Standard conspiracy theorist technique. First, look for any possible inconsistencies in The Official Story[tm]. If you can't find any, look for possible areas where, by pushing your interpretation of what The Official Story[tm] says to one end of the normal error margin and your interpretation of what actually happened to the other end, you can give the false impression that there's an inconsistency. Next, declare this imagined inconsistency to be real and irrefutable, and ideally dream up a set of fantasy consequences of the imagined inconsistency so you can claim that they were observed but must have been suppressed by the authorities at the time; the absence of these observations from the historical record can then be claimed as further evidence on your side. Then, conclude that this overturns the accepted view of history and your own incoherent set of mutually contradictory theories must be substituted for it, declare victory, and assert that everybody only disagrees with you because They're All In On It[tm]. The argument can then be spun out forever by demanding that everyone criticizing your confused ramblings must prove some completely different theory, ideally one based on so gross a misinterpretation of what actually happened that it's almost as fantastic as your own, otherwise yours remains unchallenged. We're well into the final stage here, where MJ responds to every criticism of his specious arguments with a demand for an exact position of the entry wound even though it has nothing to do with the post he's responding to. In his world, it's just part of the strategy.
Dave
Part and parcel of that technique as it applies to the JFK assassination is to reject anything pointing to Oswald and accepting anything that points away from Oswald - even if they are from the same source.
So anything contained in a FBI memo is rejected if it points to Oswald because 'they were part of the cover-up'. But if something in a FBI memo can be used to attempt to exonerate Oswald, why, it came down on a stone tablet directly from God and is totally believable.
We see that throughout the CT literature and it's prevalent in every conspiracy theorist that posts here.
Even the current CT who has been posting here. He'll cite anything he thinks points to a second shot to the head, no matter the source or how many decades after the assassination the witness first mentioned it, but reject anything that says there was only one shot to the head.
So Micah Java will quote some recollection by the autopsists Humes, Finck, and Boswell made 33 years after the assassination as if those recollections are totally trustworthy, but reject the observations and conclusions of the SAME MEN made on the night of the assassination and documented that weekend.
So he goes on and on about the supposed EOP wound and how this must mean two shots to the head, but ignores entirely the conclusions of the autopsists and the HSCA forensic pathology panel that there was only one shot to the head that exited the top right side of the head.
MJ also assumes JFK was struck in the head very early in the assassination (in the Zapruder film between frames 190 and 224), continued to sit upright and breathing, AND even pointed to his throat for five or six seconds until a second shot took off the top of his head - contravening everything we know about how the brain works.
Among other failings, Micah Java also ignores that JFK had a back wound with no corresponding bullet found in the body. He suggests the EOP head shot made the throat wound, but that leaves no exit wound for the shot that hit JFK in the upper back, and no bullet in the body -- meaning he's conjectured a magical bullet that just vanishes into thin air.
He's never even attempted to reconcile his various thoughts about the shooting, nor offered an overall accounting of the assassination. He's never explained why we should disbelieve the experts and trust his layman's judgment on all this, either.
He simply ignores any arguments and evidence he can't incorporate into his theory, and fails to recognize that it takes more than one data point to draw a line.
Hank
