• 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.
Do you think the area circled in red is the entry wound while the area circled in blue is the exit wound?

It is not a bullet hole.



Since this photograph was taken after the brain had already been removed, that would mean they somehow took out his entire brain through a skull cavity not much bigger than this:

Does it? Because we already covered this.

How did they do that?

Reading is fundamental.

If you can't understand simple concepts being explained to you, that's your problem.

Pot, you are black.



So are you saying they removed his whole brain out of a 5-inch hole?

You put words in other people's mouths a lot. It is a sign of intellectual frailty.

Read closely to that passage. The areas of the skull around the original large head wound were so brittle, they easily separated into fragments. You also have to have a big enough skull cavity to facilitate the removal of the brain.

This was covered. You ignored it.

So how does Dr. Finck walk in late after the brain had already been removed and still examine the entry hole that he always said was still sitting there preserved in the intact skull?

Maybe because it was.



According to the official story, the brain was not properly sectioned.

They didn't feel they needed to do it, plus the Kennedy family wanted the body back ASAP for burial, so there was no time. That's not even contested today.

Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots. The mystery, according to him, may have been solved if the brain had been properly sectioned.

He was wrong all the way around.

Would you care to explain to the jury why a brain is sectioned in a case of gunshot wounds to the head?

Sure, right after you explain historical context.:thumbsup:
 
Do you think the area circled in red is the entry wound while the area circled in blue is the exit wound?

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/5vDC60O.jpg[/qimg]


Since this photograph was taken after the brain had already been removed, that would mean they somehow took out his entire brain through a skull cavity not much bigger than this:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/XGu6qby.jpg[/qimg]

How did they do that?
Again, I'm not an expert at bullet holes in the head, I couldn't make a guess at what the image is, assuming it is JFK's skull, let alone what those circled areas are. What is your opinion of what that image shows?
If you can't understand simple concepts being explained to you, that's your problem.



So are you saying they removed his whole brain out of a 5-inch hole? No. Read closely to that passage. The areas of the skull around the original large head wound were so brittle, they easily separated into fragments. You also have to have a big enough skull cavity to facilitate the removal of the brain. So how does Dr. Finck walk in late after the brain had already been removed and still examine the entry hole that he always said was still sitting there preserved in the intact skull? The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-rays was in the parietal bone right beside the large head wound, while the original EOP location would give enough space between the small and large wounds to stay unmolested.
Yes the skull crumbled in the doctors hands. The only part that you fail to grasp is that they did not have to saw the skull, as usual, to removed the brain regardless of what you describe the size of the hole. Since I'm not a doctor, I can't describe what the entry hole/exit hole positions would/should look like. What training have you had to make any description of the wounds?
According to the official story, the brain was not properly sectioned. Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots. The mystery, according to him, may have been solved if the brain had been properly sectioned.
If Dr. Burkley expressed many times, you need to cite this statement, why then did he not disagree, if he was asked, with the pathologists "a single gunshot wound" in this article?
Would you care to explain to the jury why a brain is sectioned in a case of gunshot wounds to the head?

Since I'm not a doctor, I haven't the information to answer a hypothetical question. What is your training in this area?

You have been asked many times to cite the CT site you obtain the comments concerning the assassination. Why haven't you answered that question?

One last question, why did Dr. Burkley sign the autopsy, if he believed there were more than one entry wound? That seems to me a dereliction of duty, what does it mean to you?
 
Between "what the worlds greatest snipers and Olympic snipers" have to say about LHO's shooting and this most recent "pin-the-headwound" nonsense, the ******** meter and Irony meters have both failed.

"Olympic snipers" was a vague reference to NRA Masters, "capable of Olympic competition". From summary of the WC shooting experiments as testified by Ronald Simmons:

Volume III pge. 441 starts the testimony of Ronald Simmons, whose -e is: Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, in a nutshell he used three NRA MASTERS Staley, Miller and Hendrix (capable of Olympic competition) in an attempt to duplicate the accuracy and timing attributed to Oswald. Their reenactments were under better conditions than Oswald contended with.

1. All the time they wanted to aim first shot.

2. No oak tree obscuring their vision.

3. Thirty feet up instead of the sixth floor

4. Targets two feet square.

5. Stationary targets as opposed to a moving target.

6. Had advantage of shimmed scope for accuracy.

7. Targets. No pressure of killing a President of the U.S.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THREE NRA "MASTERS" COULD NOT DUPLICATE SHOOTING SKILLS OF ONE LONE NUT NAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Rossley%20Tom/Item%2001A.pdf

And, of course, the fact that even some Lone Nutters are coming around to accepting the research indicating that the scope on the rifle in evidence is was too crappy to use. These experiments used scopes, not iron sights.

Doesn't it bother you that these experiments were presented as evidence of anything? Of course not, you already have your agenda. Meanwhile, your strategy is to use confusion to clog any conversation. Were you one of the guys claiming that adequate noise-suppressors on rifles did not exist in 1963? Boy, that was a bust. Now your strategy is playing dumb when discussing medical evidence. If you don't have a good answer for anything, don't bother responding please.

Bonus quote from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, in which Bulio argues that Oswald could not have been a professional contract killer because the rifle in evidence did not come with a noise-suppressor:

"Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to “substantially diminish the report” of the weapon and to “alter or disguise the sound,” such as to make it sound like “the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer” or “the operation of machinery.” He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available “probably wouldn’t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd” in Dealey Plaza."
 
Last edited:
"Olympic snipers" was a vague reference to NRA Masters, "capable of Olympic competition". From summary of the WC shooting experiments as testified by Ronald Simmons:



http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Rossley%20Tom/Item%2001A.pdf

And, of course, the fact that even some Lone Nutters are coming around to accepting the research indicating that the scope on the rifle in evidence is was too crappy to use. These experiments used scopes, not iron sights.

Doesn't it bother you that these experiments were used as evidence for anything? Of course not, you already have your agenda. Meanwhile, your strategy is to use confusion to clog any conversation. Were you one of the guys claiming that adequate noise-suppressors on rifles did not exist in 1963? Boy, that was a bust. Now your strategy is playing dumb when discussing medical evidence. If you don't have a good answer for anything, don't bother responding please.
Are you saying that nobody could have made a head shot at that distance?

Bonus quote from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, in which Bulio argues that Oswald could not have been a professional contract killer because the rifle in evidence did not come with a noise-suppressor:

"Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to “substantially diminish the report” of the weapon and to “alter or disguise the sound,” such as to make it sound like “the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer” or “the operation of machinery.” He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available “probably wouldn’t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd” in Dealey Plaza."
Are you claiming that a silenced weapon was used to assassinate JFK? From what distance?
 
"Olympic snipers" was a vague reference to NRA Masters, "capable of Olympic competition".

Neat.

The Carcano was prized in 1,000 yard shooting competitions at the turn of the century.

And, of course, the fact that even some Lone Nutters are coming around to accepting the research indicating that the scope on the rifle in evidence is was too crappy to use. These experiments used scopes, not iron sights.

And what kind of "research" would that be exactly?

Fact is the scope was more than capable for the SHORT RANGE involved in Dallas.

Doesn't it bother you that these experiments were presented as evidence of anything? Of course not, you already have your agenda.

Hardly. The ballistics is the main reason I pulled my head out of my butt and embraced the fresh air of reality, and left the CT word behind.

Meanwhile, your strategy is to use confusion to clog any conversation. Were you one of the guys claiming that adequate noise-suppressors on rifles did not exist in 1963? Boy, that was a bust.

Nope. We said they weren't practical for this shoot, and the calibers involved were not the 6.5x52mm.

Now your strategy is playing dumb when discussing medical evidence. If you don't have a good answer for anything, don't bother responding please.

You don't get to dictate the grounds for the debate. We just want proof, and you don't have any.

Bonus quote from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, in which Bulio argues that Oswald could not have been a professional contract killer because the rifle in evidence did not come with a noise-suppressor:

"Silencers go all the way back to the turn of the twentieth century, and a firearms expert for the Los Angeles Police Department told me that as of 1963 they were already sophisticated enough to “substantially diminish the report” of the weapon and to “alter or disguise the sound,” such as to make it sound like “the hitting of a pile of wood with a hammer” or “the operation of machinery.” He said silencers are effective, and shots at Kennedy from a weapon with the best silencer then available “probably wouldn’t have even been heard above the background noise of the motorcade and crowd” in Dealey Plaza."

A lot of talk. Notice caliber is NOT mentioned.

How about you put that into the real world of 1963?

How much would a silencer cost?

Who manufactured them?

How easy were they to purchase? Could you find them in any gun shop?

I should point out that there is a long list of reasons Oswald could not have been a professional hit man that would take three pages before we even get to the Carcano.

We get it, you want the conspiracy to be real, but you're using questionable material that has long ago been debunked. Oswald did all the shooting that day, and if there is a conspiracy to be found it is not in the autopsy.
 
"Olympic snipers" was a vague reference to NRA Masters, "capable of Olympic competition". From summary of the WC shooting experiments as testified by Ronald Simmons:

When you fail to realize this argument you cribbed from your one CT website source has painted you into a corner, come back and post again. Several people will come along to explain it to you. I've given you a hint.

You should be really mad at that website for how they've used you.
 
Why do you vaguely reference "CT websites"? My argument about the cowlick entrance being incompatible with Dr. Finck arriving to examine the entry wound in the intact skull was made by Larry Sturdivan, ballistics expert for the HSCA, in his 2005 book The JFK Myths (in the context of him arguing that the autopsy skull photographs do not show the cowlick fracture):

The President’s parietal bone was extensively fractured all the way back to the occipital. The autopsy team said they removed loose pieces of broken bone instead of cutting out the usual “skullcap” to remove the brain. But if they removed enough of the parietal to remove the brain, the pieces containing the “higher” entry wound would have to have been among the pieces removed. If the entry wound had been lying on the autopsy table, how could it have been clearly shown in the photograph of the interior of the skull…?

Sturdivan is a LN whose book tries to argue that the original EOP location could be compatible with the medical evidence showing a single gunshot to the head.
 
Why do you vaguely reference "CT websites"?

Because it's plain from the haphazard, inexpert quality of your arguments that you get much of your material, pre-masticated, from such sources. Even your quotation from Sturdivan was copied and pasted from Pat Speer's website (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto). Like Speer, you maunder on about medical evidence without showing that you have any qualifications to address medical and forensic subjects.

My question is still pending about your qualifications for disagreeing with medical experts: educational background, degrees earned, subjects studied. I think this is a fair question, given how many medical lectures you've delivered here.
 
Last edited:
Because it's plain from the haphazard, inexpert quality of your arguments that you get much of your material, pre-masticated, from such sources. Even your quotation from Sturdivan was copied and pasted from Pat Speer's website (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto). Like Speer, you maunder on about medical evidence without showing that you have any qualifications to address medical and forensic subjects.

My question is still pending about your qualifications for disagreeing with medical experts: educational background, degrees earned, subjects studied. I think this is a fair question, given how many medical lectures you've delivered here.

Yeah Speer's website was one of the first CT sources I came across discussing the medical evidence that argued from a perspective with no forged or altered films, substituted brains etc.

If anything, I don't think Speer drives this point into the ground enough.

I've linked to it several times, because it provides useful information, any opinions are usually cited to other existing experts and not the author himself. You would know that if you read once in a while.
 
Last edited:
You would know that if you read once in a while.

What do you know about my reading habits...snip...?

Your educational and medical qualifications are again requested. Please don't keep evading this. Many of us have sketched our own backgrounds. It's your turn.


Edited by jsfisher: 
Edited for compliance with Rule 8 of the Membership Agreement.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No medical qualifications. Why, you can't use your own knowledge of volume and space to talk about the human skull and brain? Or do you think I'm unqualified to list off the number of times the autopsy doctors reaffirmed the original EOP location?
 
No medical qualifications. Why, you can't use your own knowledge of volume and space to talk about the human skull and brain? Or do you think I'm unqualified to list off the number of times the autopsy doctors reaffirmed the original EOP location?

Yes, I think you're unqualified to do that. Sorry.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom