Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[BStrong]

The skull was shattered around the area of the large defect, but not far down into the base of the skull. At least according to the official damage. You are digging yourself deeper by kind of agreeing with me while trying to shoehorn some kind of cockamamie BS about how Finck was only always referring to loose, broken skull fragments stuck to the back of the scalp. You cannot seriously think that is the answer. You would come across as a crackpot if you wrote out your entire reasoning for this in a book, because this idea is not based on reason.

In reality, his crystal clear repeated statements indicate that he saw the entry hole unimpeded within the intact, empty cranium. Oh, and for what it's worth (it's worth a lot), he always said the wound was in it's original lower EOP location.

First time in this thread that you've shown any expertise in the subject matter.

If anybody knows about digging a hole to nowhere, it would be you.

Unfortunately, you make a mistake in application of your observation.

The only poster it applies to is you.

 

[MicahJava]

BStrong, why don't you agree with the original EOP location for the entry?

 

[BStrong]

BStrong, why don't you agree with the original EOP location for the entry?

Why does it matter?

Rifle (LHO)

Location (LHO)

Revolver (LHO)

Tippet (LHO)

Hard forensics (LHO)

Your Pin-the-headwound argument is your version of kids interrupting adult conversation.

 

[MicahJava]

Why does it matter?

Rifle (LHO)

Location (LHO)

Revolver (LHO)

Tippet (LHO)

Hard forensics (LHO)

Your Pin-the-headwound argument is your version of kids interrupting adult conversation.

I'm afraid this is hard forensics, and I've explained numerous times the important difference between the original EOP location as opposed to the upper cowlick location. So please, choose.

 

[BStrong]

I'm afraid this is hard forensics, and I've explained numerous times the important difference between the original EOP location as opposed to the upper cowlick location. So please, choose.

I have chosen.

Evidence beats speculation.

Humans make mistakes.

Until you can articulate why pin-the-headwound is anything other than CTist wankery in the totality of the establish evidence, I'm going to stick w/ LHO, The TSBD and the Carcano.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I'm afraid this is hard forensics, and I've explained numerous times the important difference between the original EOP location as opposed to the upper cowlick location. So please, choose.

Well, I will choose what the evidence actually says, and what the experts actually say about the evidence, over your repeated insistence that your pet theory holds water, convinces, or in any way changes the findings.

 

[MicahJava]

I have chosen.

Evidence beats speculation.

Humans make mistakes.

Until you can articulate why pin-the-headwound is anything other than CTist wankery in the totality of the establish evidence, I'm going to stick w/ LHO, The TSBD and the Carcano.

That's not a specific answer. If you believe in the cowlick wound theory, write a love letter to it. State your case.

 

[MicahJava]

Well, I will choose what the evidence actually says, and what the experts actually say about the evidence, over your repeated insistence that your pet theory holds water, convinces, or in any way changes the findings.

Can you name every radiologist with expertise in gunshot wounds who has seen the X-rays from the National Archives and provided an opinion on them? Regular forensic pathologists don't count, their job is just to find the cause of death at autopsy.

 

[BStrong]

That's not a specific answer. If you believe in the cowlick wound theory, write a love letter to it. State your case.

I have stated my position 6 posts ago.

You first.

Articulate how the headwound location question alters the totality of evidence establishing LHO, TSBD, Carcano 3 rounds fired.

Your hand-me-down CTist talking point, you defend it.

 

[BStrong]

Can you name every radiologist with expertise in gunshot wounds who has seen the X-rays from the National Archives and provided an opinion on them? Regular forensic pathologists don't count, their job is just to find the cause of death at autopsy.

Can you name the 600 Italian sharpshooters that put the six bullets in Mussolini's head?

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'm afraid this is hard forensics, and I've explained numerous times the important difference between the original EOP location as opposed to the upper cowlick location. So please, choose.

MicahJava, you continue to fail to state your comprehensive theory for who shot JFK and from where? Why do you scurry away from answering?

 

[HSienzant]

MicahJava, you continue to fail to state your comprehensive theory for who shot JFK and from where? Why do you scurry away from answering?

As comprehensive as he gets: Somebody not named Oswald, probably from behind.

At this point, one has to ask, what's the point?

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

State your case.

LOL. Why do you continue to cower and run away from answering? Hasn't your one CT website told you what to think about it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Can you name every radiologist with expertise in gunshot wounds who has seen the X-rays from the National Archives and provided an opinion on them? Regular forensic pathologists don't count, their job is just to find the cause of death at autopsy.

Gosh. You astound me. Pathologists only establish cause of death?
By interpreting evidence such as X-rays and photographs perhaps? Or do you want to try and explain why radiologists wrote a report and pass it to a qualified conclusion consultant for analysis?

This is exactly why your opinions aren't convincing.

 

[MicahJava]

Gosh. You astound me. Pathologists only establish cause of death?
By interpreting evidence such as X-rays and photographs perhaps? Or do you want to try and explain why radiologists wrote a report and pass it to a qualified conclusion consultant for analysis?

This is exactly why your opinions aren't convincing.

Nope, you don't have to be qualified enough to interpret JFK's X-rays to be a forensic pathologist. Note how forensic pathologist Dr. Finck said he "always refers to the radiologists on these matters" when asked about the X-rays. A new team of forensic radiologists should be hired to investigate the nuances of the X-rays.

And on the autopsy photographs, I would probably want a team of photographic experts in conjunction with researchers familiar with the autopsy witness statements to interpret the photographs, because JFK's official autopsy photographs are known to be especially confusing. There is no clear photograph of the large head wound or undisputed photograph of the small head wound. Post-mortem photographs have gone missing, so sooner or later history has to figure this stuff out for sure, with what's left after the vultures have made a mess of things.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Nope, you don't have to be qualified enough to interpret JFK's X-rays to be a forensic pathologist. Note how forensic pathologist Dr. Finck said he "always refers to the radiologists on these matters" when asked about the X-rays. A new team of forensic radiologists should be hired to investigate the nuances of the X-rays.

And on the autopsy photographs, I would probably want a team of photographic experts in conjunction with researchers familiar with the autopsy witness statements to interpret the photographs, because JFK's official autopsy photographs are known to be especially confusing. There is no clear photograph of the large head wound or undisputed photograph of the small head wound. Post-mortem photographs have gone missing, so sooner or later history has to figure this stuff out for sure.

You don't have to run away from answering questions your entire life. Was Oswald behind JFK as you said the shot was fired from? You've shot yourself in the foot so many times, one more can't be that painful. We know where that shot came from, too. LOL.

 

[MicahJava]

You don't have to run away from answering questions your entire life. Was Oswald behind JFK as you said the shot was fired from? You've shot yourself in the foot so many times, one more can't be that painful. We know where that shot came from, too. LOL.

I would refer to the experts on the case who believe Oswald has been framed, with fabricated evidence across the board. I've only been studying this case for over a year or so. How am I supposed to know exactly where the EOP wound came from other than generally from behind? A missile might have to come in at a sharp angle to avoid severely damaging the cerebellum, but the scientific literature on wound ballistics say that a bullet will probably always deflect when hitting a curved area of bone. The area around the EOP is a carved area of skull bone.

 

[MicahJava]

As comprehensive as he gets: Somebody not named Oswald, probably from behind.

At this point, one has to ask, what's the point?

Hank

A team of photographic experts would be needed to provide an answer better than that. The films we have seem like enough to provide a pretty good model of the positions of JFK and Connally within a small margin of error. But, of course, a missile entering a curved portion of bone will almost always defect. So besides testing the single bullet theory, such a photographic study probably wouldn't do too much good.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I would refer to the experts on the case who believe Oswald has been framed, with fabricated evidence across the board.

I'm glad you used the word "believe" rather than "swayed by evidence". Much more accurate. Your self styled and unnamed "experts" aren't here, you volunteered to be their proxy. Where do your self described "experts" think the shot came from, since you are here speaking for them?

I've only been studying this case for over a year or so. How am I supposed to know exactly where the EOP wound came from other than generally from behind?

Why can't you answer a simple question then? Was Oswald generally behind JFK?

A missile might have to come in at a sharp angle to avoid severely damaging the cerebellum, but the scientific literature on wound ballistics say that a bullet will probably always deflect when hitting a curved area of bone. The area around the EOP is a carved area of skull bone.

So if the missile could have come in at a sharp angle and deflected after hitting the skull, what are some possile locations from behind it could have come from?


ETA: What location would it have been impossible for the shot to come from?

 

[HSienzant]

MicahJava, you continue to fail to state your comprehensive theory for who shot JFK and from where? Why do you scurry away from answering?

As comprehensive as he gets: Somebody not named Oswald, probably from behind. At this point, one has to ask, what's the point?

A team of photographic experts would be needed to provide an answer better than that. The films we have seem like enough to provide a pretty good model of the positions of JFK and Connally within a small margin of error. But, of course, a missile entering a curved portion of bone will almost always defect. So besides testing the single bullet theory, such a photographic study probably wouldn't do too much good.

Wait a second. Not too long ago, you were claiming the bullet that entered slightly above the EOP couldn't deflect to exit the top of the head - hence there had to be a second shot. Now you're claiming a bullet hitting at the EOP could deflect (and presumably, exit the top of the head).

Could you at least be consistent within your own theory of the assassination?

You change horses in midstream more than any cavalry platoon in history.

And of course, the HSCA utilized the services of a photographic panel of experts to among other things, validate the backyard photos of Oswald with his Mannlicher Carcano, and determine there were no issues with the weapon, contrary to the uneducated opinion of Jack White.

And would photographic experts find witnesses to a second gunman? Or a second weapon? Or who purchased this phantom weapon? Or handled it? would they find bullets in the limo traceable to this second weapon? Or another bullet at Parkland that could be traced to this other weapon? Or three shells in another location that could be determined to be fired during the assassination?

Face it, you have no evidence of a second gunman and the wished-for new photographic panel of experts won't find any evidence of a second gunman at this date.

Hank