Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

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.

Hank

Maybe if a team of experts would explain the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum, the trail of fragments, and the angle itself.

 

[MicahJava]

The HSCA photographic panel also concluded that Kennedy is probably reaction to some severe external stimuli around z190, before he goes behind the sign in the Zapruder Film. Care to share your opinion on that?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Maybe if a team of experts would explain the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum, the trail of fragments, and the angle itself.

You just said the bullet could have come at a sharp angle. You're now saying that it would take a team of experts to explain? How is it that you tried to insert your own opinion then? Where from behind would it have been impossible for the bullet to come?

 

[RoboTimbo]

The HSCA photographic panel also concluded that Kennedy is probably reaction to some severe external stimuli around z190, before he goes behind the sign in the Zapruder Film. Care to share your opinion on that?

No naughty CT style changing the subject now. Let's finish exploring your most recent self inflicted shot to your foot.

 

[HSienzant]

Maybe if a team of experts would explain the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum, the trail of fragments, and the angle itself.

Already done. The HSCA forensic panel explained all that.

The lack of severe damage to the cerebellum is explained by the bullet hitting higher on the head than you believe.

The trail of fragments points back to the high entry wound on the head. It was the conclusion of the autopsy doctors AND the HSCA forensic panel that the trail of fragments seen on the head x-rays is consistent with the shot entering from behind and exiting out the top-right side of the skull.

And the angle of the head wound is consistent with a shot from the Depository, when one takes into account the cant of the head as seen in the Zapruder film.

All this evidence destroys your belief in an entry wound at the level of the EOP.

So you reject all those answers *that fit together in a cohesive whole* (some call it consilience) because you don't like the answers. At this point you're just shopping for some experts - any experts - who will agree with you.

Good luck with that. As we've seen, even the original three pathologists you love to quote out of context and incompletely don't agree with you.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The HSCA photographic panel also concluded that Kennedy is probably reaction to some severe external stimuli around z190, before he goes behind the sign in the Zapruder Film. Care to share your opinion on that?

Asked and answered previously. You ignored the explanation then. I have no doubt you'll ignore it again.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

No naughty CT style changing the subject now. Let's finish exploring your most recent self inflicted shot to your foot.

nauuuughty

 

[HSienzant]

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.

That makes no sense. The photographic experts could validate the legitimacy of the photographs, and establish whether they were made in 1963, on 1963 film, for instance. But they have no medical training and wouldn't be able to interpret the contents of the photos. For that, you need people with medical training, folks like the forensic pathologists on the HSCA medical panel, who concluded that JFK was struck by two shots, both from behind, and that the three pathologists who performed the autopsy reached the correct conclusions.

And of course, when you say you want those photographic experts to work "in conjunction with researchers familiar with the autopsy witness statements to interpret the photographs", it's obvious what you want: a bunch of lay conspiracy theorists (AKA laughably, "researchers") who believe in a conspiracy having input into the conclusions the experts will reach. That's simply a recipe for disaster, but it's obvious why you want that -- it's the only way conspiracy theorists like yourself can be heard.

Question for you: would I qualify as a 'researcher' to you, as I've shown I'm familiar with the autopsy witness statements (as well as other witness statements, like those in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting) or am I automatically excluded from this group because of my belief that Oswald fired all the shots and there's no evidence of conspiracy to be found in the shooting evidence?

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.

The only vultures who've made a mess of things in this case are those conspiracy theorists publishing books to make a living off the death of a President, taking quotes out of context, ignoring or concealing contrary evidence, and laughing at the suckers who buy their nonsense (in both senses of the word 'buy') all the way to the bank.

We've seen how difficult it is to deprogram someone who buys into the arguments right here on this forum, repeatedly, even after all the evidence is aligned against Oswald, and with nothing pointing to anyone else, conspiracy theorists like Robert Harris, Robert Prey and a host of others (yourself included) still insist there was a conspiracy.

I don't get it. "Faith is stronger than evidence to the contrary" is the best I can do to explain that phenomenon.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

You just said the bullet could have come at a sharp angle. You're now saying that it would take a team of experts to explain? How is it that you tried to insert your own opinion then? Where from behind would it have been impossible for the bullet to come?

You haven't answered these yet, MicahJava. You don't have to scurry away from the hard questions your whole life.

 

[Axxman300]

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

You...can...see...the...bullet...strike...the...head...in...the...Zapruder...Film...

There...is...no...second...shot...to...the...head...

 

[Axxman300]

Maybe if a team of experts would explain the lack of severe damage to the cerebellum, the trail of fragments, and the angle itself.

The bullet came in high, well away from the cerebellum, even so, Humes noted some damage from fragments.

 

[Axxman300]

The HSCA photographic panel also concluded that Kennedy is probably reaction to some severe external stimuli around z190, before he goes behind the sign in the Zapruder Film. Care to share your opinion on that?

Yes, it's a reaction to the stimulus of a 6.5x52mm bullet striking his upper back.

 

[HSienzant]

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

The HSCA already stated the case for what you call "the cowlick wound theory".

They didn't call it a theory, though.

They used much stronger language than that:
2. The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind were fired from the sixth floor window of the Southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building

You've shown yourself to be familiar with the HSCA in the past, even citing some testimony to either the committee or one of the expert panels in the past.

But here's a link to the conclusions in question, and the evidence for those conclusions:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html

Specifically, here, as this deals with the shots: https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1a.html#shots

Exactly why do you want us to repeat all these findings when you are already familiar with them, and choose to reject them? What's the point? Why do we need to reproduce these conclusions and the evidence supporting them here, in this forum, for your benefit?

Why exactly are you asking for this?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The HSCA photographic panel also concluded that Kennedy is probably reaction [sic] to some severe external stimuli around z190, before he goes behind the sign in the Zapruder Film. Care to share your opinion on that?

Yes, it's a reaction to the stimulus of a 6.5x52mm bullet striking his upper back.

Well, not exactly. The House Committee in 1978 found themselves, because they credited the acoustic info, with a conundrum - they believed they had evidence of four shots, but they couldn't get those shots to synchronize with the visible reactions within the Zapruder film.

So they shoehorned in a shot at about Z190 that struck JFK and Connally, because that's when the acoustic evidence said the first shot was.

But except for the since-discredited acoustic evidence, there's little evidence for a shot at Z190.

And once we're not forced to accept a shot at Z190 wounding both men, then the more obvious and reasonable conclusion of a shot at Z223-224 moves back to the forefront.

So while he's crediting the photographic panel with reaching this conclusion, it was actually the acoustic conclusions that forced the House Committee to reach that conclusion.

This was covered extensively in the past with Robert Harris and/or Robert Prey and with MicahJava here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11410202&postcount=898

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

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

Experts...

First off, every claim of fabricated evidence re: Oslad has been profoundly debunked. Most these "experts" have an ax to grind with history, and grasped anything that might cast doubt on the case no matter how obviously pathetic.

These "experts" believe that Vietnam wouldn't have happened had JFK lived, and that somehow America would have become some kind of utopia. All of that is historical speculation.

I would refer you to common sense, maybe take a class at a junior college on law enforcement.

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.

1. You know where the shot came from because we found the rifle and casings, and we know who did the shooting.

2. What does "scientific literature" say specifically about what a 6.5x52mm round do to a curved section of skull compared to more common calibers.

Should also ask, why don't you think the round didn't deflect once inside the skull? I only ask because it clearly fragmented on the way out.

Let me save you some time. Most of the "experts" cited in JFK CT lore are no such thing, and most have done little serious quality (objective) research.

Then you need to know this, an "Expert" is often a relative title, and you have to apply the same rules of acceptance to the "experts" that you choose to believe with the "experts" you choose not to believe. The standard M.O. for all CTists is that their "experts" are experts, but the "Official Story" experts are not credible for a number of mamby-pamby reasons.

Another thing you seem to miss is that when you get a number of qualified experts to look into an abstract case like the JFK Assassination you are likely going to get a range of conclusions. If you have 10 experts, odds are 1 will scream "Conspiracy!". We see this in science all the time, just read any academic paper, and then the dissenting opinions. There are people still arguing the finer points of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but unlike the CT world, the fact that there is some debate does not mean we throw out Einstein.

The men who investigated the crime scene in Dealey Plaza were experts. The Secret Service, FBI, and Dallas PD were all more than capable for the job in 1963, the same cannot be said of most of their critics. The presumption that they would turn a blind eye to justice is insulting and infantile. If you think DPD would let the killer of Tippet walk while an innocent man is arrested then you've never met a cop. Tippet was a popular officer, and they would have moved heaven and earth to nail the killer to the wall. If you think DPD was cool with Oswald getting murdered in their parking garage with their detectives standing on either side you'd be wrong. That was a hard pill to swallow for every man in blue in Dallas...and if you don't think the DPD rattled a few teeth, and broke a few arms running down leads that hinted at a conspiracy then you really need more cops in your life.

The truth is experts have already looked at the evidence starting from 11/22/63 onward, and the only suspect is Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

[Axxman300]

Well, not exactly. The House Committee in 1978 found themselves, because they credited the acoustic info, with a conundrum - they believed they had evidence of four shots, but they couldn't get those shots to synchronize with the visible reactions within the Zapruder film.

So they shoehorned in a shot at about Z190 that struck JFK and Connally, because that's when the acoustic evidence said the first shot was.

But except for the since-discredited acoustic evidence, there's little evidence for a shot at Z190.

And once we're not forced to accept a shot at Z190 wounding both men, then the more obvious and reasonable conclusion of a shot at Z223-224 moves back to the forefront.

So while he's crediting the photographic panel with reaching this conclusion, it was actually the acoustic conclusions that forced the House Committee to reach that conclusion.

This was covered extensively in the past with Robert Harris and/or Robert Prey and with MicahJava here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11410202&postcount=898

Hank

Figures.

 

[HSienzant]

Experts...

First off, every claim of fabricated evidence re: Oslad has been profoundly debunked. Most these "experts" have an ax to grind with history, and grasped anything that might cast doubt on the case no matter how obviously pathetic.

These "experts" believe that Vietnam wouldn't have happened had JFK lived, and that somehow America would have become some kind of utopia. All of that is historical speculation.

I would refer you to common sense, maybe take a class at a junior college on law enforcement.



1. You know where the shot came from because we found the rifle and casings, and we know who did the shooting.

2. What does "scientific literature" say specifically about what a 6.5x52mm round do to a curved section of skull compared to more common calibers.

Should also ask, why don't you think the round didn't deflect once inside the skull? I only ask because it clearly fragmented on the way out.

Let me save you some time. Most of the "experts" cited in JFK CT lore are no such thing, and most have done little serious quality (objective) research.

Then you need to know this, an "Expert" is often a relative title, and you have to apply the same rules of acceptance to the "experts" that you choose to believe with the "experts" you choose not to believe. The standard M.O. for all CTists is that their "experts" are experts, but the "Official Story" experts are not credible for a number of mamby-pamby reasons.

Another thing you seem to miss is that when you get a number of qualified experts to look into an abstract case like the JFK Assassination you are likely going to get a range of conclusions. If you have 10 experts, odds are 1 will scream "Conspiracy!". We see this in science all the time, just read any academic paper, and then the dissenting opinions. There are people still arguing the finer points of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, but unlike the CT world, the fact that there is some debate does not mean we throw out Einstein.

The men who investigated the crime scene in Dealey Plaza were experts. The Secret Service, FBI, and Dallas PD were all more than capable for the job in 1963, the same cannot be said of most of their critics. The presumption that they would turn a blind eye to justice is insulting and infantile. If you think DPD would let the killer of Tippet walk while an innocent man is arrested then you've never met a cop. Tippet was a popular officer, and they would have moved heaven and earth to nail the killer to the wall. If you think DPD was cool with Oswald getting murdered in their parking garage with their detectives standing on either side you'd be wrong. That was a hard pill to swallow for every man in blue in Dallas...and if you don't think the DPD rattled a few teeth, and broke a few arms running down leads that hinted at a conspiracy then you really need more cops in your life.

The truth is experts have already looked at the evidence starting from 11/22/63 onward, and the only suspect is Lee Harvey Oswald.

 

[MicahJava]

Well, not exactly. The House Committee in 1978 found themselves, because they credited the acoustic info, with a conundrum - they believed they had evidence of four shots, but they couldn't get those shots to synchronize with the visible reactions within the Zapruder film.

So they shoehorned in a shot at about Z190 that struck JFK and Connally, because that's when the acoustic evidence said the first shot was.

But except for the since-discredited acoustic evidence, there's little evidence for a shot at Z190.

And once we're not forced to accept a shot at Z190 wounding both men, then the more obvious and reasonable conclusion of a shot at Z223-224 moves back to the forefront.

So while he's crediting the photographic panel with reaching this conclusion, it was actually the acoustic conclusions that forced the House Committee to reach that conclusion.

This was covered extensively in the past with Robert Harris and/or Robert Prey and with MicahJava here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11410202&postcount=898

Hank

Nope, the photographic team was separate from the acoustics team. They said some heavy activity was happening before Kennedy went behind the sign. Unless you want to say that the level of subterfuge in the HSCA was just that massive, please say so because we can swiftly throw out any "evidence" they presented

 

[MicahJava]

Already done. The HSCA forensic panel explained all that.

The lack of severe damage to the cerebellum is explained by the bullet hitting higher on the head than you believe.

The trail of fragments points back to the high entry wound on the head. It was the conclusion of the autopsy doctors AND the HSCA forensic panel that the trail of fragments seen on the head x-rays is consistent with the shot entering from behind and exiting out the top-right side of the skull.

LOL what's what about the fragments? The trail of fragments is nowhere near the hypothetical cowlick entry, let alone the EOP entry.

And the angle of the head wound is consistent with a shot from the Depository, when one takes into account the cant of the head as seen in the Zapruder film.

Hilarious. Bullets continue going straight after penetrating the head? No. If a bullet entered the cowlick from the east sixth floor, it would probably exit the face unless it deflected from the right. To say otherwise would require a comprehensive study from a team of photographic experts using modern technology.

All this evidence destroys your belief in an entry wound at the level of the EOP.

So you reject all those answers *that fit together in a cohesive whole* (some call it consilience) because you don't like the answers. At this point you're just shopping for some experts - any experts - who will agree with you.

Good luck with that. As we've seen, even the original three pathologists you love to quote out of context and incompletely don't agree with you.

Hank

Here you just admit you dogmatically cling to the cowlick theory because it just seems like a beautiful, clean theory to you that, in your mind, must explain everything. Too bad it doesn't fir with the totality of evidence as we know it

 

[MicahJava]

To anybody trusting Axxman300 to tell them what to think: this guy thinks you can see the entry wound on the Zapruder Film.