Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[HSienzant]

So far, I think I've only quoted ARRB stuff when the abundance of earlier stuff wasn't good enough for you, like all those times people from the autopsy attested to a low entry wound in the back of the head.

What a crock of horse manure. You've been quoting ARRB recollections from 33 years after the fact, and I've been telling you it's not worth anything, since almost the moment you started posting here.

For example, here's a response to your post from ten months ago (September of 2016), where you were citing some out of context recollection from Andrew Purdy from the ARRB. I went back to the earlier HSCA testimony to establish your argument was based on faulty recollection from Purdy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510628&postcount=1738

You cited the faulty recollection of Purdy and claimed "There you have it, proof that Dr. Humes was coerced into agreeing with the cowlick placement of the small head wound."

You called a faulty recollection from the ARRB testimony "proof". Your claim was nonsense.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Usually, when people are referring to JFK's throat wound, they just say 'throat wound'. Calling it any kind of head wound causes confusion.

Another straw man argument. You really need to review the thread and read what you and I wrote if in fact you don't remember and aren't just playing games at this point.

I never called the throat wound a head wound. Stop putting words in my mouth and start responding to the actual points I made.

Hank

PS: I previously pointed out how Robert Harris, in the prior thread, suddenly failed to understand simple English and started throwing out straw arguments like he got straw wholesale. I see you're trying much the same approach, 'misunderstanding' my points and rebutting claims I never made. We understand why you're doing that. It's a typical CT response when they cannot rebut the actual evidence nor the arguments advanced. Harris did it (and others before him), and now you're doing it.

 

[HSienzant]

Like when?

Like the specific example cited above.

Here's another where I not only admonished you that the ARRB recollections you were citing had little value, but I even quoted Dr. Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel of the ARRB, saying how worthless those recollections were.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11615506&postcount=2252

The last thing I wanted to mention, just in terms of how we understand the evidence and how we deal with what we have is what I will call is the profound underscore profound unreliability of eyewitness testimony. You just cannot believe it. And I can tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony.
I have taken the depositions of several people who were involved in phases of the Kennedy assassination, all the doctors who performed the autopsy of President Kennedy and people who witnessed various things and they are profoundly unreliable.

You ignored it and went on quoting recollections from the ARRB.

Here's another response of mine to more of that nonsense by you:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11616620&postcount=2256

And since all the evidence points to Oswald doing exactly that, the rest is just you pulling 33-year-after-the-fact recollections out of context to pretend they agree with each other. We know they are not all possibly true... for example, Knudsen recalls seeing photos of a probe in JFK, while John Stringer, the autopsy photographer, insists no such photos were taken at any time (and later in the same interview, Stringer disavows what he supposedly told Lifton more than two decades earlier. See here (numbered page 81): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=798&search=probe#relPageId=18&tab=page ).

So, on that basis alone, one of these two men is certainly having a failure of memory. Pretending all these recollections are equally true is a pretense only, as they contradict each other. Some say there was no probe, others say it was probed with a finger, others insist a metal rod was used, some say it was a metal rod inserted in the back wound and it went nowhere, another says it was inserted in the front, others say the probe went all the way through... you appear not to understand how memory can be affected by what one has read or heard, or even how the question is worded.

Pretend some more you don't have a long history of citing recollections from the ARRB -- faulty recollections from 33 years after the assassination, and of being admonished for building your case on those recollections. You're not fooling anyone who has actually followed this thread and its predecessor thread.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hilarious. You're a CT, so contradicting yourself in the same paragraph isn't all that difficult, but the above is ridiculous. You just get through telling us how the skull was falling apart, then claim the skull was intact. You've used that phrase in the past and apparently still don't understand what's wrong with it.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> Edited for rule 12

The area of the skull around the large defect was falling apart. Most of the skull was intact, though.

You mean the forensic pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings you cited, one of those guys you insisted was NOT QUALIFIED to read x-rays? Make up your mind.

You threw out the opinion of 15 other forensic pathologists from the Clark and HSCA panels who disagree with you because they supposedly weren't qualified to read x-rays, substituted your own opinion until it was pointed out you have much less medical training that the forensic pathologists you're discarding, and then to salvage your argument, you find some other forensic pathologist you can cite, and ignore your own previous argument that forensic pathologists are not qualified to express an opinion about the x-rays? Your arguments are a joke.

You will cite anything that points to a conspiracy, and discard anything that points to Oswald, on whatever specious grounds you can find. And you will contradict your own earlier arguments when it suits your purpose.

That's the reasoning of someone who insists "Don't confuse me with the facts. I've made up my mind already."

Hank

Why should I go back to examining the situation behind every medical expert who signed off on the cowlick theory, or the ones who examined the X-rays and didn't voice support for the cowlick theory? The simple logic of the brain removal problem shows that whatever's on the skull's "cowlick area" from the X-ray isn't the wound described by the doctors. I'm not going to stop pressing that issue because you exhaust every avenue of BS you can find.

 

[Axxman300]

Same song, same dance.

Also happens to be true.

Let's look at the many problems with your evidence.

1. No evidence of a second GSW to the head.

2. No evidence of a second GSW to the head visible on any of the film or photos from the assassination.

3. No witnesses reporting a second GSW to the head.

4. The caliber of the weapon you allege was used for the second GSW is not powerful enough for a through & through would to the human body, certainly not one which hits the skull, and definitely not at the range needed to keep the shooter from view.

5. Suppose there was a second GSW to the head, at the time of the autopsy there was no reason to suppress the evidence since the investigation had only begun.

6. In the 54 years of assassination woo, nobody has ever suggested, nor alleged a second GSW to the head, and many of those people are smarter than you.

Your other huge problem is you are not able to demonstrate you understand internal medicine on a functional level, yet you feel free to try and tear apart medical testimony even after it is pointed out that the things you think are contradictory are not, and without understanding the basic context you're lost.

 

[MicahJava]

What a crock of horse manure. You've been quoting ARRB recollections from 33 years after the fact, and I've been telling you it's not worth anything, since almost the moment you started posting here.

For example, here's a response to your post from ten months ago (September of 2016), where you were citing some out of context recollection from Andrew Purdy from the ARRB. I went back to the earlier HSCA testimony to establish your argument was based on faulty recollection from Purdy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11510628&postcount=1738

Hank

You wouldn't recall that if that really really happened 15 years before? Either way, Michael Baden confirmed Purdy's story when asked about it at a conference in 2/20/2000 (Speer, Chapter 13). Gary Cornwell personally admitted to coercing Humes into agreeing with the cowlick theory in his 1998 book Real Answers. And as far back as 1978, David Lifton reported that story where he said he saw Humes' hands literally trembling in anger over his joke of a deposition.

And, Earth to Hank, Humes reverted back to maintaining that the small head wound was in near the EOP, at least as far back as Livingstone's interview in ~1989. He told the ARRB he never truly changed his mind on the location of the wound. It is a historical fact that Humes was coerced into testifying in support of the HSCA's pet theory. Even then, he gave a tiny bit of resistance when he said something like "I don't know, four inches difference is pretty hard to believe".

 

[HSienzant]

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP> Edited for rule 12

Ad hominem.

The area of the skull around the large defect was falling apart. Most of the skull was intact, though.

Sorry, no. You yourself just referenced how the skull was badly damaged and extensively fractured (and I quoted the autopist's reference to 'comminuted fractures' to you in the past, and told you to look it up if you didn't understand the word. Apparently you never did.

Here's what you just said:

When the scalp was peeled back, some skull fragments stuck to the scalp, some stuck to the dura mater or the open brain or fell into the skull/brain cavity. These pieces of skull were removed because that is the professional, proper way to do things before sticking your hands into the skull cavity and removing the brain... The skull was so badly damaged, the doctors had to do "virtually no work with a saw" to enlarge the skull cavity.

You are trying to make the autopsy doctors say something they never said, and failing spectacularly.

Why should I go back to examining the situation behind every medical expert who signed off on the cowlick theory, or the ones who examined the X-rays and didn't voice support for the cowlick theory?

Because it's clear you don't understand what they said, or are pretending not to understand, or willfully ignoring what they said to further your argument.

The simple logic of the brain removal problem shows that whatever's on the skull's "cowlick area" from the X-ray isn't the wound described by the doctors.

Which forensic pathologists agree with you on that? Oh, that's right -- those guys don't know how to interpret x-rays (except when they do) -- right?

I'm not going to stop pressing that issue because you exhaust every avenue of BS EVIDENCE you can find.

FTFY.

Hank

 

[RoboTimbo]

Like when?

Take your pick. . As long as you admit your error and don't repeat it.

Ok, now you can give your comprehensive theory for how JFK was assassinated and make sure it addresses all of the evidence. You've run away from answering questions for so long, you've surely perfected it by now, right?

 

[Axxman300]

Why should I go back to examining the situation behind every medical expert who signed off on the cowlick theory, or the ones who examined the X-rays and didn't voice support for the cowlick theory?

Because you're not grasping the truth.

The simple logic of the brain removal problem shows that whatever's on the skull's "cowlick area" from the X-ray isn't the wound described by the doctors.

Your problem is that you are basing your theory off of TWO and only TWO x-rays, and not the complete set, nor the accompanying photographs. This is clearly not enough.

You have yet to demonstrate how the wounds are inconsistent with a 6.5x52mm round, and I'll save you some time - you can't. If you can't rule out the 6.5x52mm then you can't rule out Oswald, and you can't allege a .22 caliber GSW to the head.

I'm not going to stop pressing that issue because you exhaust every avenue of BS you can find.

Please don't this is the funniest thing since Monty Python's "Dead Parrot" sketch.

 

[MicahJava]

Ad hominem.

Denial.

Sorry, no. You yourself just referenced how the skull was badly damaged and extensively fractured (and I quoted the autopist's reference to 'comminuted fractures' to you in the past, and told you to look it up if you didn't understand the word. Apparently you never did.


Here's what you just said:


You are trying to make the autopsy doctors say something they never said, and failing spectacularly.

Everything I have ever said about the nature of the skull damage is based on what people from the autopsy said. What are you even trying to do?

Because it's clear you don't understand what they said, or are pretending not to understand, or willfully ignoring what they said to further your argument.

I think you accidentally turned on your webcam stream and talked to yourself. You're on internationalskeptics.com right now.

Which forensic pathologists agree with you on that? Oh, that's right -- those guys don't know how to interpret x-rays (except when they do) -- right?

Um, Hello? Neuropathologist Joseph N. Riley?

I just found out that almost this exact point was argued by Joseph N. Riley in 1994 (Riley "holds a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, specializing in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology"):

"...A semi-circular skull defect has been identified as part of an exit wound. The location of this defect depends upon the interpretation of the autopsy photographs. The interpretations to date (by the Clark Panel and the HSCA forensics panel) are in error. These interpretations fail to appreciate basic neuroanatomical relationships (unfortunately, there was no neuroanatomist on either panel -- parietal foramina alone are enough to orient the photographs), are contradictory, and ignore the obvious (it would be irresponsible and stupid to try to remove the brain if so much skull were left, as it must be in the official interpretations of the photographs)..."

http://jfkhistory.com/riehl/What_Struck_John.html

 

[HSienzant]

You wouldn't recall that if that really really happened 15 years before? Either way, Michael Baden confirmed Purdy's story when asked about it at a conference in 2/20/2000 (Speer, Chapter 13). Gary Cornwell personally admitted to coercing Humes into agreeing with the cowlick theory in his 1998 book Real Answers. And as far back as 1978, David Lifton reported that story where he said he saw Humes' hands literally trembling in anger over his joke of a deposition.

Wait - what? Did you forget your argument AGAIN?

It was only a few posts ago you were claiming you rarely referenced ARRB testimony, and then only when we ignored earlier testimony. You did that here:

So far, I think I've only quoted ARRB stuff when the abundance of earlier stuff wasn't good enough for you...

Don't you remember saying that?

Now you're not only defending your use of ARRB recollections from 33 years after the fact, in the specific case where you ignored the actual encounter in the testimony of the HSCA from nearly two decades earlier, but also citing recollections from even further removed from the actual event - recollections from 37 years after the assassination.

And regarding the citation to Speer. He says this, but gives no citation:

In 1996 HSCA counsel Andy Purdy told the ARRB that after Humes made his comments about the panel's presumed bullet hole being nothing but "clotted blood," Dr. Charles Petty took Humes outside and yelled at him. And this wasn't just Purdy's fantasy. In a 2-20-2000 meeting with researchers, Dr. Michael Baden not only confirmed Purdy's story, but built upon it. He re-constructed Petty's words to Humes for dramatic effect, and had Petty call Humes a "God-damned jackass."

Where is that documented? This isn't the first time you've tried to salvage the obviously false recollection of Purdy, and this isn't the first time I've pointed out the claim of Speer you're citing is undocumented:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11511320&postcount=1746

You are just repeating nonsense from decades after the assassination you can't prove in any fashion... assuming that because someone remembers something, it must be true.

Didn't you just caution us to "keep in mind the fragility of human memory"?

So why defend recollections from 33 or 37 after the assassination, when the contemporaneous evidence shows those recollections are faulty?

And, Earth to Hank, Humes reverted back to maintaining that the small head wound was in near the EOP, at least as far back as Livingstone's interview in ~1989.

So even more evidence recollections from that far after the event are worthless and often self-contradictory? Thank you.

He told the ARRB he never truly changed his mind on the location of the wound. It is a historical fact that Humes was coerced into testifying in support of the HSCA's pet theory. Even then, he gave a tiny bit of resistance when he said something like "I don't know, four inches difference is pretty hard to believe".

The supposed 'historical fact' -- did Humes ever admit to being coerced? Did anyone every admit to coercing him? Or is this just part of the Gospel of Saint Oswald? You know, things conspiracy theorists say to each other to assure themselves Oswald really was innocent?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Gary Cornwell personally admitted to coercing Humes into agreeing with the cowlick theory in his 1998 book Real Answers. And as far back as 1978, David Lifton reported that story where he said he saw Humes' hands literally trembling in anger over his joke of a deposition.

Humes said Cornwell was full of crap, plus the guy wrote a book to cash in, not to illuminate the truth. The same is true with Lifton's account - it never happened.

It is a historical fact that Humes was coerced into testifying in support of the HSCA's pet theory.

Hardly historical fact. Just because a tribe of idiots believe something to be true doesn't make it so, and his account hasn't changed much over the years - only the words CTists have put in his mouth by twisting his words.

Doesn't change the fact that JFK was struck by two 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds, and the evidence takes care of itself from there on.

 

[MicahJava]

Wait - what? Did you forget your argument AGAIN?

It was only a few posts ago you were claiming you rarely referenced ARRB testimony, and then only when we ignored earlier testimony. You did that here:

Don't you remember saying that?

Now you're not only defending your use of ARRB recollections fro 33 years after the fact, in the specific case where you ignored the actual encounter in the testimony of the HSCA from nearly two decades earlier, but also citing recollections from even further removed from the actual event - recollections from 37 years after the assassination.

Didn't you just caution us to "keep in mind the fragility of human memory"?

So why defend recollections from 33 or 37 after the assassination, when the contemporaneous evidence shows those recollections are faulty?

Dr. Andy Purdy and Dr. Michael Baden were recalling something 33-37 years before? Oh wait, 1996 and 2000 are 18 and 22 years after. Do you think Purdy and Baden were JFK's autopsy doctors in 1963? I bet you wish they were. The real ones told a different story.

So even more evidence recollections from that far after the event are worthless and often self-contradictory? Thank you.

Maybe you're right. Maybe we should look at what the official autopsy report from way back when said. Oh no, it says the wound was near the EOP. Maybe we should check to make sure the word "slightly above" isn't another word for "four inches above". Oh no, the doctors spent the rest of their lives saying it doesn't.

The supposed 'historical fact' -- did Humes ever admit to being coerced? Did anyone every admit to coercing him? Or is this just part of the Gospel of Saint Oswald? You know, things conspiracy theorists say to each other to assure themselves Oswald really was innocent?

Hank

Cornwell admitted to coercing Humes in his book Real Answers.

 

[Axxman300]

Real Answers[/I].

Humes says this is a lie.

 

[HSienzant]

Denial.

No, saying I don't know how to read is really ad hominem. The only one in denial about that is you.

Everything I have ever said about the nature of the skull damage is based on what people from the autopsy said.

Yes, but you're like a six year old trying to play the violin in Carnegie Hall before a large audience by putting thr violin to your shoulder for the first time ever. Just because you can read the notes doesn't mean you can play them. You are telling us you know better than master violinists who have played Carnegie Hall -- in this case the forensic pathologists who served on the HSCA and Clark panels. Your interpretations of the evidence don't mean squat.

What are you even trying to do?

Point out that you are ignoring the opinion of experts and substituting your own opinion as even better, pretending you know more than they do. Your interpretations of the evidence are meaningless, and once again, we don't care what you think.

I think you accidentally turned on your webcam stream and talked to yourself. You're on internationalskeptics.com right now.

Once again, we don't care what you think. Not sure why you have such difficulty understanding that.

Um, Hello? Neuropathologist Joseph N. Riley?

I see nothing in what he said that agrees with you. Can you quote the part where he says the bullet hit low in the head and exited the throat? I know you've assured me I'm a poor reader, so it must be in there somewhere. Can you cite his precise words to that end?

Thanks so much.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Andy Purdy and Dr. Michael Baden were recalling something 33-37 years before? Oh wait, 1996 and 2000 are 18 and 22 years after. Do you think Purdy and Baden were JFK's autopsy doctors in 1963? I bet you wish they were. The real ones told a different story.

Still ignoring what I wrote and rebutting straw men of your own design. You do this because you cannot rebut what I wrote, so you make up pretend arguments to attack. Bob Harris did the same thing repeatedly here.

Please stop pretending I said something I didn't. I put their recollections in the appropriate time frame -- about 20 years after the fact. I also put them in the timeframe of the assassination, about 33 & 37 years after the assassination. If all you've got is strawmen to rebut, you don't have an argument.

Now you're not only defending your use of ARRB recollections fro [from] 33 years after the fact, in the specific case where you ignored the actual encounter in the testimony of the HSCA from nearly two decades earlier, but also citing recollections from even further removed from the actual event - recollections from 37 years after the assassination.

I apologize if my putting these recollections you're citing in both the timeframe of the actual assassination (33 - 37 years later) AND the time of the original testimony to the HSCA (two decades later) confused you so greatly.

Now, with that cleared up, try addressing the points I actually made... the 1978 HSCA testimony confirms that what Purdy claims to recall by 1993 is false, and never happened. He is remembering the nonsense he read in a conspiracy book, rather than the actual event, and the 1978 testimony proves that. And your pretense that you rarely cited ARRB testimony in lieu of the earlier testimony is likewise nonsense. In the above, you are claiming the ARRB recollections in 1993 (and even later recollections in 2000) are better evidence than the actual testimony as transcribed in 1978.

Maybe you're right. Maybe we should look at what the official autopsy report from way back when said. Oh no, it says the wound was near the EOP. Maybe we should check to make sure the word "slightly above" isn't another word for "four inches above". Oh no, the doctors spent the rest of their lives saying it doesn't.

The problem is the autopsy doctors weren't precise and didn't specify what 'slightly above' meant. It's your presumption that means less than an inch. The hard evidence of the extant autopsy materials was examined by numerous forensic pathologists and they determined it was approximately four inches. Your insistence to the contrary doesn't mean much next to the opinions of experts.

Cornwell admitted to coercing Humes in his book Real Answers.

Can you cite that? You know, with a quote of an admission by Cornwell that he subverted the truth to aid in a coverup? Or are you taking something out of context again?

None of this is new. You're just recycling your old disproven arguments from months ago.

For example, we covered all this ground in more detail in the past here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11858660&postcount=66

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Humes says this is a lie.

Where?

 

[MicahJava]

As neuropathologist Joseph N. Riley points out, the HSCA-endorsed interpretations of the open-cranium photographs are a joke. They literally have the brain being removed through a five-inch skull cavity, small enough to see the alleged parietal entry and the alleged frontal exit visible in the same photograph.

 

[MicahJava]

This is the HSCA medical panel's prevailing interpretation of the open-cranium photographs, right?

What's wrong with this picture? The hole is too small to fit a brain through. There's no way that could work unlesss you want to say they somehow put skull fragments back together before taking the picture. The open-cranium photographs must show something else. Can I get a straight answer from everybody acknowledging this?

 

[HSienzant]

As neuropathologist Joseph N. Riley points out, the HSCA-endorsed interpretations of the open-cranium photographs are a joke.

Where does he say that? Quote him saying that.... in context.
Provide a link to his full statement.

They literally have the brain being removed through a five-inch skull cavity

He says that? Or that's YOU creatively re-interpreting his statement? If he said it, quote him saying it.

small enough to see the alleged parietal entry and the alleged frontal exit visible in the same photograph.

Who says that? Riley? Quote him. In context.

You don't get to just summarize his claims. We've seen how you've summarized claims in the past - they are all your inventive re-interpretation of the testimony.

Hank