• 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.
MicahJava said:
What?
Click to expand...

You are the one who has been arguing about the state of the skull, and the difficulty in removing the brain. You stated it was brittle, and you posted evidence suggestive of the damage.

If we take those claims at face value, we can extrapolate what it tells us beyond your obsession with an inaccurate wound placement. Or did you think that if you succeeded in making a point we would not consider the implications?
 
MicahJava said:
Are simple concepts of space, shape, and volume just that to you?
Click to expand...

No.
Prove they are not to you. Supply a fully formed theory that you believe best explains all the evidence.

Who shot JFK, from where, with what weapons, and what evidence supports those specific claims. We require evidence that specifically can ONLY be explained by more than three shots if you wish to speculate of any additional assassins.
 
Tomtomkent said:
You are the one who has been arguing about the state of the skull, and the difficulty in removing the brain. You stated it was brittle, and you posted evidence suggestive of the damage.

If we take those claims at face value, we can extrapolate what it tells us beyond your obsession with an inaccurate wound placement. Or did you think that if you succeeded in making a point we would not consider the implications?
Click to expand...

Because Dr. Finck always said he arrived to the autopsy to see the entry hole unimpeded within the empty skull, not as a fragment separated from the skull. This implies the lower original wound placement is correct, and the cowlick entry theory is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
No.
Prove they are not to you. Supply a fully formed theory that you believe best explains all the evidence.

Who shot JFK, from where, with what weapons, and what evidence supports those specific claims. We require evidence that specifically can ONLY be explained by more than three shots if you wish to speculate of any additional assassins.
Click to expand...

You would suck as a forensic investigator.
 
MicahJava said:
Because Dr. Finck always said he arrived to the autopsy to see the entry hole unimpeded within the empty skull, not as a fragment separated from the skull. This implies the lower original wound placement is correct, and the cowlick entry theory is wrong.
Click to expand...

You seem not to be answering the point I made. Would you care to try again?
 
MicahJava said:
You would suck as a forensic investigator.
Click to expand...

As far as has been revealed in this thread, your investigative skills don't even rise to that level.

You read material on the intrawebz, you agree or disagree based on your confirmation bias and you proceed from there. Many of us in this thread looked at the evidence and came to our conclusion, or some people like me were conditioned from the day of the assassination to believe this or that person/group whatever was behind it and later came to the conclusion that the CTist hit parade of suspects, causations and the mechanical aspects of the shooting itself didn't add up.

You demonstrate no such ability.
 
abaddon said:
Ah. When cornered, hurl insults. Why does this happen so often with CT proponents?
Click to expand...

If the law is on your side, pound on the law.

If the evidence is on your side, pound on the evidence.

If you have nothing on your side, pound on the table.

Insults fit into category three perfectly.
 
MicahJava said:
Because Dr. Finck always said he arrived to the autopsy to see the entry hole unimpeded within the empty skull, not as a fragment separated from the skull. This implies the lower original wound placement is correct, and the cowlick entry theory is wrong.
Click to expand...

No it does not.

It suggests that Humes was careful about how he cut the skull open. Almost as if the guy was a Pathologist or something.

Come on, you're the guy who's posted the x-rays, try looking at them for once.:thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
That is certainly not what Dr. Finck always attested to. So far it seems like there is no loophole to the brain removal problem, the vast majority of the evidence indicates that the wound was low in the head where the autopsy doctors placed it.
Click to expand...

Vast majority?

First, the autopsy fixed the location.

Second, and I know you hate this because it underlines one of your many perceptive limits, the entry point is visible in the Zapruder Film. You can tell by how the top half of the skull shudders while the lower part - below the impact zone - remains rigid.

You are arguing against the historical visual evidence, three Pathologists who laid hands on the body, and over fifty photographs that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN.

So who done it? How was the assassination carried out? If we are all wrong then enlighten us. :thumbsup:
 
Axxman300 said:
Vast majority?

First, the autopsy fixed the location.

Second, and I know you hate this because it underlines one of your many perceptive limits, the entry point is visible in the Zapruder Film. You can tell by how the top half of the skull shudders while the lower part - below the impact zone - remains rigid.

You are arguing against the historical visual evidence, three Pathologists who laid hands on the body, and over fifty photographs that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN.

So who done it? How was the assassination carried out? If we are all wrong then enlighten us. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

You are confused or you are trying to confuse others. You should stop calling your personal theory "the autopsy". If you're positing the upper wound location endorsed by the HSCA, the autopsy doctors never agreed with that.
 
MicahJava said:
You are confused or you are trying to confuse others. You should stop calling your personal theory "the autopsy". If you're positing the upper wound location endorsed by the HSCA, the autopsy doctors never agreed with that.
Click to expand...

The autopsy is not my personal theory - it's official record.

And I'm saying the entry wound was right where Humes and Finck agreed it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom