MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The forensic evidence strongly supports multiple shooters in the JFK assassination.
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
The forensic evidence strongly supports multiple shooters in the JFK assassination.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What were the findings of the autopsy?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
The forensic evidence actually proves just one shooter. How do you manage to be so wrong so often?
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Also, what is the evidence that the call existed or was actually before the event?
bknight
Master Poster
My feelings of the mission of the HSCA was to find a conspiracy, and failed at that although they did report another possible shooter from the Grassy Knoll, but we know that was wrong.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Forced investigation is forced.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Going through the Mexico City CIA station files is slow, but their source inside Cuban Embassy: LITAMIL NINE, seems to have access to everything.
If you're searching the files he's also L-Nine, L-9. There is another source in the embassy code named LITAMIL Seven.
If you're searching the files he's also L-Nine, L-9. There is another source in the embassy code named LITAMIL Seven.
bknight
Master Poster
In fact you are wrong the forensic evidence was covered very well. One shooter from above and to the right of JFK, three shots two hits. One to the back exiting below the Adams Apple, straight and correct trajectory from the sixth floor TSBD.
The other striking the back of JFK's head doing considerable damage to the brain and skull as it was passing through the skull on the way to blowing out the top right of the skull. Again, all in the correct trajectory from the TSBD.
Along with physics you might take a course in geometry or/nd trigonometry.
Axxman300
Philosopher
In no way does it support anything but a single gunman.
Spending 8 hours reading the new JFK documents one thing is clear:
The FBI and CIA WANTED A CONSPIRACY. The scope of the investigation shows that they looked at all of the Cuban exile paramilitary groups hoping to link him in someway to Castro. The CIA pressed their informant, L-9, multiple times for information on Oswald's visit.
They chased down every crack-pot lead hoping to tie some Communist entity to the assassination.
Now you have a problem, if the CIA and FBI were hoping for a conspiracy, then why would they hide, fabricate, alter, or otherwise tilt the evidence to one man?
That is a lie, at best.
Funny, because the location Oswald shot from is such an easy shot. Go ahead, make up lies based on no evidence. There is no evidence of multiple shooters, except in the minds of conspiracy theorists. I went to Dallas, and saw how easy it was as the car moved away from the window. Have you been to Dallas, or is the Internet your BS evidence source.
If there was evidence, a Pulitzer Prize is there. Where is your evidence, in your mind, no real evidence. Like 9/11, you offer speculation, no evidence. You make claims of evidence, but never follow up.
The new stuff release is fodder for BS artists on JFK conspiracies. Will you find some quote mining cherry picking BS from the new stuff, like the hearsay and opinions the FBI had to put up with.
How many JFK nuts will find those named in the new release; hopefully those named are dead, so JFK nuts will not bother them, and stalk them.
Let me see the logic... The CIA and FBI have thousands of papers of JFK files, and you think there is some smoking gun exposing the CIA or FBI or the USA did it.
When JFK was killed, and we learned about it in the 7th grade that day, the neoNAZI nut kid in the class celebrated with traditional KKK exuberance; exposing hate which is present today. Is Oswald a KKK nut-case too, or just nuts like JFK CTers.
If you have not been to Dallas, you have no idea how easy the shot was. The 8 mm film makes the area look bigger. It is perspective, and gullibility which may be a factor in the JFK CT believers. 9/11, JFK, is Bigfoot, all share the same evidence, speculative nonsense.
HSienzant
Philosopher
No, they don't. Go ahead, prove it. Quote the precise language from the autopsy report, quote the doctors testimony to the Warren Commission, etc.
All you have above is an assertion that all that supports your claim.
You still seem confused about what constitutes evidence.
Hank
Axxman300
Philosopher
Judging from the lists I've waded through, most if the informants and sources are people - even if they're still alive - are not people you want to make angry.
And the kiddie squad has already found memos to fuel CT speculation for a while longer: the anonymous phone call to a British newspaper a few hours before the assassination (the caller fails to say anything about JFK or assassination, only "something big is coming"), and an alleged phone call from Oswald to Jack Ruby (it's simply a request for information based on rumor).
I've seen a few more,but I'm not mentioning them since there's enough BS with this case to last into the 22nd century.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
That depends entirely on the definition of the word "evidence."
The reality based definition doesn't support your assertion.
The fantasy based definition supports any lame-brained interpretation.
Cosmic Yak
Philosopher
Specifically which evidence?
How many shooters?
Please show evidence that the Warren Commission and the autopsy doctors were coerced, bribed or otherwise influenced to ignore al this supposed forensic evidence and sign off on conclusions supporting a single shooter.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The true lower EOP location for the entry wound in the back of the head voids the entire official story. A round could not enter that low in the head and come out of the top while staying consistent with the official autopsy evidence.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
No, it does not void the story, nor can it be the true location, because...
If it is not consistent with the evidence, it is obviously wrong.
If the bullet entered higher, would it then be consistent with the evidence?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
MicahJava, you aren't going to convince anybody when you are trying to select evidence based on your theory, rather than showing your theory fits the evidence.
Allow me to illustrate.
Here you claim the evidence supports your theory:
But on the same page, here you are stating that forensic evidence, gathered in the autopsy, can be dismissed, because it doesn't fit your silly claim:
I doubt anybody is just going to ignore the actual records of forensic evidence gathered in the autopsy based on your interpretation of face notes and sketches, whose actual purposes you clearly don't understand. Those are aids to memory. The autopsy takes accurate measurements, accurate photographs, and full records, precisely so we don't have to rely on memory and rough, not to scale, sketches.
Conversely, there is a reason why the Conspiracy Theorist will rely on exactly those materials, and frankly, if you do understand their reason and purpose, then it suggests you are dishonestly representing them.
Allow me to illustrate.
Here you claim the evidence supports your theory:
But on the same page, here you are stating that forensic evidence, gathered in the autopsy, can be dismissed, because it doesn't fit your silly claim:
I doubt anybody is just going to ignore the actual records of forensic evidence gathered in the autopsy based on your interpretation of face notes and sketches, whose actual purposes you clearly don't understand. Those are aids to memory. The autopsy takes accurate measurements, accurate photographs, and full records, precisely so we don't have to rely on memory and rough, not to scale, sketches.
Conversely, there is a reason why the Conspiracy Theorist will rely on exactly those materials, and frankly, if you do understand their reason and purpose, then it suggests you are dishonestly representing them.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What is a "true EOP location"? If sounds like your one CT source has been feeding you a line and you've swallowed it whole. And didn't you just say that the official autopsy evidence supported multiple shooters? Now you're saying it doesn't? Can you explain why your one CT source can't even be internally consistent?
bknight
Master Poster
No the trajectory from ANY location at the back of the head will lead to the destruction of the brain and the skull. You need to visualize correctly. And you need to cite where "A round could not enter that low in the head and come out of the top while staying consistent with the official autopsy evidence"
You never present facts just logical fallacies similar to the above assertion.
HSienzant
Philosopher
I honestly don't think you know what the word 'forensic' means.
Most of the responders here assume you're talking about forensics per this definition:
3. relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems
And respond accordingly. You can't mean that definition, because too many flaws in your argument have been pointed out repeatedly.
It occurs to me you might be arguing from these definitions of forensics:
1. belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate "a lawyer's forensic skills"
2. argumentative, rhetorical "forensic eloquence"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forensic
You might be claiming an argument can be made using rhetorical devices, that JFK was shot by multiple shooters, by assuming some of the autopsy evidence is wrong (like the conclusions that the shots that hit JFK in the back didn't exit the front of JFK's throat where the autopsists determined).
You're wrong there, too. It can't.
And that's because your arguments here leave far more holes than you think you've found in the Warren Commission version of events. Holes you have never attempted to fill.
1. If the bullet struck JFK low in the occiput, and exited the throat, where's the exit wound in the base of the skull? You don't have one. At best you've found a reference to fractures there, but the autopsists determined the fractures were caused by the entry wound above the occiput and the exit wound in the top right side of the skull. Nothing about a exit in the base of the skull.
2. Not one pathologist who has examined the body or the extant autopsy materials agrees with your theory of the bullet passage through the back of the head, the floor of the skull, and out the throat. None have even suggested this is even possible.
3. If the bullet that entered the head exited the throat, what happened to the bullet that struck JFK in the back? It wasn't found in the body, and you've now removed the only exit route possible for it by claiming the throat wound was caused by a bullet wound to the back of the head. You've got your own magic bullet!
4. Critics complained in the 1960's about the supposed 'delayed reaction' the Warren Commission said was possible for the Governor's reaction. You've got JFK being struck by a bullet in the head, right near the top of the spinal cord, no later than frame Z224. This should cause so much damage it would at a minimum paralyze JFK, if not cause him to go limp immediately. But we can see JFK still has enough motor control to point to his throat after you argue he is hit in the head. And five seconds after you argue he's hit in the back of the head, his head explodes in frame Z313! You've got your own delayed reaction twice over (once for Kennedy's failing to go limp until after Z313, once for the head explosion at least five seconds after you claim JFK was first struck in the head).
5. In addition to the above, ALL the ballistic evidence (three shells, two large fragments, and one nearly whole bullet) are ALL determined to have come from one weapon, and one weapon only: Oswald's rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository. You have NO forensic evidence of a second shooter. No other weapon was found, and no other bullets, shells, or fragments that can be excluded from Oswald's weapon. You also have ZERO eyewitnesses of another shooter anywhere. So there's no forensic evidence whatsoever of a second shooter external to the autopsy evidence.
6. What about the autopsy evidence? The conclusion of every pathologist who examined the body or the extant autopsy materials can be summed up nicely this way: Two bullets passed through JFK, leaving entry and exit wounds in the body. No evidence of any additional shots exist anywhere on the body. You pretend that evidence (and expert conclusions ARE evidence) doesn't exist. But it does.
So summing up, one rifle, three shells, two wounds in JFK meaning two of the three shots fired struck JFK. No evidence from the autopsy of more than two strikes on JFK, no evidence external to the autopsy of another weapon or another shooter. Forensic evidence of multiple shooters? There is none.
NONE.
I tried to hit the highlights as succinctly as possible. Let me know what forensic evidence you see that disputes that. Note I said *forensic evidence* which means your *opinions* of the forensic evidence is specifically excluded. Your opinions are not evidence, let alone forensic evidence.
While you're at it, please cite the medical evidence of more than three shots fired, a claim you made a short while ago and never attempted to defend even once, despite being asked repeatedly to post that supposed medical evidence to support this claim:
Still waiting for you to tell us what Mark Lane got right in Rush to Judgment.
Still waiting for you to tell us why a dented shell after ejection means Oswald couldn't commit the assassination.
Still waiting for you to tell us how the conspirators thought shooting JFK from the front and altering the wounds would work.
Still waiting for you to tell us what medical evidence indicates more than three shots.
Hank
- Status