abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Don't forget the "silencer" nonsense.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
HSienzant
Philosopher
Added this: "And there were more than three shots, but some of them were silenced and fired by unseen gunmen who fired unseen weapons which were never heard and left no bullets, shells, or weapons behind, almost like they were never there at all..." to the above... thanks!
Hank
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
And what evidence has he presented for this little tid bit? LOL Just idle speculation and mis-understanding of the paper trail that exists
HSienzant
Philosopher
His "evidence", as I understand it, consists of:
(a) His misunderstanding of how JFK's brain was removed from the head of JFK at the autopsy,
(b) combined with his misunderstanding of how much damage the cerebellum suffered,
(c) combined with his misunderstanding of what Oswald could accomplish with his weapon at 88 yards,
(d) combined with his misunderstanding of what the evidence indicates regarding where the bullet struck JFK on the back of the head,
(e) combined with his misunderstanding of how to read X-Rays and what they show of a bullet track in the neck.
There might be more misunderstandings, but I think I hit the major ones.
Regarding the point (e) above, it's more than a little funny that he claims all the forensic pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials aren't qualified to read X-Rays, but then turns around and treats us to his own layman's unqualified opinion of what the supposed dark line in the X-Rays means, what caused it, and what the source was. In other words, it takes a lot more background than forensic pathologists have to read an X-Ray, but also none at all - even a layman like MicahJava can do it. Unless they actually have training in that subject matter, like forensic pathologists. Then they don't have enough.
As I pointed out earlier:
== quote ==
Resolved: Conspiracy theorists ignore expert opinion and discard any evidence contrary to their beliefs to argue for their unique interpretation of the evidence. They cannot cite any expert opinion that establishes their interpretation, and they rely on logical fallacies like personal incredulity and straw man arguments to keep their interpretation afloat. They cannot explain the overlying structure of their supposed conspiracy, or why conspirators would want to do what they claim, nor can the explain how the evidence all fits together, even assuming their interpretation is correct. They ignore contradictions in their own assertions, and pretend their interpretation is the only one that makes sense.
== quote ==
His arguments make no sense, he cites his own layman's opinion as if it's gospel, he ignores expert testimony when inconvenient, he takes quotes out of context, he utilizes faulty recollections from 33 years after the fact even when more contemporaneous statements that conflict with his interpretation exist, he ignores any arguments he cannot rebut, he ignores the conflicts in his own assertions, and he constantly shifts the burden of proof.
And he expects that kind of performance art to be convincing.
It is not.
Hank
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
As I indicated misunderstanding of the paper trail real evidence.
HSienzant
Philosopher
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Oh no, you dropped the pieces I gave you earlier. I'll help you pick them up. Let me copypasta a previous comment I made to you:
Hank, I'm afraid your idea- that the autopsy doctors just left portions of skull bone stuck to the scalp all the way through the brain removal process and even until the torso dissection, and THIS is how Finck saw the entry wound on the back of of the head- is simply wrong, and you cannot sleep at night honestly thinking that is the answer.
This is from Finck's HSCA 3/11/1978 testimony:
Dr. PETTY. All right. Now let me recapitulate as I understand what you said here. One, you arrived at about 8:30 in the evening, give or take a little bit. Two, at the time you arrived you believed that the brain had already been removed.
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. What was the situation that was verbally presented to you at the time you got there? How many gunshot wounds were there there that had been discovered at that time when you walked in the room? What was your briefing, in other words?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I remember what I saw, the wounds I saw.
Dr. PETTY. All right.
Dr. FINCK. I interpreted myself but now to say what was the briefing at the time in detail, I unfortunately cannot do it. I remember, however, that on the phone Dr. Humes told me that he had good X ray films of the head. That I remember. What he told me when I arrived in the autopsy room in addition to that, I don't remember.
Dr. PETTY. All right. What wounds did you see when you. first arrived there? Let me put it that way. I am not trying to drive you into any corner at all, I just want to know what. wounds were there to the best of your knowledge when you got there.
Dr. FINCK. I saw a wound in the upper back/lower neck on the right side which I identified as a wound of entry. It had soiled, inverted edges which in non-technical language it means turned inward. I interpreted that wound as a wound of entry. The incision of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas we examined but I did not see a wound of exit along that tracheotomy incision and that was the puzzle, having a wound of entry with no corresponding wound of exit, and that was one of the reasons for asking for additional X ray films which I requested. So that is for the wound of the upper back/ lower neck on the right side. In addition, I saw in the back of the head on the right side a wound corresponding to that wound of the scalp. I observed a hole in the skull. That hole in the skull in the back of the head showed no crater when examined from the outside of the skull but when I examined the inside of the skull at the level of that hole in the bone I saw a crater and to me that was a positive unquestionable finding identifying a wound of entry in the back of the head.
Dr. LOCUVAM. Dr. Finck, is that symmetrical, inward beveled?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. I don't remember.
Dr. ROSE. Were there fracture lines radiating out from that beveled wound of the back of the skull?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember. We would have to refer to the autopsy report.
note: What Finck doesn't remember is significant here. Notice how he doesn't immediately clarify that the area of skull with the entry crater was separated. Once again, he is clearly indicating here that he is talking about the wound still being in the intact, empty cranium.
Dr. COE. If I understood you, you said that the head post had already been done at the time you arrived.
Dr. FINCK. The brain had been removed.
Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?
Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.
Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?
Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.
Dr. COE. Did you see the wound of entry in a separate piece of bone that was handed to you or was that still hooked on to the body?
Dr. FINCK. It was definitely attached to the body, the wound of entry.
And Finck even talks about taking photographs of the entry crater in the intact, empty cranium!
Dr. BADEN. Were you present when these color photographs were taken of the head?
Dr. FINCK. I was at least for some of them. I remember positively that a Navy photographer took pictures and I wanted pictures of the crater in particular because this is a positive finding for a wound of entry in the back of the head. So I wanted a picture showing no crater from the outside and a clear-cut crater from the inside, but I don't know.
Dr. COE. You mean some of these pictures were taken after the brain had been removed?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know. The sequence of photographs, I was there when some of the photographs were taken.
Dr. COE. I am a little confused because you said before the brain had been removed before you came.
Dr. FINCK. As far as I remember.
Dr. COE. Then if you were there when photographs were taken of the head, it must have been after the brain had been removed.
Dr. WECHT. What Dr. Coe means is before you stated when you got there the brain had been removed, right?
Dr. FINCK. I think so.
...
Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup of that same spot. You previously mentioned that your attempt here was to photograph the crater, I think was the word that you used.
Dr. FINCK. In the bone, not in the scalp, because to determine the direction of the projectile the bone is a very good source of information so I emphasize the photographs of the crater seen from inside the skull. What you are showing me is soft tissue wound in the scalp.
Dr. PETTY. I won't comment. I just want to be sure that this is what you feel is the in-shoot wound and that is near the hairline and not the -- I hate to use any term to describe it but not the object near the central portion of the film near the end of the ruler.
Mr. PURDY. The red spot in the cowlick area. Dr. Finck, upon examining these two areas, what opinion do you have as to what, if anything, that red spot in the upper portions?
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is.
Mr. PURDY. We have here a black and white blowup, enlargement No. 16, of the upper area just to the right of the centimeter ruler. I wonder if that gives you any information as to whether you believe -- as to what you believe that could be.
Dr. FINCK. Does that correspond to this photograph here?
Mr. PURDY. Yes.
Dr. FINCK. I don't know what it is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy?
Mr. PURDY. They are initialed. No. 43 here is a copy made from the original, which is initialed by Dr. Boswell. These were initialed at the time of the review and they were turned over to the Archives. Perhaps it would be appropriate soon to show the X ray which corresponds to this region.
Dr. PETTY. May I ask one other question, perhaps two. If I understand you correctly, Dr. Finck, you wanted particularly to have a photograph made of the external aspect of the skull from the back to show that there was no cratering to the outside of the skull.
Dr. FINCK. Absolutely.
Dr. PETTY. Did you ever see such a photograph?
Dr. FINCK. I don't think so and I brought with me memorandum referring to the examination of photographs in 1967 when I was recalled from Vietnam. I was asked to look at photographs and as I recall there were two blank 4 by 5 transparencies; in other words, two photographs that had been exposed but with no image and as I can recall I never saw pictures of the outer aspect of the wound of entry in the back of the head and inner aspect in the skull in order to show a crater although I was there asking for these photographs. I don't remember seeing those photographs.
Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?
Dr. FINCK. Yes.
Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?
Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.
Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?
Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.
Dr. BADEN. Yes.
Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.
Dr. PETTY. Did you see the brain?
Dr. FINCK. I saw the brain.
Is that enough, or do I have to keep listing all of the times Finck made this perfectly crystal clear? How many other times has he told the same story? And spare me a diatribe about 15-year-old memory. Finck is saying nothing different from what he told the Warren Commission in 1964, or to General Blumberg in 1965, or at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969. He's just reaffirming the obvious so the Hanks of the world can't distort what happened.
And this comment:
Dr. Finck is a great witness because he makes sure to say when he doesn't remember something. Luckily, most of what he doesn't recall is mostly meaningless relative to him. But he remembers the important stuff. Like here, on 5/24/1996 at his ARRB deposition:
Q: In the autopsy protocol, copy of which I have shown you before, that wound is identified as being 2-1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance.
A: Yes.
Q: Is that your recollection of where the entrance wound was?
A: From the record, yes.
Q: In addition to that entrance wound, there was also an exit wound. Do you recall that?
A: [Perusing document] Close to midnight, portions of cranial vault - portions of cranial vault are received from Dallas, Texas, and identified an exit. Yes.
Q: Okay. We have just discussed, or identified two separate holes that were in the President's head. Were there any other holes besides the exit wound and the entrance wound?
A: No.
Q: Three holes or just two?
A: Two.
Q: And which bone was the entrance wound located in?
A: The occipital bone. It was recorded as occipital. We should refer to the record for that.
Q: Was the entrance wound a hole that perforated the occipital bone, or is it one that split the occipital bone such that there would be,for example, a half circle with part of -
A: No, it perforated, I was able to see a crater from the inside. I said that right here [indicating].
Q: You are referring to Exhibit 28.
A: Right occipital, lacerated occipital corresponds to the wound. "The skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone. On that basis I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound of entrance." This is unquestionable.
Q: And so just so I am clear, I understand that you have identified as being beveled but I want to know whether the wound is a circular wound in the sense that the shell, the skull all around the wound is intact, or is part of the adjacent skull blown away from the portion of the entrance wound?
A: It was a perforation of the occipital bone.
Q: In his testimony before the Assassination Records Review Board, Dr. Boswell stated that - and his words will speak for themselves, so this is my recharacterization of them - he said that you needed to place a loose piece of fragment back onto the skull before you could identify the full circle for the entrance wound. Is it your current recollection that Dr. Boswell would be mistaken in that regard?
A: You are referring to the wound of entrance?
Q: Wound of entrance.
A: I don't remember. I don't know what you are saying. I have a clear picture of that wound of entrance. I don't understand what you said about the wound of entrance. I have to do what with the wound of entrance?
Q: That in order to see the full circle of the wound of entrance, you would need to put a piece of skull fragment back into place in order to identify the full circle for the entrance.
A: I don't remember that.
Clear as day. Do you see how Dr. Finck is specifically denying your idea of how it may have happened?
I usually just pass through this thread but the above is stupidity of a different order. ice bullets have been tried, shockingly they vaporize on firing. if a wax bullet could be somehow coated so it didn't vaporize or ignite it would either splash on contact or at best behave like a bean bag round. As for 'dissolving' metal, this is just bloody minded nonsense.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Earlier I only tallied up about twelve experts who were either forensic pathologists or radiologists who agreed with the cowlick entry. How many radiologists agree with it? How many forensic radiologists agree with it?
And no, you do not have to be qualified to interpret gunshot wound X-rays very well if you are a forensic pathologist. A forensic pathologist's job is to determine the cause of death at autopsy. See where Dr. Finck was asked to identify an entry wound on the X-rays, to which he replied "I always refer to the radiologists on that".
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Okay, well that's Sibert/O'Neil talking, not Micahjava. Did you read the part about the undercharged round? Around the time Sibert and O'Neil left the autopsy, the prevailing hypothesis was that a bullet somehow only barely penetrated Kennedy's back and then naturally squeezed out of the same entry wound it created.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I'm sorry, earlier you said that you agreed the dark squiggly line probably represented a bullet track, and not air pushed between the tissues up into the neck as the result of the tracheotomy procedure (which is the favored official explanation).
The dark squiggly line is clear as day for anybody to see for themselves where it exists within the body.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
What? It is true that exit wounds can be very small if they are created by very low-velocity bullets. This is from the Warren Commission testimony of Dr. Ronald Jones of Parkland hospital:
Mr. SPECTER - In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following, "Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted as well as a small hole in anterior midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound. What led you to the thought that it was a bullet entrance wound, sir?
Dr. JONES - The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than this had done, and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of an explosive type of exit wound, with more tissue destruction than this appeared to have on superficial examination.
Mr. SPECTER - Would it be consistent, then, with an exit wound, but of low velocity, as you put it?
Dr. JONES - Yes; of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your experience, Doctor, if any, in the treatment of bullet wounds?
Dr. JONES - During our residency here we have approximately 1 complete year out of the 4 years on the trauma service here, and this is in addition to the 2 months that we spend every other day and every other night in the emergency room during our first year, so that we see a tremendous number of bullet wounds here in that length of time, sometimes as many as four and five a night.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had any formal training in bullet wounds?
Dr. JONES - No.
Mr. SPECTER - Have you ever had occasion to observe a bullet wound which was inflicted by a missile at approximate size of a 6.5 ram. bullet which passed through the body of a person and exited from a neck without striking anything but soft tissue from the back through the neck, where the missile came from a weapon of the muzzle velocity of 2,000 feet per second, and the victim was in the vicinity of 160 to 250 feet from the weapon?
Dr. JONES - No; I have not seen a missile of this velocity exit in the anterior portion of the neck. I have seen it in other places of the body, but not in the neck.
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, don't bother. This was discussed in detail in the past, and I rebutted all your arguments by pointing out the problems with it.
I did that here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11888746#post11888746
As I've noted in the past, you don't get a free fringe reset just because you didn't like the way the discussion was resolved the first time. We don't need to go through it again. You lost. You quote the autopsy doctors saying things that confirm my points, and pretend they somehow confirm yours.
That is merely your pretense, and doesn't make your interpretations of the evidence true.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, that's you talking. You alluded earlier to something supposed said by Sibert or O'Neill, but never quoted it. Do you remember saying this?
I'd loved to see you establish you didn't make that nonsense up.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Not seeing where it points to anywhere but the upper back. And I don't recall saying I agreed that it was a bullet track. Can you cite the evidence for both claims, or are you just making stuff up again?
And now you're back to claiming anyone can read X-Rays, even laymen like MicahJava or me, and reach the correct conclusions, but earlier you complained that the forensic pathologists on the HSCA forensic pathology panel aren't qualified to read X-Rays and reach a proper conclusion:
Can you reconcile that for us?
HHank
Last edited:
Nope you brought them up. Did you spend even one minute checking the plausibility of these ideas before posting about them?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Last edited by a moderator:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I have not researched high-tech ammunition, or the history thereof because so far I don't think it's very necessary tool to explain the shooting. I just mentioned it for a second.
HSienzant
Philosopher
Sorry, that's a hand-waving away of the rebuttal. That's not a rebuttal. That's just tap-dancing around the issues you need to address.
And calling it "crap" doesn't make it so.
And suggesting I'm dishonest (QUOTE: "How about an honest response") isn't anything other than ad hominem. Another logical fallacy by you.
You still lose. In so many ways.
Here's one more.
And that rebuttal that you claim you've forgotten all about happened only a month ago. Contrast that with the 33-year-after-the-fact recollections you like to data-mine and like to pretend are meaningful.
You can't remember what happened six days less than a month ago, yet you pretend what Humes said he recalled 33 years after the assassination is somehow meaningful.
And then you pretend what you recall about what Sibert & O'Neill said about ice bullets and the like (they said nothing) is somehow meaningful, then claim it wasn't important at all when you cannot cite for that nonsense.
Hilarious. You contradict yourself at ever turn.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
You made a claim you can't back up.
You have a habit of doing that.
You lose again, in multiple ways. Once for the original claim, another time for repeating it, claiming it came from Sibert & O''Neill, and a third time for the loss of credibility suffered from constantly making up stuff you cannot document. You have no credibility left.
Here's the posts and responses where you apparently felt compelled to first bring up the ice bullet nonsense.
Essentially, by the introduction of your falsehood, you failed to respond to any of the points raised initially and failed to admit your argument was wrong, sending us down the rabbit hole of your own design to deflect the conversation once more.
And the bottom line, now that you're cornered on this? Why, what's the fuss, it's not at all important.
If it's not important, why'd you bring it up if not to deflect the conversation?
We're on to you.
When stuck and you have no rebuttal, you apparently make up stuff.
Hank
Last edited:
- Status