Axxman300
Philosopher
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
Axxman300
Philosopher
Last edited by a moderator:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Non responsive reply noted.
How does a subsonic projectile not cause fractures at the the point of penetration of the skull but cause fractures in another area of the skull?
Another opportunity for you to to exhibit your expertise in the science of terminal ballistics. The forum members await your response with breathless anticipation.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Last edited by a moderator:
The way it gets reported in headlines, it's as if Trump has decided to release the material, when in fact I think it's due to be released anyway and the question is whether he chooses to veto it, or some of it.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Tomtomkent, what do you mean when you say "what the autopsy claims"? This problem is not based on nit-pickers haggling over an inch or two, you are the one pushing the positive assertion. You have been haggling forever that the autopsy doctors somehow misremembered or lied for some reason by a factor of 4-5 inches higher on the head. Not just the autopsy doctors, but the photographer, as well as five to six other autopsy witnesses, made statements strongly supporting a small wound low near the base of the head. You are asserting that these people all misremembered or lied in a way that perfectly corroborates the autopsy report passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. Is a lacerated wound measuring 15 x 6 mm.".
When you say "What the autopsy claims" as if you're referencing a wound 4-5 inches above the external occipital protuberance on the top of the head, that is disingenuous. If you think your interpretations of the X-rays and photographs are correct, you must compare that to a matching number of expert testimony on the X-rays which discredits the cowlick entry theory if they even noticed the defect on the X-rays claimed to be an entry wound by the Clark Panel and HSCA. Nobody who was at the autopsy ever viewed the Back-Of-Head photos and agreed that the "red spot" high in the scalp was the small wound (presumably of entry) they claimed to see. The "red spot" on the Back-Of-Head photographs was described by Humes to the HSCA and ARRB a relatively insignificant wound in the scalp related to the large defect, not an entry wound.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Subsonic bullets can and do exit parts of the skull. That is documented in medical journals searchable through Google Scholar (free scientific papers can also be downloaded reliably on libgen.io). A subsonic bullet could have entered near the EOP and exited the base of the skull within the body.MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
In short I am referencing that “red mark”, that you consider to be too high.
I ignore you personal analysis, because I read the whole autopsy, and I read the testimony to the WC, that make it clear exactly where the wound is.
I mean the wound that is verified by the X-ray and photographs, that matches the conclusions of experts you ignore.
I mean the location that fits the “impossible” brain damage.
I mean the wound location that you totally fail to discredit.
I mean the one that makes sense, and best fits the totality of evidence.
It may not be a perfect fit, but it remains the best fit, and the only viable explanation, by any common sense measure.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Not based on the evidence of the skull in question. Not without leaving a trace. You can stop making stuff up wholecloth, you aren’t convincing anybody.
bknight
Master Poster
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
While the autopsy is probably an important life event, however you still don't understand the memory recall degradation with time. You have been presented more than once this fact of life, yet you ignore it, why? Because it fits your CT belief. Take the original statements with much more accuracy.
But nit-picking where the entry hole is exactly what you have done for the few months I have been posting to this forum. As if the exact location between 15 years and several investigations really matters. Bottom line all investigations have noted one GSW to the head, causing all the damage, and fired behind and above the victim.
You have no evidence of lying or misremembering(especially after a number of years has dulled the memory).
Whether the individuals "strongly support" a small wound low near the base of the scalp, the autopsy report indicated ONE GSW. And I repeat all the doctors had the chance to report an exception to findings, and none did so.
The autopsy report indicated one entry hole was noted, after the brain was removed(with what ever procedure), you can't escape that fact. In addition one of the skull pieces shipped from Dallas had an exit wound characteristic.
Again you continue to post pin the hole in the head disinformation and misinformation, typical of your comment taken out of context with the real world.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
I have a question.
If Micha Java has a point, and his "EOP" wound is valid, why has he not posted a single definitive location.
Think about the "evidence" he has posted, from the photographs, the x-rays, the bullet fragments, and such forth, and even the model marked by doctors based on their memories... If that added up to what Micha Java thinks, he should have been able to provide a definitive location. He should be able to identify it on the photographs of the back of JFK's head, on the x-rays, and to tell us which of the doctors remembered right.
But when I look back through this thread, I see that when I asked him to show us the actual wound, he drew several circles on the back of JFKs head photo, identifying potential locations.
Now, I don't want to suggest I have unreasonable expectations of other's ability to read x-rays, or what have you, but if the x-ray evidence did indeed suggest a lower entry wound, and if Micha could say for certain that it discredited the received wound, would it not follow that one could use the x-ray to definitively mark the actual wound?
If I'm missing a post where Micha achieves exactly this, I am sorry, but I can't see one, where Micha can point to a place on the photograph of the back of the head, and show us a more convincing wound than the "splotch".
If Micha Java has a point, and his "EOP" wound is valid, why has he not posted a single definitive location.
Think about the "evidence" he has posted, from the photographs, the x-rays, the bullet fragments, and such forth, and even the model marked by doctors based on their memories... If that added up to what Micha Java thinks, he should have been able to provide a definitive location. He should be able to identify it on the photographs of the back of JFK's head, on the x-rays, and to tell us which of the doctors remembered right.
But when I look back through this thread, I see that when I asked him to show us the actual wound, he drew several circles on the back of JFKs head photo, identifying potential locations.
Now, I don't want to suggest I have unreasonable expectations of other's ability to read x-rays, or what have you, but if the x-ray evidence did indeed suggest a lower entry wound, and if Micha could say for certain that it discredited the received wound, would it not follow that one could use the x-ray to definitively mark the actual wound?
If I'm missing a post where Micha achieves exactly this, I am sorry, but I can't see one, where Micha can point to a place on the photograph of the back of the head, and show us a more convincing wound than the "splotch".
HSienzant
Philosopher
So you can't point to anything that establishes your view is correct.
Just as I thought.
Hank
HSienzant
Philosopher
HSienzant
Philosopher
...Subsonic bullets often do not cause extensive fractures when entering the head. Also, there is evidence for fractures on the floor of the skull, where the EOP bullet could have encountered after entering.
How does a subsonic projectile not cause fractures at the the point of penetration of the skull but cause fractures in another area of the skull?
Straw man argument. That wasn't the question asked. Try actually answering the question asked this time.
Show us where the autopsy doctors noted that exit wound in the base of the skull.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Studies have shown that memory doesn't improve based on the deemed importance of the event.
Hank
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Let's remind you of something. Remember this?
So, by your own admission, no matter how important it was, they placed the hole in different places.
You may not like the entry wound being a few inches higher than your pre-conclusions require it to be, but... human memory is just flawed. Those memories you rely on more than contemporary records, are just as flawed as any other human memory would be, years, or decades, later.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The only voices that matter are Humes and Finck. They laid hands on the man.
The other witnesses do not count once you factor in the human element. The photographer? He's looking at a dead POTUS, he's trying to keep it together. He was focused on his job with the camera and was not a pathologist - doesn't matter what he thinks he saw, only what is in his pictures.
Your cherry-picking blindness is your failure.
That is exactly where the bullet entered the skull as per real-time measurement during the autopsy. It is the only measurement that matters as it was RECORDED AT THE TIME BOTH MEN WERE WORKING ON JFK- NOT FIFTEEN YEARS LATER.
That's called science, that's why you record data on the spot instead of trying to remember it later. This is true for every science discipline.
Only in CT World is decades old recollecting held equal to real-time, hands-on data. It is why nobody takes you seriously.
Did he say he's interpreted them? I don't think so. But then I can read.
Why? The x-rays and autopsy are just part of the picture that are combined with the evidence from Dallas.
Everything points to Oswald and his 6.5x52mm Carcano.
Axxman300
Philosopher
The only thing common about you as a high-schooler and JFK autopsy witnesses were that both occasions were the peak events in their life. Guess which ones worth remembering more?
Edited by kmortis:
Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0
Last edited by a moderator:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Okay Skippy, what calibers are we talking about here?
What was the range the bullet was fired from that passed through the skull?
What angle?
How many of these bullets entered the back of the head?
What was the minimum range from your fantasy silenced rifle to the car?
What kind of subsonic round would have the capability at that range to enter and exit a skull at any angle?
If you cannot answer all of these questions you need to shut up about subsonic rounds.
- Status