Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
Olivier never confirmed or denied any particular entry wound. On the Zapruder film, he testified:

"If you intend to derive from the way the tissue is flying the direction of the bullet impact, you could get some errors, because when that bullet entered the head the nose of the bullet erupted on the skull and expended a tremendous amount of energy. This caused what is known as a temporary cavity. Apparently, this cavity was nearer the side of the head so that it buried in that area, and say, took the path of least resistance. If the bullet path had been near the top of the head it could have burst through the top. So while the motion of pieces of skull and brains like that are in the direction in which the cavity opened, they do not necessarily indicate a vullet flying in that same direction."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31992#relPageId=19&tab=page

Olivier's words are vague, but is the hypothetical cowlick entry not on the top of the head?

This is not a reference to the X-rays, it was my bad if I said he qualified as an expert in X-rays or if he ever specifically talked about them. But one must also ask how many more of the experts on the Clark Panel, Rockefeller panel, and HSCA are not qualified to discuss the nuances of Kennedy's X-rays even though they may have been presented as qualified to do so.

Dr. Pierre Finck was a forensic pathologist, but when asked by the HSCA if he could identify an entry wound on the X-rays, he declined to comment and referred the issue to a forensic radiologist specifically. I think a newer, better batch of experts should assess the X-rays.
Click to expand...

Start a go fund me page.
 
RoboTimbo said:
What result would all of the CTists accept?
Click to expand...

There will always be questions of alteration. Any new batch of experts should certainly check for evidence of alteration and address claims of alteration evidence. Several other issues, such as what could and could not be an entry, the dark squiggly like in the chest X-rays, and purported fragments in the neck area should also be seriously looked at.
 
MicahJava said:
There will always be questions of alteration. Any new batch of experts should certainly check for evidence of alteration and address claims of alteration evidence. Several other issues, such as what could and could not be an entry, the dark squiggly like in the chest X-rays, and purported fragments in the neck area should also be seriously looked at.
Click to expand...

So what result will all CTists accept?
 
MicahJava said:
There will always be questions of alteration. Any new batch of experts should certainly check for evidence of alteration and address claims of alteration evidence. Several other issues, such as what could and could not be an entry, the dark squiggly like in the chest X-rays, and purported fragments in the neck area should also be seriously looked at.
Click to expand...

Digging up JFK won't resolve the issue, as digging up Oswald didn't - conspiracy theorists simply claimed there was evidence indicating Oswald's head had been swapped for another.

Why then would they accept JFK's body as legitimate? They accept nothing unless they can make it point to conspiracy. The x-Rays andphotos were validated by the HSCA, yet few CTs accept the conclusions the HSCA experts reached even after the x-Rays were validated (you don't).

Why insist on a new round of validation and expert opinion? Conspiracy theorists accept nothing unless it points to conspiracy, and whining for a new round of experts is just akin to forum shopping and cherry picking.

You yourself refused to rule out body alteration a few days ago, yet here you're calling for the x-Rays to be re-examined, despite your inability to rule out body alteration. Wouldn't erroneous conclusions be reached if the body was altered, even if the x-Rays and photos are untampered with?

Reconcile your various opinions for us now.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Digging up JFK won't resolve the issue, as digging up Oswald didn't - conspiracy theorists simply claimed there was evidence indicating Oswald's head had been swapped for another.

Why then would they accept JFK's body as legitimate? They accept nothing unless they can make it point to conspiracy. The x-Rays andphotos were validated by the HSCA, yet few CTs accept the conclusions the HSCA experts reached even after the x-Rays were validated (you don't).

Why insist on a new round of validation and expert opinion? Conspiracy theorists accept nothing unless it points to conspiracy, and whining for a new round of experts is just akin to forum shopping and cherry picking.

You yourself refused to rule out body alteration a few days ago, yet here you're calling for the x-Rays to be re-examined, despite your inability to rule out body alteration. Wouldn't erroneous conclusions be reached if the body was altered, even if the x-Rays and photos are untampered with?

Reconcile your various opinions for us now.

Hank
Click to expand...

Nothing is impossible, but I'm thinking you can show conspiracy with the official autopsy films being true and accurate.
 
MicahJava said:
Olivier never confirmed or denied any particular entry wound. On the Zapruder film, he testified:

"If you intend to derive from the way the tissue is flying the direction of the bullet impact, you could get some errors, because when that bullet entered the head the nose of the bullet erupted on the skull and expended a tremendous amount of energy. This caused what is known as a temporary cavity. Apparently, this cavity was nearer the side of the head so that it buried in that area, and say, took the path of least resistance. If the bullet path had been near the top of the head it could have burst through the top. So while the motion of pieces of skull and brains like that are in the direction in which the cavity opened, they do not necessarily indicate a vullet flying in that same direction."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31992#relPageId=19&tab=page

Olivier's words are vague, but is the hypothetical cowlick entry not on the top of the head?

This is not a reference to the X-rays, it was my bad if I said he qualified as an expert in X-rays or if he ever specifically talked about them. But one must also ask how many more of the experts on the Clark Panel, Rockefeller panel, and HSCA are not qualified to discuss the nuances of Kennedy's X-rays even though they may have been presented as qualified to do so.

Dr. Pierre Finck was a forensic pathologist, but when asked by the HSCA if he could identify an entry wound on the X-rays, he declined to comment and referred the issue to a forensic radiologist specifically. I think a newer, better batch of experts should assess the X-rays.
Click to expand...

So you were wrong to include Olivier as an expert who saw the x-Rays and failed to agree with the cowlick entry location? That name was plucked from your list at random. What should we conclude about your list, based on this random sampling, especially since you made an assertion but failed to back it up with any evidence?

FYI, the one one to present Olivier as qualified to read x-rays was you. The Rockefeller
Commission didn't present him as such. Don't try to blame anyone else for your error. This one is all yours, and yours alone.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Nothing is impossible, but I'm thinking you can show conspiracy with the official autopsy films being true and accurate.
Click to expand...

Not an answer. You're admitting you don't know if the x-Rays, photos, and body are legit evidence one way or the other on the one hand, yet you're willing to conclude conspiracy in any case. How does that work?

Like I said, CTs won't accept anything that doesn't point to conspiracy and you are proving it with every post. And you're willing to accept the x-Rays will prove conspiracy even if at present you have no acceptable evidence of that.

You can't convince a man by logic and evidence who did not reach his conclusions by logic and evidence.

You are another excellent example of that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
RoboTimbo said:
So what result will all CTists accept?
Click to expand...

Only the one they've made clear from day one is their only goal -- the establishment of a conspiracy. If a new panel was commissioned to study the extant evince and reach. A conclusion, they will reach the same conclusion all the others reached -- Oswald fired all the shots that struck anyone in Dealey Plaza. All the new panel will do is give CTs a new source to quote out of context, as they've pretty much milked the extant sources dry.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Nothing is impossible, but I'm thinking you can show conspiracy with the official autopsy films being true and accurate.
Click to expand...

But you really can't.

There is one GWS to the upper back exiting the throat, and there is a second GWS to the back of the head that blew out the top front of the skull.

Both rounds were 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds.

That's it.

No .22 round fired from a silenced gun, no shot from the grassy knoll.

That's what the forensics proves, that's what the ballistics proves.

If you want a conspiracy your only options are:

1. Someone else was on the 6th floor of the TSBD with Oswald's rife, and LHO either knew and was aiding, or he didn't know until too late.

2. Someone put Oswald up to it. Someone who was just as dumb as he was.

That's it, those are your only two options.


*at least until we can get BStrong's secret death-ray into popular conversation*
 
MicahJava said:
You really can't get very far with the autopsy films available to the public. There must be an investigation that looks at the full (available) collection.
Click to expand...

Why? After 53 1/2 years, what would we gain by reopening the investigation of the Kennedy assassination? Ether Oswald shot him (probably acting alone, but I will entertain the possibility that he was part of some conspiracy) or somebody conducted an incredibly well orchestrated frameup of Oswald. The second possibility is so improbable (way too many people would have had to be involved, and nobody blew the whistle), as to border on impossibility. If there was a conspiracy (involving Oswald or not), the people responsible are long dead.

While I find the topic interesting enough to read, and occasionally post in this thread, I think it's pretty damn unimportant at this point whether the Warren Commission got it right or not.

Frankly, I find your quibbling about the exact location of the head wound to be silly. Neither location is inconsistent with Oswald as the sole shooter. It's the silliest sort of anomaly hunting.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
There will always be questions of alteration.
Click to expand...

If there will always be questions regarding alteration, why are you (and we) going through these gyrations of debating? This is a recipe for doubting all accounts of all events in history. Questions can always be generated.

But here's where the rational doctrine of consilience comes in. Call it the preponderance of the evidence if you like a legal term instead. It's been mentioned by me and others many times in this thread. I'd genuinely like to get your view of what role consilience plays, if any, in your study of the assassination.
 
HSienzant said:
You can't convince a man by logic and evidence who did not reach his conclusions by logic and evidence.
Click to expand...

Nice, Hank. Is this yours? Seems I've read things like it but not in this succinct formulation.
 
HSienzant said:
Only the one they've made clear from day one is their only goal -- the establishment of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

If somehow conspiracy were established, there'd be a new schism and a fresh outbreak of true religions. Many of these CTs live to disagree and to hunt anomalies. They're like the irritating cracker-barrel sage of small towns in earlier America: always right because the world is wrong. An established conspiracy would quickly become the new officialdom, the shill position, the thing to attack. CTs would begin to jones for an establishment position to assail if the government were no longer the author of the official version.
 
RoboTimbo said:
So what conclusion would CTists accept from a review? You still haven't answered.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the answer is elastic.

If there be proof, it's a good investigation.

If there be no proof, it's flawed and needs more study to determine...ad infinitum.
 
MicahJava said:
It is clear exactly what Lipsey is talking about if you pay close attention. There's nothing "all over the place" about it.

Face sheet marked by Lipsey:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/xM6aRpA.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Most interesting post in the thread. Someone drew underpants on the sketch of the body.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom