Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

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.

You then go on (in other posts) to conclude this implies two shots to the head.

That's an implication you alone are drawing.

None of the three original autopsists thought it implied that. Right?

None of the 20 or so forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials thought it implied that. Right?

And you haven't convinced anyone here - despite months of posting on this subject - that your conclusion of two shots to the head is a reasonable one derived from a dispassionate study of the evidence.

So you've reached a conclusion that is at odds with the three experts who had the body in front of them, at odds with the 20(?) experts who reviewed the autopsy, and at odds with numerous disinterested parties here in this forum who are willing to be convinced by something stronger than your layman's opinion about what certain procedures must mean.

Given all that, your opinion is the outlet here. At what point do you reassess the conclusion you're reaching, or is that conclusion of two shots to the head set in stone at this point?

If it is, perhaps it's best to agree to disagree and move on. Because there's not much sadder that witnessing someone beating a deceased equine and expecting that horse to rise.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

MJ, you really should stop; this is getting embarrassing to watch. Read the quote you just posted; it doesn't say that the bone is flexible, it says that the shattering of the bone provided the necessary flexibility. The scalp, which would have been holding the shattered pieces of bone together, is what's flexible; that's beyond obvious to anyone who isn't blinded by ideology.

Dave

Conspiracy theorists always resort to this type of nonsense and game playing, where they suddenly can't understand simple English and introduce straw man arguments repeatedly. We saw that with Bob Harris as well toward the end of his time here. Unable to get traction with the standard arguments they come armed with, and incapable of rebutting the evidence presented against their favorite hypothesis, but unwilling to concede the debate, they attempt to prolong the discussion merely for the sake of the discussion -- to make it appear they have a valid point. They apparently don't realize this type of nonsensical argumentation destroys their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

MicahJava is proceeding down that same well-trodden path.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Doesn't matter. Step up to the plate and demonstrate that there was more that one wound.

If the EOP wound doesn't imply more than one gunshot to the head, then why is every nutter so squeamish to accept the evidence for it?

 

[MicahJava]

Conspiracy theorists always resort to this type of nonsense and game playing, where they suddenly can't understand simple English and introduce straw man arguments repeatedly. We saw that with Bob Harris as well toward the end of his time here. Unable to get traction with the standard arguments they come armed with, and incapable of rebutting the evidence presented against their favorite hypothesis, but unwilling to concede the debate, they attempt to prolong the discussion merely for the sake of the discussion -- to make it appear they have a valid point. They apparently don't realize this type of nonsensical argumentation destroys their credibility, it doesn't enhance it.

MicahJava is proceeding down that same well-trodden path.

Hank

Not only are you projecting, you're over-inflating your illusion of consensus. Forensic pathologists are not required to have expertise in X-rays of gunshot wounds.

 

[OKBob]

They apparently don't realize this type of nonsensical argumentation destroys their credibility, it doesn't enhance it. MicahJava is proceeding down that same well-trodden path.

We're way past the point where there might be a chance of MJ's meeting us halfway with an attempt at cogent argument that recognizes logic and consilience. You can tell by the curt, nonresponsive reiterations of positions he stated scores or hundreds of pages ago that he's dug in and is going to insist that we just don't get it or are ideologically entrenched. I also think that some JFK buffs have a ghoulish addiction to the medical aspect. When in doubt, post another X-ray, spinning skull, or autopsy photo. MJ's a little less abrasive than Prey and Harris were, but it's roughly the same granite stubbornness.

 

[MicahJava]

 

[MicahJava]

Actually this one might be more familiar to some of the posters on this thread:

http://www.metafro.be/primates/images/fig3.gif

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited for breach of rule 5. Do not hotlink.

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif/180px-External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif[/qimg]

The red dot on that skull can't be the entry wound, that's well below the external occipital protuberance, and the autopsists put the wound slightly above the EOP.

So what's the significance of your red dot, and is this yet another instance where you disagree with the official autopsy conclusions, despite your earlier protestation that you agree with that report?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

The red dot on that skull can't be the entry wound, that's well below the external occipital protuberance, and the autopsists put the wound slightly above the EOP.

So what's the significance of your red dot, and is this yet another instance where you disagree with the official autopsy conclusions, despite your earlier protestation that you agree with that report?

Hank

That spinning skull gif is from the Wikipedia page for external occipital protuberance.

 

[HSienzant]

Not only are you projecting, you're over-inflating your illusion of consensus. Forensic pathologists are not required to have expertise in X-rays of gunshot wounds.

I was unaware anonymous conspiracy theorists were required to have that expertise. Face it, they have far more expertise in the subject matter than you do, and they, and the original autopsists, and everyone else here, disagrees with your uneducated layman's assessment of the evidence in this case.

So respond to the point I made originally - does this cause you to reassess your position any, and if not, is your position set in stone? If so, what's the point of continuing? We don't find your uneducated layman's view meaningful nor convincing, and you're clearly not changing your view.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I was unaware anonymous conspiracy theorists were required to have that expertise. Face it, they have far more expertise in the subject matter than you do, and they, and the original autopsists, and everyone else here, disagrees with your uneducated layman's assessment of the evidence in this case.

So respond to the point I made originally - does this cause you to reassess your position any, and if not, is your position set in stone? If so, what's the point of continuing? We don't find your uneducated layman's view meaningful nor convincing, and you re clearly not changing your view.

Hank

You could count on one hand the number of people with the specific expertise to interpret the official JFK X-rays. If you don't assume that all forensic pathologists know enough to interpret the X-rays, what are you left with?

 

[HSienzant]

You could count on one hand the number of people with the specific expertise to interpret the official JFK X-rays. If you don't assume that all forensic pathologists know enough to interpret the X-rays, what are you left with?

Try addressing the points I did make for a change. Even conceding for the sake of argument that every person with a medical degree knows nothing about how to read x-rays (a position that's laughable), why should we presume you - an uneducated layman - know more about determining how many bullets struck JFK in the head than the twenty forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials as well as the three original autopsists who examined the body?

That's an absurdity you will never be able to surmount.

Beat that dead horse. Maybe it will surprise everyone here and get up and walk yet.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If the EOP wound doesn't imply more than one gunshot to the head, then why is every nutter so squeamish to accept the evidence for it?

Another excellent example of you simply begging the question. Now provide another example of you raising a straw man argument.

Thanks again.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You then go on (in other posts) to conclude this implies two shots to the head.

That's an implication you alone are drawing.

None of the three original autopsists thought it implied that. Right?

None of the 20 or so forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials thought it implied that. Right?

And you haven't convinced anyone here - despite months of posting on this subject - that your conclusion of two shots to the head is a reasonable one derived from a dispassionate study of the evidence.

So you've reached a conclusion that is at odds with the three experts who had the body in front of them, at odds with the 20(?) experts who reviewed the autopsy, and at odds with numerous disinterested parties here in this forum who are willing to be convinced by something stronger than your layman's opinion about what certain procedures must mean.

Given all that, your opinion is the outlet outlier here. At what point do you reassess the conclusion you're reaching, or is that conclusion of two shots to the head set in stone at this point?

If it is, perhaps it's best to agree to disagree and move on. Because there's not much sadder that witnessing someone beating a deceased equine and expecting that horse to rise.

Hank

Still awaiting a response to the points raised herein.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Try addressing the points I did make for a change. Even conceding for the sake of argument that every person with a medical degree knows nothing about how to read x-rays (a position that's laughable), why should we presume you - an uneducated layman - know more about determining how many bullets struck JFK in the head than the twenty forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials as well as the three original autopsists who examined the body?

That's an absurdity you will never be able to surmount.

Beat that dead horse. Maybe it will surprise everyone here and get up and walk yet.

Hank

Twenty forensic pathologists? Last I checked, there were only about twelve that signed off on the cowlick entry theory or something similar to it (some of them reported the entry as a one or two+ centimeters difference from eachother). And all that is required to be a forensic pathologist is to identify a cause of death at autopsy. There is nothing "laughable" at calling for only the opinions of specialists in gunshot wound X-rays. You know the JFK X-rays were made with old portable equipment, riddled with cobwebs and artifacts, they were made for the sole purpose of identifying fragments or possible bullets within the body. And the enhanced versions we have today were made with 70's technology.

 

[Axxman300]

Not only are you projecting, you're over-inflating your illusion of consensus. Forensic pathologists are not required to have expertise in X-rays of gunshot wounds.

No, just ten years of additional medical school for this specialty.

 

[Axxman300]

And all that is required to be a forensic pathologist is to identify a cause of death at autopsy. There is nothing "laughable" at calling for only the opinions of specialists in gunshot wound X-rays. You know the JFK X-rays were made with old portable equipment, riddled with cobwebs and artifacts, they were made for the sole purpose of identifying fragments or possible bullets within the body. And the enhanced versions we have today were made with 70's technology.

Weird, almost like it was done in 1963.

 

[Axxman300]

You could count on one hand the number of people with the specific expertise to interpret the official JFK X-rays. If you don't assume that all forensic pathologists know enough to interpret the X-rays, what are you left with?

So now nobody's qualified to interpret x-rays?

Instead of telling us what we shouldn't assume, let's look at the things you assume to be true:

The original autopsy was a sham.
The FBI fabricated evidence.
Oswald couldn't have made the shots because reasons.

And the dumbest one being a second GSW to the back of the head that nobody saw happen, nobody at Parkland saw, or treated, and nobody at the autopsy noticed.

And how pathologists interpret x-rays is they look at them and compare with what they find when they cut the body open. In this case they removed the brain. They didn't section it out, but they didn't need to, and the family didn't want that to happen. The wound in the back exited the front, we know this from fiber evidence from the President's clothes.

So if we're all wrong then you need to man-up and lay your brilliant theory on us.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif/180px-External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif[/qimg]

So the second shooter was in the boot of the car? That's the only way I can visualise a bullet entering from that angle.

 

[bknight]

If the EOP wound doesn't imply more than one gunshot to the head, then why is every nutter so squeamish to accept the evidence for it?

You and the rest of the CT crowd have no evidence for a second head wound. Nothing you have presented in all these posts lead any reasonable person, what you refer to as nutter, to dismiss the belief of a second head wound. Nothing in the original autopsy, or the reviews have indicated a second wound.