Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

The EOP wound really is the greatest mystery in the forensic evidence, isn't it?

What's an "EOP wound"?

It's almost as if the least you could do is declare the case impossible to solve.

Except nobody in their right mind would declare that since there's never been any better explanation for a consilience of evidence that Oswald did it. Did you have any better explanation?

Nobody can claim to prove that all of Kennedy's wounds were caused by two shots fired from above and behind

What was the conclusion of the autopsy and the Warren Commission?

unless they start with the EOP wound.

What's an "EOP wound"?

The single assassin scenario officially cannot be considered true unless further evidence can be brought forth.

LOL. What is the official scenario?

While it would be very important for a group of experts familiar with the technology used to create the autopsy photos and X-rays to look for evidence of a wound near the EOP, it ultimately does not matter very much now because the corroboration of the three autopsy doctors and six or more other autopsy witnesses is more than enough evidence.

Yes, there is a consilience of evidence for the prevailing narrative.

Don't you get tired of being wrong?

 

[bknight]

Does this argument apply to all FBI agents at all times, or just O'Neill's 15-year after the fact recollection because you need it so badly?

Since he's so good at recording, please point out the precise location O'Neill recorded in his memorandum for the record shortly after the autopsy (rather than his 15 year later recollection).

You can find that memorandum here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=4&tab=page

We saw the same argument from Robert Harris about a rifle found on the fourth floor near a stairwell. That wasn't a poor recollection, made decades later, about the rifle found on the sixth floor. And a simple mistake anyone could make. Oh no, Federal agents are better at this sort of thing because Harris needed a second rifle in the Depository and by golly, it just had to be true.

It's not. What contemporaneous statements of O'Neil do you have confirming this wound location you claim O'Neill was trained to record?




Exactly the same way? Not at all.




That location would be far too low if it was located at the hairline. It's below the EOP by inches and misses the skull entirely. If it's being placed within the hair, that is meaningless, as it could be anywhere on his head.




There are numerous forensic pathologists who studied the evidence who beg to differ with you.




We have plenty of evidence, but you have an outsized tendency to ignore it all.

There's the autopsy x-rays.
The autopsy photos.
The autopsy report.
The reviews of the extants autopsy materials by various pathologists.
The rifle recovered from the Depository.
The three shells recovered from the Depository.
The two large fragments of a bullet recovered from the limo
The nearly whole bullet recovered from Parkland.
Oswald's fresh fingerprints on the trigger guard.
The paper bag recovered from the Depository with Oswald's prints on it.
The two witnesses to Oswald with a large paper bag on the morning of the assassination.
The suspect making a special trip on a Thursday back to the place where his rifle was stored within the garage of a woman his wife was staying with.
The suspect attempting to patch things up with his wife that evening, telling her he'd buy her the washing machine she wanted, if only she'd move back in with him.
The wife telling him, "No thank you, buy something nice for yourself.
And the rifle missing from its storage place the next discovered.

Together, all these pieces of evidence tell a uniform story of a disgruntled young man who wanted to be famous. And accomplished that.

There really isn't anything else needed.




All from decades after the fact, cherry-picked by you, caused by a magic bullet that you can't even get out of the head, yet wasn't found within the head, with contrary recollections all dismissed by you as wrong?
Fired from a rifle you have no evidence of?
By a shooter nobody saw?
Causing damage that left no evidence behind?
And then another bullet that left no trace struck the head from another unseen gunman causing damage that fooled everyone but you into thinking it was an exit wound?

No, not hardly sufficient.

Hank

You beat me to a couple of points adding to this Kellerman was a secret service member not a forensic pathologist, he was not measuring where he "thought" the head wound was.

 

[MicahJava]

It's not. What contemporaneous statements of O'Neil do you have confirming this wound location you claim O'Neill was trained to recThat location would be far too low if it was located at the hairline. It's below the EOP by inches and misses the skull entirely. If it's being placed within the hair, that is meaningless, as it could be anywhere on his head.

It could have been around the border of the short hairs next to the long hairs.

There are numerous forensic pathologists who studied the evidence who beg to differ with you.

Don't you realize that, according to the HSCA's interpretation of the skull photographs, the brain was taken out of a five-inch hole?

 

[MicahJava]

Ok so it looks like most of you realize that the anti-EOP stance is a sinking ship, so you guys plug your ears and scream to yourself "the autopsy doctors concluded two shots fired from behind!". Guess what, we don't even know that's what they really thought. There is evidence that the autopsy doctors exhausted a variety of scenarios, including a EOP-throat connection, before arriving to the current official story. It doesn't mean that's what they personally thought. We don't know what they're hiding. Remember before how I demonstrated that the autopsy doctors probably lied about only discovering the truth about the throat wound until the day after the autopsy?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Don't you realize that, according to the HSCA's interpretation of the skull photographs, the brain was taken out of a five-inch hole?

No. It wasn't. You keep saying this, and even when you post evidence, I have no idea how this is the conclusion you reach.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Ok so it looks like most of you realize that the anti-EOP stance is a sinking ship, so you guys plug your ears and scream to yourself "the autopsy doctors concluded two shots fired from behind!". Guess what, we don't even know that's what they really thought.

How did you arrive at your conclusion that the doctors were lying?

There is evidence that the autopsy doctors exhausted a variety of scenarios, including a EOP-throat connection, before arriving to the current official story.

Ah, then you admit that the autopsy concluded that the prevailing narrative is the correct one. Thank you. You are finally right for once!

It doesn't mean that's what they personally thought.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. It also means that CTists wet themselves because they can't do anything about it.

We don't know what they're hiding.

Who is "we"?

Remember before how I demonstrated that the autopsy doctors probably lied about only discovering the truth about the throat wound until the day after the autopsy?

Hilarious! Doesn't it bother you at all that you have only been right once?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Ok so it looks like most of you realize that the anti-EOP stance is a sinking ship, so you guys plug your ears and scream to yourself "the autopsy doctors concluded two shots fired from behind!". Guess what, we don't even know that's what they really thought. There is evidence that the autopsy doctors exhausted a variety of scenarios, including a EOP-throat connection, before arriving to the current official story. It doesn't mean that's what they personally thought. We don't know what they're hiding. Remember before how I demonstrated that the autopsy doctors probably lied about only discovering the truth about the throat wound until the day after the autopsy?

This sounds a lot less like anybody else "realises that the ant-EOP stance is a sinking ship", and more like an excuse why the evidence that does not support your interpretation should be ignored...

It is not suspicious that they exhausted a lot of options, before reaching their conclusions, given one wound exit point was obscured by life saving attempts.

This does not imply their lied. It does not invalidate their conclusions.

It does, however, suggest that you don't actually understand the evidence (as does your insistence on calling it an EOP wound).

 

[BStrong]

Sounds like he was referring to LHO being killed in prison.

You have a very bad habit of sticking your tongue in other people's mouths.

The old man meant exactly what he said. He didn't flinch when LHO was shot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

It could have been around the border of the short hairs next to the long hairs.

Would that be what you kept calling the "cowlick"?

 

[MicahJava]

No. It wasn't. You keep saying this, and even when you post evidence, I have no idea how this is the conclusion you reach.

Do we really have to keep going over this?

Here if the official HSCA interpretation of this photograph, which depicts an apparently empty cranium of John F. Kennedy that still somehow has an interpreted entry wound and a beveled exit that are only anatomically five inches apart. The government wants us to believe that the entire brain was somehow removed from a high-inch skull cavity.

NSFW - actual autopsy photo

Is there even evidence that it's possible to delicately remove a human brain without removing some occipital bone? I don't think there's a way to properly sever the tentorium cerebelli by reaching your hands underneath the brain from the frontal end. You would also have to sever the brainstem. Removing a brain also typically involves being able to fit your fingers under the temporal areas. Any alleged cowlick entry wound could not remain intact in the skull bone while doing all of that.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Is there any reason, just looking at that drawing and the damage radiating from the wounds, that the skin could not be cut and folded back?

Any reason why alternate cuts, could not be made, with a bone saw, avoiding the "undamaged" bone?

Really?

Like I said, I can't see, from the evidence he posts, how Micha Java reaches his conclusions. I can't see any document suggesting only a five inch hole was used, and have no idea why he assumes it is the case.

 

[bknight]

Do we really have to keep going over this?

Here if the official HSCA interpretation of this photograph, which depicts an apparently empty cranium of John F. Kennedy that still somehow has an interpreted entry wound and a beveled exit that are only anatomically five inches apart. The government wants us to believe that the entire brain was somehow removed from a high-inch skull cavity.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/UxxAyTC.jpg[/qimg]

This is utter nonsense and you know it. The image was simplified, removing the brain. Everybody in the universe including CTs the brain was in place for the bullet to damage and destroy the skull. From the autopsy information, they made cuts down to the ear area and the skull was sawed to have a large enough hole to remove the brain.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/JVfM2QS.jpg[/qimg]

Is there even evidence that it's possible to delicately remove a human brain without removing some occipital bone? I don't think there's a way to properly sever the tentorium cerebelli by reaching your hands underneath the brain from the frontal end. You would also have to sever the brainstem. Removing a brain also typically involves being able to fit your fingers under the temporal areas. Any alleged cowlick entry wound could not remain intact in the skull bone while doing all of that.

You do not have the autopsy experience to make this statement. The autopsy information indicated that the skull was shattered and therefore the "normal" cuts were NOT required.

 

[MicahJava]

Is there any reason, just looking at that drawing and the damage radiating from the wounds, that the skin could not be cut and folded back?

Any reason why alternate cuts, could not be made, with a bone saw, avoiding the "undamaged" bone?

Really?

Oh wow what a brilliant argument, they just cut the skull in a silly way to avoid separating the beveled wounds. Except the autopsy doctors found that the area around the large head wound was so badly damaged that they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a large enough skull cavity.

 

[BStrong]

Do we really have to keep going over this?

snipped.

You're the only one singing this song.

You have consistently refused to explain what any discrepancy in headwound location means in the larger context of the established physical evidence.

The only thing you do is post the same image and drone on that single riff.

The best that you can actually establish is that there are differing opinions on the wound location, with -0- evidence establishing any other shooter location, weapon or any other evidence contradicting the conclusion that LHO assassinated JFK.

 

[MicahJava]

Would that be what you kept calling the "cowlick"?

In photographs, the red spot on the scalp exposed by the parted long hairs appears to be at least two inches above the EOP, but not quite high enough to correlate with the defect on the X-ray 4-5 inches above the EOP.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Oh wow what a brilliant argument, they just cut the skull in a silly way to avoid separating the beveled wounds. Except the autopsy doctors found that the area around the large head wound was so badly damaged that they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a large enough skull cavity.

Wait, are you trying to say that someone shot JFK besides Oswald?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Is there even evidence that it's possible to delicately remove a human brain without removing some occipital bone?[/HILITE] I don't think there's a way to properly sever the tentorium cerebelli by reaching your hands underneath the brain from the frontal end. You would also have to sever the brainstem. Removing a brain also typically involves being able to fit your fingers under the temporal areas. Any alleged cowlick entry wound could not remain intact in the skull bone while doing all of that.

Oh wow what a brilliant argument, they just cut the skull in a silly way to avoid separating the beveled wounds. Except the autopsy doctors found that the area around the large head wound was so badly damaged that they had to do virtually no work with a saw to create a large enough skull cavity.

Asked and answered then?

 

[Tomtomkent]

In photographs, the red spot on the scalp exposed by the parted long hairs appears to be at least two inches above the EOP, but not quite high enough to correlate with the defect on the X-ray 4-5 inches above the EOP.

And yet you just suggested it was where one length of hair met the shorter hair. That would usually be at the parting.

Were you wrong to suggest that?

 

[HSienzant]

It could have been around the border of the short hairs next to the long hairs.

Still below the EOP (external occipital protuberance).

Don't you realize that, according to the HSCA's interpretation of the skull photographs, the brain was taken out of a five-inch hole?

No, they never said that. That's simply your pretend issue - the reason you pretend the wound must be lower.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Still below the EOP (external occipital protuberance).

I think our differing interpretations are why pathologists tend to use more accurate, objective, measurements.