• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Why didn't they all put the bullet wound in exactly the same spot? Or two spots if you're arguing for two bullet wounds. How many bullet holes were there?
 
MicahJava said:
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?
Click to expand...

You have yet to provide any.

ETA: ON second thought, the above isn't quite fair. The evidence you have provided so far has been of such poor quality that it's just not convincing.

You are following a common pattern here. Somebody with poor critical thinking skills reads a book or website promoting a conspiracy theory, is convinced by it, posts here, where the regular posters find it to be weak sauce indeed. The new CT finds it unbelievable that others are not convinced by the BS that they swallowed hook, line and sinker.
 
Last edited:
What he wants us to believe that somehow there was no blood from the "first" GSW, but any man who has cut himself shaving knows how improbable this would be. Come on, think about how much blood you get from a razor nick, but somehow a .22 to the back of the head was bloodless?
 
Axxman300 said:
What he wants us to believe that somehow there was no blood from the "first" GSW, but any man who has cut himself shaving knows how improbable this would be. Come on, think about how much blood you get from a razor nick, but somehow a .22 to the back of the head was bloodless?
Click to expand...

As a rule, any head wound will bleed profusely.
 
HSienzant said:
...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
Click to expand...

I vote to move on. There's so much more to talk about. Like why did LHO kill Officer J.D. Tippit and with the very same revolver try and kill Officer McDonald when he was apprehended in the Texas Theatre?

That means that LHO was, at least, actively participating in this conspiracy, right ...right?
 
bknight said:
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.
Click to expand...

What do you mean? There was supposed to be a small wound on the back of the head, and a large wound on the side of the head.
 
Axxman300 said:
What he wants us to believe that somehow there was no blood from the "first" GSW, but any man who has cut himself shaving knows how improbable this would be. Come on, think about how much blood you get from a razor nick, but somehow a .22 to the back of the head was bloodless?
Click to expand...

Consider that, if a first head shot happened at around the time Kennedy went behind the sign on the Zapruder film, you're talking about a 5 second span of time for any very nearby witnesses to see it. Also consider the lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza, like how several people in the motorcade are pictured with dark shadows covering their east sides. And you're talking about "blood" which could have only been seen in the small space between his hairline and his shirt collar.
 
MicahJava said:
Consider that, if a first head shot happened at around the time Kennedy went behind the sign on the Zapruder film, you're talking about a 5 second span of time for any very nearby witnesses to see it. Also consider the lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza, like how several people in the motorcade are pictured with dark shadows covering their east sides. And you're talking about "blood" which could have only been seen in the small space between his hairline and his shirt collar.
Click to expand...

Have I been waiting for this little tidbit, "The other GSW" happened behind the sign so Zapruder could not have seen it. Weel that is dismissed by the Nix film from the other direction. No apparent "GSW" to the head until the one that bot view as the p\President's head explodes
 
MicahJava said:
Consider that, if a first head shot happened at around the time Kennedy went behind the sign on the Zapruder film, you're talking about a 5 second span of time for any very nearby witnesses to see it. Also consider the lighting conditions in Dealey Plaza, like how several people in the motorcade are pictured with dark shadows covering their east sides. And you're talking about "blood" which could have only been seen in the small space between his hairline and his shirt collar.
Click to expand...

Jackie would have noticed.

So would the dozen people standing ten feet away where you think this mythical projectile struck.

Bottom line: It didn't happen.
 
MicahJava said:
Consider that, if a first head shot happened at around the time Kennedy went behind the sign on the Zapruder film, you're talking about a 5 second span of time for any very nearby witnesses to see it.
Click to expand...

That is a truly remarkable coincidence, don't you think? Either your supposed second shooter knew Zapruder was filming (but didn't know about Nix) and waited for that exact moment to make one shot, that he knew would be fatal, at a range you have already said is impossible, or he just happened to fire the shot at that exact time, and somehow overcame the obstacles you have placed in the way of Oswald making his shot.
Where was this second shooter, and what kind of gun was he firing? Where did he go afterwards, and do you have any witnesses, forensic evidence, or indeed evidence of any kind, to support this hypothesis?
 
Tomtomkent said:
An interesting feature on the BBC site, that touches on the LHO "Backyard Photos".

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170629-the-hidden-signs-that-can-reveal-if-a-photo-is-fake
Click to expand...

“So this is a good example of the failure of our visual system to reason correctly,” says Farid. “You can’t really fault it because at first glance, some aspects of the photo do look weird. This is an interesting example where the forensic science can show that things that people are pointing to are not actually inconsistent with reality – they are all perfectly physically plausible.”
Click to expand...

1) Of course, the problem was not just that "it looks weird but on further analysis, it all comes out ok." This was a case where total morons claimed to have actually done the "forensic science" and found "problems." And then clueless conspiracy nutters gobbled it up. All completely baseless.
2) I disagree with the premise. I don't see anything all that weird about the original pictures, except maybe his pose. But then, he's holding a gun, so how can you say what it should be?
3) They should have done the analysis on the pictures in the movie JFK. That was their problem, they didn't distort them massively before doing the analysis.
 
Axxman300 said:
Jackie would have noticed.

So would the dozen people standing ten feet away where you think this mythical projectile struck.

Bottom line: It didn't happen.
Click to expand...

Jackie would have noticed? She didn't even realize what was happening until the z313 shot happened. You are literally making stuff up. How many witnesses claimed to see the actual bullet hole in Kennedy's jacket, or his throat, or Connally's? I only know of a couple of SS Agents who claimed they literally saw him hit in the back.
 
MicahJava said:
Jackie would have noticed? She didn't even realize what was happening until the z313 shot happened. You are literally making stuff up. How many witnesses claimed to see the actual bullet hole in Kennedy's jacket, or his throat, or Connally's? I only know of a couple of SS Agents who claimed they literally saw him hit in the back.
Click to expand...

Couple of points:

You can see Jackie grab his left arm, and put her hand on his upper shoulder near where your phantom, nanothermite-subsonic .22 round struck based on your ridiculous estimate. Yes, it would have to be a nanothermite because it instantly cauterized the wound...and because like your .22 round, nanothermite doesn't exist.

Most witnesses only speak of JFK reacting, and then his head exploding, I doubt the Secret Service and FBI even asked as it is an irrelevant question since they had the President's clothes already.

The Secret Service driver of the following vehicle claimed to have seen all THREE bullets strike the car, a lot of people saw a lot of things that day, and that's why the evidence is collected and sifted to get to the bottom line.

You have to address where the .22 round went, and why it wasn't discovered in the autopsy. Not any of your pet witnesses ever spoke of a smaller second missile being removed, and disposed of in secret. You're in Badge-Man territory.:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom