That's because he's an opportunist and a media-hound.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
That's because he's an opportunist and a media-hound.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Jeez every combination of words Hank calls an argument is so weak and it's all the same crap but addressed earlier in different posts and in the previous JFK thread. I especially love the part about "shifting the burden of proof". How many times do the autopsy doctors need to scream from the highest mountains that the wound was lower in the head? It's in the autopsy report. And six other autopsy witnesses corroborate them, including the man who took the photographs. I'm surprised that you haven't gone the route of the HSCA by trying to say that everybody's lying to save their own careers. The goons at the HSCA at least understood that mistakes like that don't happen in real life.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Dodged is a better description.
But they're not saying the bullet came from anywhere but the 6th floor of the TSBD, and is a null point because the entry is clear on the Zapruder film.
That's because everyone is retired or dead by now, and oh yeah, they didn't lie on the report.
Goons? And what do you know about real life detective work or forensics? Any human beings do anything there are mistakes, that's real life.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Are you going from Miles to Dylan? did that line come to you blowing in the wind?
Really?
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/21/politics/air-marshal-gun-airplane-bathroom/index.html
A federal air marshal on a transatlantic flight left her loaded service weapon in the airplane's bathroom, where it was discovered by a passenger who gave it to a crew member before it was returned to the federal agent, CNN has learned.
Local story:
http://www.dailyrepublic.com/solano...evidence-in-drowning-death-of-4-year-old-boy/
FAIRFIELD — Police have lost a piece of evidence in a pending murder case.
The situation was described in court Tuesday by the prosecutor overseeing the case against Dawn D. Raines-Hewes, a Fairfield grandmother accused of deliberately drowning her 4-year-old grandson, Richard Kite, at a Jefferson Street home on the morning of Dec. 29, 2015.
And another local and state wide issue:
http://extras.mercurynews.com/policeguns/
Nine-hundred and forty-four guns.
From Glocks, Sig Sauers and Remingtons to sniper and assault rifles, some equipped with grenade launchers.
They used to belong to law enforcement officers across California, but a new Bay Area News Group investigation found hundreds of police-issued weapons have been either stolen, lost or can’t be accounted for since 2010, often disappearing onto the streets without a trace.
Given your continuing reluctance to explain how the headwound issue you're pimping so hard measures up with the established evidence you may want a fall-back position of having made an error or omission. Since you seem to be simply CNP'ing here whatever you agree with, there may be an example of it on a CTist website you can use.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Aaaannddd.... Jackrabbiting away as fast as his legs can carry him, addressing none of the errors he has made that Hank decimated.
MicahJava, you still don't have any answers for the numerous fatal flaws that you keep parrotting from the one CT site you've read? Aren't you mad at them for not telling you how badly you'd be spanked by reality?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Addendum: And the devoid cowlick area on the X-rays identified by the HSCA as an entry wound would also have been separated from the skull in order to remove the brain, which would flatly contradict Dr. Finck's repeated statements that he could see the unaffected crater in the intact skull after the autopsy doctors had already removed the brain.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
You have to prove yourself before you start claiming something is "spanked" by anything. About a dozen or so experts say the depressed cowlick fracture on the X-Rays is an entry wound, about a dozen or so more looked at the X-rays and didn't identify that area as an entry wound. Guess which ones in my group have members from after the 60's and 70's. So as a layman you're left with nothing but your interpretation of the back-of-head photographs, which nobody from the autopsy shares.
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If I were you, I'd be furious at the one CT site you rely on for your opinions. They've seriously left you out to dry and ripped to sheds to your embarrassment. You should be thanking the people here for educating you. You're welcome.
You really don't have any comprehensive theory about what happened?
You don't understand what burden of proof is. If you did, you wouldn't "love" it. It's not your friend on these facts.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
E G A E G Bb A
Axxman300
Philosopher
Fink was the only one of 9 pathologists on that panel who thought he saw anything contradictory. Since no member of the general public has seen, nor can view the original autopsy photos you are stuck with the autopsy as stands.
Axxman300
Philosopher
In 1968, Ramsey Clark requested four pathologists to review the autopsy photographs and x-rays. They were Doctors: Carnes, Fischer, Morgan, Mortiz.
They all signed off on the bullet entering " above and to the right
of the external occipital protuberance."
The majority of pathologists who have reviewed the materials in the National Archives found nothing amiss with the first autopsy.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Actually, you have never addressed them. You have only dismissed them, handwaving them frantically away. Like again above. Only a dismissal of the points.
You say these issues have been addressed. They haven't. This one is a good example: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11867178&postcount=182
You didn't address the original point by RoboTimbo and you didn't address any of the subsequent points raised by me. You never answered the questions in the final two paragraphs.
These two paragraphs:
Based on the evidence you're aware of, would conspirators do it Lifton's way, or just shoot JFK from behind and frame Oswald for owning the rifle the gunman shot with? Which makes more sense to you at present? Can you pick one and expound upon why it makes the most sense to you?
How many shots from Oswald's weapon struck Kennedy, in your view?
This is a prime example of what you do repeatedly.
You should. It's one of your most used logical fallacies. And apparently your fallback option when all else fails.
You said you agree with the original autopsy, then I pointed out a number of key areas where you disagree. Like on the number of bullet wounds, the autopsy says one bullet, you argue for two; the autopsy says the large wound above the right ear is an exit for the one bullet striking in the rear of the head, you argue for a possible entry at the forehead hairline or a tangential wound; the autopsy says the shots came from above and behind the president, consistent with shots from the TSBD sniper's nest; you argue for some undefined positions and attempted to exclude the TSBD's sniper nest location because JFK's head would 'look like an ant' in the iron sights. Etc. Etc. Etc.
It would be good if you took those arguments against your position seriously. It will not be the last time you see them if you persist in pushing your odd theories about the assassination here.
You disagree with all the conclusions of the original autopsy in some respect, as far as I can see, despite your assertion to the contrary that you are agreeing with the original autopsy.
Again, how many decades after the assassination (and the autopsy on the night of the assassination) did they first come forward with those "remembered" claims? Given the understanding of how human memory works, why do you rely on the weakest and most rusty links in the chain to hold together your theory, especially when you know other witnesses contradict the very witnesses you cite? And sometimes the witnesses contradicting the witnesses you cite are the very witnesses you cite, in other statements (I'm thinking specifically of Stringer, which we discussed in detail in the prior thread, and compared his statements in 1972 to Lifton with those to the ARRB in 1996). You cited his recollections to the ARRB as one witness for your argument, but you conveniently ignored all those contradictory claims he made at other times. I exposed that nonsense here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...528597&highlight=Stringer+Lifton#post11528597
I'm unaware the HSCA said anything of that sort. And I am not saying anything of that sort. You appear to be raising another straw man argument.
Suggestion: if you have to insult the experts ('goons'), you are revealing you don't have their support. That's right, all the forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials concluded that although the original pathologists didn't do an autopsy that was adequate by then present-day standards, they reached the right conclusions. Two shots hit JFK, one in the back and one in the head; and both were fired from a position above and behind the President; and both exited the President's body, one from the throat at the level of the necktie knot and one on the upper right side of the head.
You disagree with those expert pathologists, and cite decades-later recollections to support your arguments. Since you're not a qualified forensic pathologist, your disagreement and alternative conclusions mean nothing; and your citations to cherry-picked recollections from the ARRB (roughly a third of a century after the assassination) have been noted, and dispensed with.
What do you have left?
Nothing.
All the best,
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
bknight
Master Poster
HSienzant
Philosopher
Calling it a 'cowlick' wound is begging the question, and assuming what you need to prove.
As has been noted in the past, and never explained by you, the cowlick (a circular patch of hair) can appear anywhere on the head, and you are simply assuming it's the cowlick and not a parting of the hair made by the autopsy doctors to better expose the wound. You have never explained how you *know* it's a natural cowlick, and not a man-made part to expose the wound to the photographer.
Assuming what you need to prove is never going to be adequate.
Say what? You can see the cowlick on an X-ray? Really? Who else sees this cowlick on the X-rays? Anyone? I see a purported 'cowlick' wound on some photographs, but not on any X-rays.
Not by the HSCA itself, which was comprised solely of elected politicians serving in the House of Representatives. It was identified by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel (which was comprised of eminently qualified forensic pathologists) who reviewed the extant autopsy materials and concluded the wound in the back of the back was an entry wound.
According to some anonymous layman (e.g, unqualified) internet poster who posts here as "MicahJava". But to my knowledge, this MicahJava person has never quoted any qualified person who has said that.
How many decades after the fact did Finck make that claim? And why should we rely on on Finck's recollection to overturn the conclusions reached on the night of the autopsy when Finck, Humes, and Boswell had the body in front of them?
Isn't this yet another example of you claiming to agree with the autopsy, but meanwhile attempting to pick holes in it?
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
You are claiming that Cyril is an unreliable witness.
HSienzant
Philosopher
There's this exchange in Stringer's ARRB deposition:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
Page 15
[20] Q: Other than the subject matter, which would
[21] be presumably closeups of portions of the human
[22] anatomy, how does the technical training for
Page 16
[1] medical photography differ from other forms of
[2] photography?
[3] A: Well, basically, all of the photography is
[4] the same, but you have different uses. In
[5] medicine, you have to show the defect. In portrait
[6] photography, you get away from the defects.
Now, keeping in mind Stringer's bolded response above, where would you say is the defect he is attempting to show in the photo below?
Is it the out-of-focus white substance at the hairline near the edge of the photograph, or is it what you consistently call the "cowlick red spot" that happens to be:
1. In focus
2. In the relative center of the photo
3. Has a ruler next to it.
4. Has the hair apparently parted so as to better reveal the 'red spot'?
What would a person totally unfamiliar with the Kennedy assassination say was the defect in question that the photographer was trying to illustrate? Someone with no axe to grind either way? Where is the defect in question to a neutral party?
"In medicine, you have to show the defect" - autopsy photographer John Stringer
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Fink was the only one of 9 pathologists on that panel who thought he saw anything contradictory. Since no member of the general public has seen, nor can view the original autopsy photos you are stuck with the autopsy as stands.
What panel was Finck on? When shown the X-rays, he said that he would rather refer to a professional radiologist to identify the entry wound on the X-rays. The devoid cowlick area on the X-rays didn't ring a bell for him, and the red spot on the photographs didn't either.
And can you stop referring to your theory, the theory in question, as "the autopsy"? Nobody who was there at autopsy agrees with it. If you think the X-rays and photographs support your theory, argue that without being disingenuous. Nobody's falling for that dumb trick.
In 1996, the ARRB hired three experts: forensic anthropologist Dr. Douglas Ubelaker, forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner, and forensic radiologist Dr. John J. Fitzpatrick. Neither of them could identify any clear entry wound apparent on the X-rays.
Your point?
- Status