Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
The only way Dale Meyers could make a frame form his animation match the Zapruder Film was to make Kennedy into a giraffe neck.
Click to expand...

How does your one CT source think the bullet wounds were caused? Or did they "go to work" when you asked them? You did ask them, right?
 
Dave Rogers said:
OK, so you are making the mistake we all think you are. Thanks for confirming that.

Dave
Click to expand...

Assuming that the "cowlick" area of the skull would not be separated during the brain removal procedure even though the fractures were so extensive that virtually no sawing was needed, How do you think the skull was opened?
 
MicahJava said:
Assuming that the "cowlick" area of the skull would not be separated during the brain removal procedure even though the fractures were so extensive that virtually no sawing was needed, How do you think the skull was opened?
Click to expand...

Your irrelevant commentary having been deleted, the answer is given in the autopsy report:

"The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content".

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
For one, any explination of the jacket and shirt bunching issue is timeless. It shows that the back wound was lower than the throat wound.
Click to expand...

Except the autopsy report shows the back wound higher than the throat wound, in reference to the trajectory of the bullet.
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
I'm not entirely sure what the position of Kennedy's jacket had on the results of the autopsy either. They don't usually report on sartorial choices.

Dave
Click to expand...

I could've sworn that gunshot wound cases usually have the autopsy physicians examine the clothing.
 
bknight said:
Except the autopsy report shows the back wound higher than the throat wound, in reference to the trajectory of the bullet.
Click to expand...

It says the wound was 14 centimeters below the right mastoid process. The HSCA concluded that the autopsy photographs show the back wound slightly lower than the throat wound. If the clothing evidence is found to be incompatible with the autopsy photographs, then the photos are fake and the physical evidence wins. But I don't think it would take that much fold in the shirt/jacket for the location shown on the photographs.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Your irrelevant commentary having been deleted, the answer is given in the autopsy report:

"The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content".

Dave
Click to expand...


Okay, then how did they do that without separating some occipital bone? The autopsy report says that the large defect involved occipital bone, and that could be a reference to how large the skull cavity became after the shattered fragments were separated.
 
MicahJava said:
It says the wound was 14 centimeters below the right mastoid process. The HSCA concluded that the autopsy photographs show the back wound slightly lower than the throat wound. If the clothing evidence is found to be incompatible with the autopsy photographs, then the photos are fake and the physical evidence wins. But I don't think it would take that much fold in the shirt/jacket for the location shown on the photographs.
Click to expand...

Since your opinion is worthless, what does the autopsy say? Or do you need to "go to work"? Hilarious!
 
MicahJava said:
Okay, then how did they do that without separating some occipital bone? The autopsy report says that the large defect involved occipital bone, and that could be a reference to how large the skull cavity became after the shattered fragments were separated.
Click to expand...

You've already made it clear that you're unable to understand the answer to that question - which, I suspect, everybody else here does understand - and I see no value in further exploring your personal cognitive defects.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
You've already made it clear that you're unable to understand the answer to that question - which, I suspect, everybody else here does understand - and I see no value in further exploring your personal cognitive defects.

Dave
Click to expand...

It looks like every lone nutter on this thread has resorted to vaguely implying that my points were already throughly refuted in some other, older post. In actuality, the people here can not answer a straight-up question.
 
MicahJava said:
It looks like every lone nutter on this thread has resorted to vaguely implying that my points were already throughly refuted in some other, older post.
Click to expand...

Again, this has nothing to do with the post you're replying to. You've made it clear that you consider the suggestion absurd that a section of skull can be anything other than fixed rigidly in place or completely detached, so you're incapable of understanding the answer you've requested. You've employed the classic conspiracy theorist's tactic of demanding the correct answer be excluded before asking the question.

Dave
 
MicahJava said:
It says the wound was 14 centimeters below the right mastoid process. The HSCA concluded that the autopsy photographs show the back wound slightly lower than the throat wound. If the clothing evidence is found to be incompatible with the autopsy photographs, then the photos are fake and the physical evidence wins. But I don't think it would take that much fold in the shirt/jacket for the location shown on the photographs.
Click to expand...



You fail again, with respect to the trajectory of the bullet the throat wound is below. Unless that is if someone at street level in the crowd pulled out his trusty invisible CARCANO and shot the President.

Oh that doesn't work either, since the bullet fragments have the riffling's from the rifle found in the snipers nest.:jaw-dropp
 
MicahJava said:
It looks like every lone nutter on this thread has resorted to vaguely implying that my points were already throughly refuted in some other, older post. In actuality, the people here can not answer a straight-up question.
Click to expand...

Your post here are mostly logical fallacies that everyone but you understand
 
MicahJava said:
It looks like every lone nutter on this thread has resorted to vaguely implying that my points were already throughly refuted in some other, older post. In actuality, the people here can not answer a straight-up question.
Click to expand...

No. Just that your points fail to stand under their own weight, when placed under any level of meaningful scrutiny.
 
MicahJava said:
Is this how desperate you've gotten? Linking to you plugging your ears as if I have to answer that? You do know that I have cited common medical sources for everything I say about how to remove a human brain. And I found that neuroscientist who agrees with my arguments about that exactly.
Click to expand...

You're very good at finding sources that agree with you. Well, quotes that you can cherry pick that you imagine agree with you, anyway.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom