Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

Gunshots don't always work like in the movies.

Begs the question: How many GSWs have you seen either on the internet, and in person?

I've never seen someone shot, but I have seen some head wounds working construction. There is no mistaking a head injury. The blood is a brighter red due to the oxygen, there is more in the head than in the arms of legs, and the blood will flow from the smallest nick (someday when you grow up and shave you will learn about how much your head wants to bleed).

That fictitious .22 subsonic round would strike JFK's head like a hammer.

 

[Tomtomkent]

MJ noticed gunshot wounds don't always work like in the movies?

Neither do gunshots.

Maybe this means he is on his way to seeing all the problems with his silenced rifle, of another calibre, causing a second wound they, erm, wouldn't work that way because it wasn't a movie...

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'm going to join the chorus calling MJ out:

What's your theory on who killed JFK?

If not Oswald then who?

Remember, you need to explain why they used his rifle, how they knew he worked at the TSBD, why he was the only employee to flee the crime scene, and why - if he was innocent - did he shoot Tippet?

If it wasn't his rifle, then exactly what other caliber can produce an equal amount of damage?

You also have to list suspects with enough influence to sway the Secret Service, FBI, Earl Warren, RFK, and LBJ.

Me too.
MJ, this is all very confusing. You claim LHO couldn't have made the shot because JFK would have looked like an ant. You then need to explain how the bullets from his gun made it into JFK's body, plus how all the other evidence tying LHO to the gun was fabricated. Then you need to state how another shooter was able to make the apparently impossible shot, without being seen by anyone there, make their escape unnoticed and then remove their bullets from the body. You then have to explain how the position of the wounds in JFK's skull provide significant evidence for any of this. Some explanation of the motives for all this would also be nice.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

It's a difference of four to five inches.

The difference indicates more than one gunshot wound to the head. A bullet entering the original EOP location and exiting the top of the head almost certainly would've caused severe damage to the cerebellum, which is not seen on the official brain photographs, and it would also be very difficult to explain the pattern of fragments on the X-rays, not to mention the strange trajectory.

I think it's quite obvious by now that MJ will never advance any theory about what he thinks happened.
However, this quote may go a little way to solving that problem.
He claims there were two gunshot wounds to the head. Having seen some CSI programmes (yes, I freely admit that is the level of my expertise here, but bear with me), it is presumably possible to use the angle of penetration of the second shot to track backwards and suggect a possible location for the second shooter.
As I say, I am in no way qualified to do this, but perhaps HSeinzant or someone with more expertise than me would be able to do this, and suggest, based on what little MJ has let slip, where the second shot was fired from, and how plausible or not such a location is? It might lead to more progress than the current never-ending circle we seem to be stuck in.

 

[HSienzant]

I think it's quite obvious by now that MJ will never advance any theory about what he thinks happened.
However, this quote may go a little way to solving that problem.
He claims there were two gunshot wounds to the head. Having seen some CSI programmes (yes, I freely admit that is the level of my expertise here, but bear with me), it is presumably possible to use the angle of penetration of the second shot to track backwards and suggect a possible location for the second shooter.
As I say, I am in no way qualified to do this, but perhaps HSeinzant or someone with more expertise than me would be able to do this, and suggest, based on what little MJ has let slip, where the second shot was fired from, and how plausible or not such a location is? It might lead to more progress than the current never-ending circle we seem to be stuck in.

HSienzant - as in Hank Sienzant, thanks.

Near as I can figure, he thinks the shot came from one of the lower floors of what was then the Dal-Tex building -- now the Sixth Floor Museum Bookstore.

I've asked him to spell out on a number of occasions his theory and name the precise location for his shooter and specify the witnesses that saw a shooter in the location he favors -- he's never done better than "behind". He can't do better because as everyone here knows (including MicahJava), there are NO witnesses who saw a shooter anywhere but in the Depository, and there is NO hard evidence (like shells, a rifle, or bullet fragments) recovered from anywhere related to the assassination that could be linked to a second shooter.

And on the other side, we have Oswald's rifle in the building where about a dozen people saw a man fitting Oswald's description or a rifle, or both, in the window immediately before, during, or just after the shooting; we have shells traceable o that rifle at the window, we have fragments of a bullet fired from that rifle recovered from the limo, and a early whole bullet from that rifle recovered at Parkland Hospital.

You might remember Bob Harris favored a shooter in the Dal-Tex building as well, but the best argument he could come up with was "There was no evidence of a second shooter because these guys were professionals and didn't want to get caught"' which explains exactly nothing, and ISN'T evidence for a second shooter anymore than it's evidence for pink unicorns -- after all, they don't want to get caught either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10760856&postcount=3287

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
This has to be one of the most idiotic arguments I have heard from you guys all day You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no assassins were there.
You think that because no evidence was found in an unsearched building, that this is some kind of proof that no pink unicorns were there.

No one found evidence of pink unicorns in that unsearched building, nor did any witnesses outside in Dealey Plaza see any pink unicorns in the building nor did anyone see pink unicorns enter the building, nor did anyone see any pink unicorns leave the building.

Exactly what evidence we have of assassins, we have for pink unicorns as well.

By your "logic", this is some kind of proof pink unicorns accompanied the snipers into the building to act as spotters. It works the exact same way.

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
And you deny the ridiculously obvious fact that a sniper would choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail.
Further evidence that there were pink unicorns in the building! You deny the ridiculously obvious fact that pink unicorns also choose to remain unseen and not leave an evidence trail! Have you ever seen a pink unicorn? Did you ever find any evidence of one? See, this proves my contention that pink unicorns were inside the building with those assassins! There is *just as much evidence* for the pink unicorns as there is for the sniper or snipers you conjecture.

... (discussion of other points deleted)

Originally Posted by Robert Harris
Don't you think THAT evidence is infinitely more important than that snipers did exactly what we should expect them to do, to avoid getting caught?
Along with the pink unicorns, Robert, along with the pink unicorns. They did exactly what we should expect pink unicorns to do as well, to avoid getting caught

As has been pointed out to MJ on numerous occasions, he can't go from his anomaly-hunting to a larger theory -- no one can -- because his anomalies don't fit together to make a cohesive whole.

He can't even, within the narrow confines of what he's apparently willing to discuss, avoid contradicting himself. He says he accepts the autopsy, and the autopsy conclusions, but then says there were two shots to the head, which the autopsy doctors never said anywhere, at any time.

Most conspiracy theorists are not shy about alleging all the evidence pointing to Oswald has been planted, swapped, or forged, but MicahJava has been reticent to explain why so much evidence points to Oswald -- there are only two possibilities, the evidence points to Oswald because he was the shooter, or he was framed. MJ hasn't even spelled out Oswald's role in the assassination.

Hank

 

[abaddon]

HSienzant - as in Hank Sienzant, thanks.

Near as I can figure, he thinks the shot came from one of the lower floors of what was then the Dal-Tex building -- now the Sixth Floor Museum Bookstore.

I've asked him to spell out on a number of occasions his theory and name the precise location for his shooter and specify the witnesses that saw a shooter in the location he favors -- he's never done better than "behind". He can't do better because as everyone here knows (including MicahJava), there are NO witnesses who saw a shooter anywhere but in the Depository, and there is NO hard evidence (like shells, a rifle, or bullet fragments) recovered from anywhere related to the assassination that could be linked to a second shooter.

And on the other side, we have Oswald's rifle in the building where about a dozen people saw a man fitting Oswald's description or a rifle, or both, in the window immediately before, during, or just after the shooting; we have shells traceable o that rifle at the window, we have fragments of a bullet fired from that rifle recovered from the limo, and a early whole bullet from that rifle recovered at Parkland Hospital.

You might remember Bob Harris favored a shooter in the Dal-Tex building as well, but the best argument he could come up with was "There was no evidence of a second shooter because these guys were professionals and didn't want to get caught"' which explains exactly nothing, and ISN'T evidence for a second shooter anymore that it's evidence for pink unicorns -- after all, they don't want to get caught either.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10760856&postcount=3287

As has been pointed out to MJ on numerous occasions, he can't go from his anomaly-hunting to a larger theory -- no one can -- because his anomalies don't fit together to make a cohesive whole.

He can't even, within the narrow confines of what he's apparently willing to discuss, avoid contradicting himself. He says he accepts the autopsy, and the autopsy conclusions, but then says there were two shots to the head, which the autopsy doctors never said anywhere, at any time.

Most conspiracy theorists are not shy about alleging all the evidence pointing to Oswald has been planted, swapped, or forged, but MicahJava has been reticent to explain why so much evidence points to Oswald -- there are only two possibilities, the evidence points to Oswald because he was the shooter, or he was framed. MJ hasn't even spelled out Oswald's role in the assassination.

Hank

Wasn't he going for the sewer shooter at one point? It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

 

[HSienzant]

Wasn't he going for the sewer shooter at one point? It's like trying to nail jello to a wall.

Sewer shot, yes:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11411016&postcount=919

That was another time he tried to get specific and saw it blow up in his face.

Your analogy is appropriate.

Hank

 

[carlitos]

Ahh, who to believe? The consilience of evidence and the historical record or a guy who can't figure out frowny faces on an internet forum.

 

[pgwenthold]

HSienzant - as in Hank Sienzant, thanks.

Near as I can figure, he thinks the shot came from one of the lower floors of what was then the Dal-Tex building -- now the Sixth Floor Museum Bookstore.

Wasn't that the location of the gun with the silencer that we heard from someone previously (Harris, maybe?)

 

[HSienzant]

Wasn't that the location of the gun with the silencer that we heard from someone previously (Harris, maybe?)

Yes, that was Harris, although MJ has also alluded to silenced shots by his continual reference to "three loud shots" or "loud reports", implying some other shots were not as loud, and hence sllenced.

For example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11759320&postcount=2507

Hank

 

[bknight]

Yes, that was Harris, although MJ has also alluded to silenced shots by his continual reference to "three loud shots" or "loud reports", implying some other shots were not as loud, and hence sllenced.

For example, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11759320&postcount=2507

Hank

Didn't Marrs also diagram a shooter from the ~2 floor of the Dal-Tex building?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

In no universe have you had a victory on the EOP wound subject.

Is there a universe in which you provide your explanation for the events of the day in question, accounting for all physical evidence, as well as identities of the relevant players?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

But how do you think the brain was removed? You don't seem to be able to give a straight answer.

I've been away from this thread for awhile. Are you still trying to shift the burden of proof?!

 

[HSienzant]

Didn't Marrs also diagram a shooter from the ~2 floor of the Dal-Tex building?

It's been a staple of conspiracy theorists since the mid-1960s, when Harold Weisberg first suggested the man on the Dal-Tex fire escape visible in the background of the Altgens photo was in "apparent distress" (or words to that effect) in WHITEWASH.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ike_Altgens#/media/File:Altgens6.jpg

Marrs cribbed conspiracy nonsense from everyone (and made up a lot of his own), so I'd be surprised if he didn't include that in his book CROSSFIRE. It's Ben a while since I referred to that book, so cannot speak with certainty.

Harris thought a window was broken in the Dal-Tex and the shooter fired from that window. The broken window was merely his interpretation, and no evidence of the shooter was ever provided, of course.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

Are you still trying to shift the burden of proof?!

Apparently the burden-shift will never end, Regnad. Either MJ doesn't grasp the concept or doesn't care. Or it's just simpler to hunt anomalies without a logic license, in blithe disregard of the consilience of evidence and the burden of proof it imposes on the Nimrod of anomalies. It's been suggested to MJ that this is not the forum for such juvenile tactics--that he'll be spotted immediately--but he takes refuge in all manner of fallacies as if his holy mission entitles him to violate every norm of argumentation. Sanctified norm-violation is, in fact, the assumed prerogative of many CTs in their self-appointed role as special investigator. Remember, they have to conduct their search and seizure of the occulted truth among brainwashed sheeple and paid shills like you and me. MJ has actually tried peddling his wares over on alt-assassination, where logic is treated as a piñata, but I don't think he's quite happy in that bedlam either.

 

[MicahJava]

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of random smearing and straight up lying about facts, what I have said, how the discussion has gone, etc. and using juvenile distractions to monkey around. Has anybody on any forum thread been so patient at explaining simple concepts to others as I have? How about trying to explain the crucial issues that I have brought up?

 

[MicahJava]

I've been away from this thread for awhile. Are you still trying to shift the burden of proof?!

No, I've already explained the basic reasons why the autopsy doctors could have have removed the brain without also separating the "cowlick" area of the skull. Dr. Finck arrived to the autopsy after the brain had already been removed and he always said he the entry hole was still sitting there in the intact, empty cranium. Not as part of a skull fragment, but the intact rest of the skull. I think cowlick theorists should give an explanation for that.

And also some other sparse statements from the doctors indicate that after they had already reflected the scalp to remove the brain, they had to make another special incision to remove the area of the scalp around the entry wound. If the wound was in the cowlick area, the first big incision in the scalp would be enough to expose the entry wound.

 

[OKBob]

How about trying to explain the crucial issues that I have brought up?

Actually, your muddled arguments about JFK's head wounds are not "crucial issues." And we don't have to "explain" anything. That's burden-shifting. Burden-shifting is a crucial issue, but you pay no attention to it.

 

[MicahJava]

Actually, your muddled arguments about JFK's head wounds are not "crucial issues." And we don't have to "explain" anything. That's burden-shifting. Burden-shifting is a crucial issue, but you pay no attention to it.

But what is the position of the cowlick theorists? So far, it looks like the wounding as described by the HSCA is in it's own universe which cannot actually exist, especially their interpretation of the open-cranium photographs which implies that the doctors somehow fit the entire brain through a five-inch hole.

 

[OKBob]

Okay, I'm seeing a lot of random smearing and straight up lying about facts, what I have said, etc. [...]

The rules forbid accusations of lying without a basis. I challenge you to show where any participant in this thread has "lied" in his or her responses to you.