• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
 
MikeG said:
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
Click to expand...

I thought this had been decided a long time ago, is this just a manner of showmanship?
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy report concluded that Kennedy was wounded by two shots fired from "above and behind". Since the back wound is anatomically lower than the throat wound, and the entry wound in the head they remember was much lower than the purported corresponding "exit", there is literally no basis for claiming they were fired from above. In Dr. Humes' Warren Commission drawings, he simply raised the back wound and had Kennedy's head leaning over to a degree much farther than shown on the Zapruder film.

You can not use the "above and behind" passage from the autopsy report as evidence for the cowlick entry wound. How often has one of the autopsy doctors sworn that they did not think evidence was manipulated, then go on provide statements suggesting that it was? You're expecting consistency with people who probably have skeletons in their closet. The one thing I know the autopsy doctors have always been consistent on is the location for the small wound in the back of the head.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove that the back wound is "below" the throat wound. Saying it is proven without evidence is begging the question.
 
As I've been accused of confusing people, let's try and cut this all back to make it as simple as possible, and clear away the confusion.

The received view is this:

LHO shot three times from the sniper's nest in the TSBD and two shots hit JFK. One passed through JFK's back and exited his throat, hitting somebody sitting in the same car.
The other shot hit JFK in the back of the head, and caused the explosive ejecta.

The alternate theory seems to be changeable, but suggests LHO hit JFK lower down in the head, on or beneath the EOP (as opposed to slightly above it- or slightly higher above it than Micha considers "slightly"), that exited through the throat.
There was another head shot from a silenced weapon, from an unknown shooter, in an unknown location.

The reasons posters here seem to be discounting the alternate theory are as follows:
*The autopsy places the bullet hole slightly higher.
*We seem to have photographs of that wound.
*The testimony describes this wound placing.
*There seems to be no basis to the sub-claim "The brain would have to be removed through a five inch hole".
*Micha Java claims that the damage to the brain is impossible, but ONLY from his interpretation of the entry point of the head wound. The brain damage described makes perfect sense by considering the entry point in the generally accepted location, the one the WC identifies.

And that is the rub.

None of the issues that "prove" another (silenced) headshot are impossible, or contradictory, if one simply adjusts the entry location point to the received wisdom of the WC. There is no controversy, unless you first distort your view to the alternate entry point.

It seems to me, as I have stated before, these should be reasons to reconsider the accuracy of Micha's interpretation of the autopsy, before they are reasons to consider a conspiracy.

I don't see that as complicated, or confusing the issue. I don't see it as preventing conversation.
 
MikeG said:
You'll all be delighted to hear that Trump is planning to authorise the release of a batch of classified files on the Kennedy assassination towards the end of October.

BBC
Click to expand...

But will the files tell us Ted Cruz was any part of it?
 
Tomtomkent said:
Yes, sorry, my post was a very poor attempt at humour, recalling that on the campaign trail Trump stated he believed the conspiracy theories about Cruz's father, which just happened to reflect badly upon Cruz personally.

I won't pretend it was in any way a good joke.
Click to expand...

No blood no foul :)
 
Tomtomkent said:
As I've been accused of confusing people, let's try and cut this all back to make it as simple as possible, and clear away the confusion.

The received view is this:

LHO shot three times from the sniper's nest in the TSBD and two shots hit JFK. One passed through JFK's back and exited his throat, hitting somebody sitting in the same car.
The other shot hit JFK in the back of the head, and caused the explosive ejecta.

The alternate theory seems to be changeable, but suggests LHO hit JFK lower down in the head, on or beneath the EOP (as opposed to slightly above it- or slightly higher above it than Micha considers "slightly"), that exited through the throat.
There was another head shot from a silenced weapon, from an unknown shooter, in an unknown location.

The reasons posters here seem to be discounting the alternate theory are as follows:
*The autopsy places the bullet hole slightly higher.
*We seem to have photographs of that wound.
*The testimony describes this wound placing.
*There seems to be no basis to the sub-claim "The brain would have to be removed through a five inch hole".
*Micha Java claims that the damage to the brain is impossible, but ONLY from his interpretation of the entry point of the head wound. The brain damage described makes perfect sense by considering the entry point in the generally accepted location, the one the WC identifies.

And that is the rub.

None of the issues that "prove" another (silenced) headshot are impossible, or contradictory, if one simply adjusts the entry location point to the received wisdom of the WC. There is no controversy, unless you first distort your view to the alternate entry point.

It seems to me, as I have stated before, these should be reasons to reconsider the accuracy of Micha's interpretation of the autopsy, before they are reasons to consider a conspiracy.

I don't see that as complicated, or confusing the issue. I don't see it as preventing conversation.
Click to expand...

Edited by kmortis: 
Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed response to previously moderated content.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. COE. How had the skull cap been taken off to remove the brain?

Dr. FINCK. In that respect Dr. Humes told me that the fractures of the top and right side of the head were so extensive -- that wound was about 13 centimeters in diameter, it was a very large one. The fractures were so extensive, there was so much fragmentation of the skull that Dr. Humes did not have much sawing to do or he may not even have had any sawing to do.

Dr. COE. You mean he did not have to extend around to the left side of the head to remove the brain intact?

Dr. FINCK. He may have had a little sawing to do but as compared to an intact skull where you have to do complete sawing to remove the calvaria, the skull cap. That was not the case because of the extent of the fractures and damage to the skull.
Click to expand...


Just quoting this to show MJ's master research skills.
 
MicahJava said:
The autopsy report concluded that Kennedy was wounded by two shots fired from "above and behind".
Click to expand...

Which is correct.


Since the back wound is anatomically lower than the throat wound,
Click to expand...

You just wrote that supersonic bullets deflect, but now they don't?


and the entry wound in the head they remember was much lower than the purported corresponding "exit", there is literally no basis for claiming they were fired from above.
Click to expand...

Except for the science of ballistics...no, no basis whatsoever.


In Dr. Humes' Warren Commission drawings, he simply raised the back wound and had Kennedy's head leaning over to a degree much farther than shown on the Zapruder film.
Click to expand...

He's leaning over hard.

How often has one of the autopsy doctors sworn that they did not think evidence was manipulated, then go on provide statements suggesting that it was?
Click to expand...

None. Humes never said that.

You're expecting consistency with people who probably have skeletons in their closet.
Click to expand...

List them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom