins of it were shelved. If we put a BB through that glass over there on the side where it went in, you'd see a little round hole, depending on the size of the missile. On the other side, you'd see shelved out, and that's exactly what we had.
Q. And the whole circumference of the entry wound was visible without any reconstruction of' the skull?
A. Oh, yeah, sure.
Q. In which bone was the entrance wound?
A. Occipital bone.
Also:
..."There were lacerations of the scalp in several different directions, but, no, we didn't make any other incision."
Like how Dr. Boswell always said the red spot on the BOH photographs was a laceration in the scalp related to the large head wound?
The photographs would've gone missing before they went to the National Archives, silly. We've talked about the missing photos before. Even Bugliosi conceded the possibility of missing autopsy photographs, albiet with a non-conspiratorial interpretation (something about somebody taking it was a souvenir).
That's a lie. They signed off on it.
When do you think they "signed off" on the cowlick entry theory?
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Sure, if it was true, but it ain't.
The forensic evidence has been reconfirmed at least three times by the original pathologists.
The Kennedy family could have had all of those photographs and X-rays destroyed, but they didn't. Do you want to wager if they made copies? If you knew anything about the Kennedys you would know that you never cross them. You'd know they would have had private pathologists look at those photographs, and JFK's brain before it was re-interred with the body. If they had found anything pointing to a second gunman they would have given the information to the NY Times, and LIFE Magazine the next day.
You and other CTist forget that JFK was a real person, with a real family with a real track-record for crushing jerks who got in their way. They are the other 500-pound gorilla in this story which CTists ignore, and it's the best indicator that there was no viable conspiracy, or at the very least a second gunman.
Lol. I know there's something of an issue over whether or not Bobby and Jackie believed the story, and I'm certainly not going to get education about it from you. Just what in Sam Hill are you talking about either way? Kennedy's personal physician, Burkley, is no walk in the park with what little he said about the case. Where was the New York Times and LIFE when he said he "would not like to be quoted" on how many bullets entered Kennedy's body? Is this the kind of thing that you find convincing, or are you just trying to fool the few lurkers?
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
For the adults in the room, this is the FBI's reconstruction film of the assassination:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohsqv_yDlYc
It is silent, without narration, but serves as a time-capsule showing the building, the 6th Floor, the sniper's nest, the motorcade as viewed from the sniper's nest, and they walk you through Oswald's departure to where he stashed HIS gun, and takes you down stairs to the employee break room.
The film is slow, repetitive, but shows how much work went into the crime scene investigation, and gives anyone interested a clear view of the location as it was in that week in November, 1963.
Good lord, look at how tiny the people on the street are. It would be torture to use the iron sights. Are you sure you guys don't want to go back to saying the scope was used?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
In your haste to run away, you neglected to answer how many times you think Oswald shot JFK. How many shots do CTists think Oswald got into Kennedy?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Watch how tiny the people are from the sixth floor and you have my answer.
How many times do I think JFK was shot by anyone? IMO it was probably three.
You must be kidding. That post referred to Hank as follows: "Hank's clever burlesque of CT rhetoric here--nicely done--glances at the common use of the word 'lying' to characterize the views, perceived inaccuracies, or sometimes even simple mistakes of opponents in arguments."
Please identify the vilification here. I was complimenting Hank on his "clever burlesque." It's important to take time to digest the posts you criticize--certainly if you're going to go so far as to charge someone with "vilifying." If Hank perceived the post as anything but a compliment, I will be very surprised.
Last edited:
- Status