Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[BStrong]

Are you seriuosly going to suggest that you are unaware of the synonyms of FIFY/ FTFY? Seriously?

Well, What more can be said.

MJ loves silly word play.

 

[bknight]

HSienzant, you cannot use "the government thinks it was one shot" as evidence for the cowlick entry wound. The evidence supports the EOP location for the entry wound. The doctors used a ruler to make measurements of the wounds on the body, and they wrote down that the entry wound was "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". That contemporary measurement, written on notes taken as the body was laying right there, is where an entry near the EOP was established. Not 33-years-later, although it doesn't help you that 33-year-late information refutes as the same-day information does.

No, the 33-year-late information does not refute the original information, except in your and whomever you are following minds.

If the government says there was only one bullet that struck the head, while the actual forensic evidence presented by Humes et. al shows that it almost certainly cannot be true, you should start wondering if you live in a world of propaganda rather than trying to move the wounds around to fit your desired scenario.

Again the evidence that Humes et al shows exactly one and only one wound to the head in addition to one in the back. You are the only one convoluting more than one shot to the head.

 

[Axxman300]

Yes... The Zapruder Film shows the top of the head become damaged (for some, it may be hard to see under the hair, but it's there, above the red blob indicating the bone flap seen on the autopsy photos). You are assuming that what you are seeing is related to the entry wound rather than the large exit wound. Your alleged entry wound location was on the top of the head, besides the large defect. So you are just using your imagination.

No, I am interpreting the visual information with the rest of the evidence.

What is visible is the skull buckling then exploding out the front. The shock wave moves back to front. If the film had a higher frame rate it would be more obvious, but as it stands it's solid enough.

Also, back spatter does occur when the missile exits. Debris ejected from an exit wound is called forward spatter. You can have both back spatter and forward spatter with one missile wound.

You post the video yet you do not watch the video.

No back-splatter from the entry wound. Epic splatter from the exit wound.

 

[Axxman300]

If the government says there was only one bullet that struck the head, while the actual forensic evidence presented by Humes et. al shows that it almost certainly cannot be true, you should start wondering if you live in a world of propaganda rather than trying to move the wounds around to fit your desired scenario.

The forensic evidence is clear:

One GSW to the back exiting the throat.

One (and ONLY ONE) GSW to the back of the head.

Nowhere in the autopsy is a second missile found, discussed, theorized, or pursued. To say otherwise is a lie.

Your inability to grasp basic ballistics is only dwarfed by your gross ineptitude when it comes to forensics.

Again, how is the 6.5x52mm round NOT capable of causing the wound to the head?

 

[HSienzant]

HSienzant, you cannot use "the government thinks it was one shot" as evidence for the cowlick entry wound.

Straw man argument. You keep misstating what I said merely to reiterate your own silly point.

What I actually said was: "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."

I said nothing about the government. I said nothing about what you call the cowlick entry wound. Your entire argument is merely your attempt to ignore my point entirely while pretending to rebut it.

The evidence supports the EOP location for the entry wound.

Exactly what I said: "So he goes on and on about the supposed EOP wound and how this must mean two shots to the head..."

The doctors used a ruler to make measurements of the wounds on the body, and they wrote down that the entry wound was "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP". That contemporary measurement, written on notes taken as the body was laying right there, is where an entry near the EOP was established.

What was the precise measurement given for how high above the EOP the wound was? What did they note in their contemporaneous records, and what's the measurement in the autopsy report for how high above the EOP the wound was? Do tell us.

Not 33-years-later, although it doesn't help you that 33-year-late information refutes as the same-day information does.

You went on and on quoting from Humes 33-years-later recollections, pretending they were somehow meaningful, when he protested (and you ignored) numerous times he didn't recall.

If the government says there was only one bullet that struck the head, while the actual forensic evidence presented by Humes et. al shows that it almost certainly cannot be true, you should start wondering if you live in a world of propaganda rather than trying to move the wounds around to fit your desired scenario.

You still haven't proven the "While" phrase you conjecture (bolded and italicized for your convenience in finding the phrase I reference).

And you can phrase it any way you like, but conjecturing up your own layman's conclusions and then pretending they overrule the expert conclusions still won't work here. But that is exactly what you are doing above.

Here's what you should have written, which would be far more fair to the evidence: "If some conspiracy theorist with no background in the required fields says there were two bullets that struck the head while the actual forensic evidence presented by Humes et. al shows that it almost certainly cannot be true, you should start wondering if you live in a world of conspiracy theorist propaganda rather than trying to change the number of wounds to fit your desired scenario."

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You post the video yet you do not watch the video.

No back-splatter from the entry wound. Epic splatter from the exit wound.

Back spatter disperses faster than forward spatter.

But I do not want to say here that the forward spray on the Zapruder Films (and perhaps the Nix, Muchmmore films) is significant evidence of where the bullet struck.

From Martin Hay's review of Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton and David Von Pein:

It goes without saying that the authors believe the only bullet to strike JFK's skull came from the rear. In support of this contention they write that the Zapruder film "clearly shows the President's head bursting open in the front and the right...a large flap of scalp hangs down from the large exit wound...And, as HSCA pathologists testified, the particulate matter (brain tissue) from the President's head, after the head shot, is spraying forwards, as can be seen from a high-contrast photo of frame 313 of the Zapruder film." (pgs. 98-99) From this it appears that Ayton and Von Pein are under the impression that the massive wound on the right side of JFK's head was an exit wound and the cloud of matter seen in Z-313 is exit spray. Neither of these things is true.

As ballistics expert, and Warren Commission apologist, Larry Sturdivan, stated in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths; a book Ayton and Von Pein cite but either did not read or failed to comprehend; "the explosive rupture of the side of the president's head over his ear was not caused by an exiting bullet fragment." (Sturdivan, p. 186) In actual fact, the explosion, which occurred after the bullet had already exited the skull, was a typical "Kronlein Schuss," named for the German ballistics expert who first demonstrated the effect with clay-filled skulls. The energy deposited as the bullet passed through the brain imparted a momentum so great that a temporary cavity was formed. Consequently, a violent wave of hydraulic pressure was applied to the cranium at which point fractures radiating from the point of entrance gave way to the brain fluid and tissue which burst upwards through the cracks. As Sturdivan explained, "the center of the blown-out area of the president's skull was at the midpoint of the trajectory; not at the exit point." (Ibid, p. 171) Sturdivan noted that the blood and matter seen in Z-313 "appears to be directed upward and only slightly forward...Since the tears [in the scalp] were so extensive, the spray went in all directions, just like the skull fragments did." (Ibid, p. 175) A "similar explosion would have taken place" whichever direction the bullet was travelling. (Ibid, p. 171) As Dr. Donald Thomas put it in his book on the Kennedy assassination forensic evidence, Hear No Evil, "While the Kronlein Schuss effect explains why the brain matter and bony fragments flew upward, it does not reveal the direction of the bullet." (Thomas, p. 351) As medical expert Milicent Cranor, based upon her reading of authority Dr. Vincent DiMaio, has written, another term for this is cavitation.

The cloud of matter in Z-313 was not exit spray, and the hole which encompassed most of the right side of Kennedy's head was not an exit wound. In actual fact, JFK's lead pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, testified to the Commission that after a "careful examination of the margins of the large bone defect" the doctors were unable to find a point of exit on the skull. He attributed this failure to the fact that there was a large amount of missing bone. (2H353)

 

[MicahJava]

What was the precise measurement given for how high above the EOP the wound was? What did they note in their contemporaneous records, and what's the measurement in the autopsy report for how high above the EOP the wound was? Do tell us.

Why? The doctors repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly, as any reader user using common sense would understand. Think the doctors were covering their own mistakes? Let's select from a wheel of the five or six other EOP witnesses. How about Dr. Charles Boyers? Oops, he told the HSCA the entry wound was near the EOP as well. And wouldn't you know it, the HSCA interview summary omitted that part.

Let me put it this way: The EOP wound was low enough in the head to successfully remove a nearly complete brain without disturbing that part of the skull, as Dr. Finck always said.

You went on and on quoting from Humes 33-years-later recollections, pretending they were somehow meaningful, when he protested (and you ignored) numerous times he didn't recall.

When have I quoted Humes' JAMA or ARRB stuff unless it was to reaffirm what he already said way before? The only other time I can think of is when i quoted him to the ARRB saying that the posterior cranial fossa was fractured.

 

[BStrong]

Back spatter disperses faster than forward spatter.

snipped

Cite, and you still haven't answered my earlier question:

What's backspatter in relation to the JFK GSW?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11971226&postcount=1367

 

[Axxman300]

Back spatter disperses faster than forward spatter.

But I do not want to say here that the forward spray on the Zapruder Films (and perhaps the Nix, Muchmmore films) is significant evidence of where the bullet struck.

So you're a forensics expert now?

It's on film. This is not some hypothetical CT experiment, you can watch it.

The next problem is that there should be blood pulsing out of the back of JFK's head from your mythical second GSW, and there ain't none.

It goes without saying that the authors believe the only bullet to strike JFK's skull came from the rear. In support of this contention they write that the Zapruder film "clearly shows the President's head bursting open in the front and the right...a large flap of scalp hangs down from the large exit wound...And, as HSCA pathologists testified, the particulate matter (brain tissue) from the President's head, after the head shot, is spraying forwards, as can be seen from a high-contrast photo of frame 313 of the Zapruder film." (pgs. 98-99) From this it appears that Ayton and Von Pein are under the impression that the massive wound on the right side of JFK's head was an exit wound and the cloud of matter seen in Z-313 is exit spray. Neither of these things is true.

Martin Hay is full of it. That's exactly what happened.

As ballistics expert, and Warren Commission apologist, Larry Sturdivan, stated in his 2005 book, The JFK Myths; a book Ayton and Von Pein cite but either did not read or failed to comprehend; "the explosive rupture of the side of the president's head over his ear was not caused by an exiting bullet fragment." (Sturdivan, p. 186)

Sure it was, they recovered it from the front footwell of the limo.

In actual fact, the explosion, which occurred after the bullet had already exited the skull, was a typical "Kronlein Schuss," named for the German ballistics expert who first demonstrated the effect with clay-filled skulls. The energy deposited as the bullet passed through the brain imparted a momentum so great that a temporary cavity was formed. Consequently, a violent wave of hydraulic pressure was applied to the cranium at which point fractures radiating from the point of entrance gave way to the brain fluid and tissue which burst upwards through the cracks. As Sturdivan explained, "the center of the blown-out area of the president's skull was at the midpoint of the trajectory; not at the exit point." (Ibid, p. 171)

Yes and no.

The bullet was in and out in under one second.

The best part of this? IT DESCRIBES CAVITATION...something you insist didn't happen, and yet here you are throwing it out and undermining your position.

A "similar explosion would have taken place" whichever direction the bullet was travelling. (Ibid, p. 171) As Dr. Donald Thomas put it in his book on the Kennedy assassination forensic evidence, Hear No Evil, "While the Kronlein Schuss effect explains why the brain matter and bony fragments flew upward, it does not reveal the direction of the bullet." (Thomas, p. 351) As medical expert Milicent Cranor, based upon her reading of authority Dr. Vincent DiMaio, has written, another term for this is cavitation.

That's debatable. The head wound has been recreated enough times to confirm a high angle rear entry.

All this just points back to the 6.5x52mm round, and there was only one Carcano in Dealey Plaza.

 

[Axxman300]

Why? The doctors repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly, as any reader user using common sense would understand. Think the doctors were covering their own mistakes?

The doctors were covering anything. Unlike CTists, doctors (and other scientists) only use precise terminology when they have the verified data in front of them, so they use words like "Slightly", "Approximately", and other generalities because it's the honest thing to do.

Let me put it this way: The EOP wound was low enough in the head to successfully remove a nearly complete brain without disturbing that part of the skull, as Dr. Finck always said.

You don't know that. You have no photographic evidence of that. You have nothing concrete to base this claim on.

 

[Elagabalus]

Why? The doctors repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly, as any reader user using common sense would understand. Think the doctors were covering their own mistakes? Let's select from a wheel of the five or six other EOP witnesses. How about Dr. Charles Boyers? Oops, he told the HSCA the entry wound was near the EOP as well. And wouldn't you know it, the HSCA interview summary omitted that part.

Let me put it this way: The EOP wound was low enough in the head to successfully remove a nearly complete brain without disturbing that part of the skull, as Dr. Finck always said.



When have I quoted Humes' JAMA or ARRB stuff unless it was to reaffirm what he already said way before? The only other time I can think of is when i quoted him to the ARRB saying that the posterior cranial fossa was fractured.

Uh-huh, so why do you think LHO killed Tippit?

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have to give specific information if you want to establish a single shot to the head. The LNers here know that the EOP wound location causes a lot of problems for that notion, so they stay cowlickers.

One of the things I enjoy most about conspiracy theorists is the way you can explain exactly what they're doing and why they're going to continue doing it, and they can't help knee-jerkingly giving the exact response you predict they will. It's like they can't help themselves, because they've only got one script and they don't know what to do when you don't follow it.

Dave

 

[bknight]

Back spatter disperses faster than forward spatter.

Conjecture, as you have neither the experience or the results to state such.

But I do not want to say here that the forward spray on the Zapruder Films (and perhaps the Nix, Muchmmore films) is significant evidence of where the bullet struck.

Read carefully, he is saying that it is a spray associated with an exit

snip

The cloud of matter in Z-313 was not exit spray, and the hole which encompassed most of the right side of Kennedy's head was not an exit wound. In actual fact, JFK's lead pathologist, Dr. James J. Humes, testified to the Commission that after a "careful examination of the margins of the large bone defect" the doctors were unable to find a point of exit on the skull. He attributed this failure to the fact that there was a large amount of missing bone. (2H353)

He is telling you he can't be precise on the exit point, not the exit area created by the exiting bullet.

 

[Tomtomkent]

One of the things I enjoy most about conspiracy theorists is the way you can explain exactly what they're doing and why they're going to continue doing it, and they can't help knee-jerkingly giving the exact response you predict they will. It's like they can't help themselves, because they've only got one script and they don't know what to do when you don't follow it.

Dave

Even the use of terms like "cowlickers" and "the EOP" tries to suggest controversies that do not exist. The is the entrance wound for which there is evidence, that the medical staff describe, or there is the "EOP" fantasy of somebody who does not care his own evidence has debunked his claim.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Even the use of terms like "cowlickers" and "the EOP" tries to suggest controversies that do not exist. The is the entrance wound for which there is evidence, that the medical staff describe, or there is the "EOP" fantasy of somebody who does not care his own evidence has debunked his claim.

What else can they do? They have to keep the discussion going else they lose the illusion of their own relevance. Observe how out of one side of his mouth MicahJava was arguing for the impossibility of the head shot and now out of the other side of his mouth there are two head shots. He'll go back and forth between the two arguments at will and never have a twinge about the hypocrisy.

Hey MicahJava, how difficult was the head shot? LOL.

 

[MicahJava]

One of the things I enjoy most about conspiracy theorists is the way you can explain exactly what they're doing and why they're going to continue doing it, and they can't help knee-jerkingly giving the exact response you predict they will. It's like they can't help themselves, because they've only got one script and they don't know what to do when you don't follow it.

Dave

Dr. Peter Cummings examined the autopsy X-ray collection and believed they could be compatible with an entry near the EOP, therefore he refutes any claim that the official autopsy materials are incompatible with the EOP wound. I was trying to establish the existence of the EOP wound. While Cummings believes that the EOP wound could be compatible with the official story of one single head shot, many here obviously see how unlikely that is, so they continue arguing the discredited cowlick entry theory.

 

[HSienzant]

First off, you excise the first part of my response, ignoring it completely and pretending your logical fallacy of a straw man argument does not exist. You didn't respond to the point, you just ignored it completely.

I pointed out in a prior response how that is precisely what you do when stuck for a response. You don't acknowledge the problem, you simply ignore it. I wrote: "He [Micah Java] 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."

Thank you for once again establishing the veracity of my claims.

Now let's delve into your latest response, where among other things, I asked you how precisely high above the EOP was the wound, according to the autopsy doctors:

Why? The doctors repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly, as any reader user using common sense would understand.

And how high is "slightly"? Give me their measurement.

Think the doctors were covering their own mistakes?

No. Another straw man argument by you.

Let's select from a wheel of the five or six other EOP witnesses. How about Dr. Charles Boyers? Oops, he told the HSCA the entry wound was near the EOP as well. And wouldn't you know it, the HSCA interview summary omitted that part.

Maybe because they were aware it was a faulty recollection? Why quote from recollections 15 or 33 years after the fact to build your case? We've already seen that those recollections are untrustworthy. Except, of course, to you, but only when they can be cherry-picked to support your argument.

Want an example? Look at your own cherry-picked witness, Charles Boyer. He puts the back wound BELOW and to the right of the scapula. QUOTE: "In regard to the wounds Boyers recalls an entrance wound in the rear of the head to the right of the external occipital protuberance which exited along the top, right side of the head towards the rear and just above the right eyebrow. He also saw an entrance wound in the right shoulder blade, specifically just under the scapula and next to it. Boyers also noted a tracheotomy incision in the neck."

That's almost the middle of the back (vertically). No medical evidence puts the back wound that low, so his recollection YOU CITE is clearly wrong. Note his language about the back of the head wound as well. He doesn't mention the wound being above the EOP at all, only to the right, and that conflicts with the evidence you cite about the wound being above the EOP. And he only mentions one head wound, and affirms that the bullet that entered the back of the hear exited the top right side of the head, exactly as I've been pointing out (you claim that was a second shot that caused that large wound). In short, his recollections are either wrong and therefore don't support your arguments, or if correct, they do more damage to your claims than you either recognize or are willing to admit.

Let me put it this way: The EOP wound was low high enough in the head to successfully remove a nearly complete an extremely disrupted brain without disturbing that part of the skull, as Dr. Finck always said.

FIFY/FTFY. It's easiest to remove the brain when the skull is extensively fractured and very little to no cutting of the skull had to be done. We've discussed this extensively in the past, and you never did prove your case. You don't get to summarize your unproven arguments and pretend they are proven. They aren't.

When have I quoted Humes' JAMA or ARRB stuff unless it was to reaffirm what he already said way before? The only other time I can think of is when i quoted him to the ARRB saying that the posterior cranial fossa was fractured.

You quoted extensively from Humes testimony when you first brought your argument up, ignoring entirely the evidence that he himself admitted his recollection wasn't that clear that long after the fact, and used the cherry-picked quotes as the initial basis for your argument. Without those bits, you have nothing to support your argument. Again, this was something we discussed extensively in the past, and you don't get a free fringe reset.

Any testimony to the ARRB was pretty much worthless, as even the ARRB admitted. QUOTE: "The deposition transcripts and other medical evidence that were released by the Review Board should be evaluated cautiously by the public. Often the witnesses contradict not only each other, but sometimes themselves. For events that transpired almost 35 years ago, all persons are likely to have failures of memory. It would be more prudent to weigh all of the evidence, with due concern for human error, rather than take single statements as 'proof' for one theory or another."

And Jeremy Gunn, the executive director and general counsel of the ARRB said this - QUOTE: "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."

Of course, this has been quoted back to you at least a half-dozen times, and you ignored all that too. Each time.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Even the use of terms like "cowlickers" and "the EOP" tries to suggest controversies that do not exist. The is the entrance wound for which there is evidence, that the medical staff describe, or there is the "EOP" fantasy of somebody who does not care his own evidence has debunked his claim.

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. No medical staff or bystander who saw JFK's body ever made any statement supporting the cowlick entry theory, those who saw the entry wound say it was low in the back of the head, near the EOP. Even in Humes' final (coerced) HSCA testimony, they had to twist his arm a little, and afterwards he went right back to saying the wound he saw was near the EOP.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Even in Humes' final (coerced) HSCA testimony, they had to twist his arm a little, and afterwards he went right back to saying the wound he saw was near the EOP.

And?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. No medical staff or bystander who saw JFK's body ever made any statement supporting the cowlick entry theory, those who saw the entry wound say it was low in the back of the head, near the EOP. Even in Humes' final (coerced) HSCA testimony, they had to twist his arm a little, and afterwards he went right back to saying the wound he saw was near the EOP.

Hmm. Let's consider the options.
1) I am confused.
2) I am confusing others.

Oh wait. You forgot to mention option 3...

3) You have failed to convince me, having posted only snippets of statements you clearly don't understand, including some that directly contradict your position, or statements taken decades after the fact, not reflected in any contemporary record.