• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomtomkent said:
Okay, let's test how reliable this is as evidence:

Why did they initial two different circles?

Don't they remember the wounds being in the same place?

Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back in the WC?

I'm guessing Michajava won't make any real effort to address that, or understand why it makes a difference to people. But I hope to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...

That is what you could call a reasonable, expected discrepancy between the recollections of the doctors who handled the President's body for several hours. Not the simultaneous mistake of four inches.
 
You, and no one else (CTist or Skeptic) has seen all of the autopsy photographs, so there is not enough visual information to make a judgement which counters the official autopsy on record.

You are playing the same game Bigfooters play with the Patterson Film.:thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
You, and no one else (CTist or Skeptic) has seen all of the autopsy photographs, so there is not enough visual information to make a judgement which counters the official autopsy on record.

You are playing the same game Bigfooters play with the Patterson Film.:thumbsup:
Click to expand...

So you're saying there are missing autopsy photographs which exist, or once existed, but are currently not available in the official record?
 
MicahJava said:
That is what you could call a reasonable, expected discrepancy between the recollections of the doctors who handled the President's body for several hours. Not the simultaneous mistake of four inches.
Click to expand...

Which would be a viable answer, if you were not avoiding a pertinent point:

Is their interpretation of autopsy records here, the same as back in the WC?
Click to expand...
 
qu2yKFS.gif
NOTICE: My first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.
qu2yKFS.gif


To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]NOTICE: My first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]

To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.
Click to expand...

The entry wound is being exposed, for best representation in the photographic order.

A better question is why no other entry wounds are visible corresponding with any other markings in on the skull you posted.
 
Tomtomkent said:
The entry wound is being exposed, for best representation in the photographic order.

A better question is why no other entry wounds are visible corresponding with any other markings in on the skull you posted.
Click to expand...

The red spot would still be there whether or not the scalp is being pulled back. Why would the doctors pull back the scalp if the red spot in indeed the wound they intend to make an accurate record of? Pulling back the scalp distorts the location of the red spot.
 
MicahJava said:
The red spot would still be there whether or not the scalp is being pulled back. Why would the doctors pull back the scalp if the red spot in indeed the wound they intend to make an accurate record of? Pulling back the scalp distorts the location of the red spot.
Click to expand...

Because they aren't moving the scalp. They are exposing the wound to best show it in the photograph.

But if you were right, and the scalp were being stretched, why are there still no other wounds visible?
 
MicahJava said:
You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. Here is a model skull shown in the the HSCA forensic pathology panel report showing the approximate location of the small head wound marked by the three lead autopsy physicians (Dr. Humes, Dr. Boswell, and Dr. Finck) compared to the much higher wound location endorsed by the HSCA:

[qimg]https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0062b.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/pages/HSCA_Vol7_0063a.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Which of those marking is above the EOP?

Does "slightly above" as you oft cited now mean "beneath"?
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]NOTICE: My Your first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

FTFY.

Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one?

It's a simple question. If JFK has a entry wound in the back of his head, as you're insisting now, then doesn't that mean your prior argument that JFK could not be shot from 88 yards away from the building closest to him was just so much nonsense and a waste of perfectly good electrons?

Hank
 
Tomtomkent said:
Because they aren't moving the scalp. They are exposing the wound to best show it in the photograph.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are pulling the scalp somewhat downwards. Otherwise you would see the lower parietal part of the large head wound. Also, if the scalp was not being pulled down, the red spot would not correlate to the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays.

But if you were right, and the scalp were being stretched, why are there still no other wounds visible?
Click to expand...

What? The patch of scalp and hair with the red spot is not only covering the parietal area with the lower part of the large head wound, it is covering the area which could probably be best described as "slightly above" the EOP.

In my opinion, this is the order of likelihood for why you purportedly cannot see the EOP wound on the BOH photographs: 1. It is barely being covered by some pair attached to the portion of scalp being pulled down, 2. You can see it, it's the small dark spot at the 1 o'clock position of the white spot identified by the HSCA as a small nodule of brain matter, 3. You can see it, it's the small dark spot beneath the white spot or just to the right of it, 4. the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated to frame a certain trajectory for a single shot to the back of the head, and 5. there is no EOP wound, the real wound was 4-5 inches higher.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Perhaps you could quote him placing the wound where you claim, as I can't see that.
Click to expand...

HUMES: "...The second wound was found in the right posterior portion of the scalp. This wound was situated approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occiptal protuberance which is a bony prominence situated in the posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above that point..."

"...Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to..."

And there is some discussion of the validity of the Rydberg drawings, which show the small head wound in it's low location, slightly above the EOP.
 
HSienzant said:
FTFY.

Doesn't your current argument destroy your prior one?

It's a simple question. If JFK has a entry wound in the back of his head, as you're insisting now, then doesn't that mean your prior argument that JFK could not be shot from 88 yards away from the building closest to him was just so much nonsense and a waste of perfectly good electrons?

Hank
Click to expand...

I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
 
MicahJava said:
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
Click to expand...

You didn't say "very difficult". You said "No way" would it be possible.

You do understand your claims are a matter of record, right?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11853010#post11853010

You claimed all we had was the theoretical possibility that JFK could be struck from behind without using a scope, as if that somehow eliminated Oswald using Oswald's weapon (which had a scope).

Jesus, you people can't argue facts so you jump on the opportunity when you can argue that theoretically, technically, a 6.5 round could come out of a Carcano's barrel and happen to strike Kennedy's head without using a scope. But just look at this picture and try to imagine hitting someone's head in the sixth floor east window, while moving, using only the iron sights which would have appeared bigger than the size of the subjects head. You can't compare that to deer hunting or whatever the flavor of the week is. No way. It would be the size of an ant.

So you're admitting now that hitting JFK in the back, or the back of the head isn't all that difficult with a scope? That didn't come across in your original argument, at all.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
Click to expand...

And yet your claim about the difficulty of iron sights at that distance has been contradicted on this forum by those who, unlike you, are familiar with firearms. That's all.
 
how many years of woo is it

MicahJava said:
I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.
Click to expand...

Oops, nope, the shot was easy. Why are JFK CT claims and people wrong and unable to get the simple things correct.

I could hit the head with a tomato...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom