Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

If there is anything you don't understand about the EOP wound, let me know.

There's something I don't understand about your made up wound: where did the shot come from?

 

[Axxman300]

I can see the denial is strong here.

Projecting again I see.

I take it that you think the best evidence for the upper cowlick entry wound idea is the fact that the official autopsy concluded that a single bullet entered and exited the head, but at the same you you realize that it's ridiculous to ignore the autopsy report passage "2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the EOP".

Well I've only quoted it a dozen time - word for word, which makes your claim that we're ignoring this FACT a lie. We're not ignoring the entry point, just the opposite - we're agreeing that's the entry point.

A single gunshot to the head would make for a good official story.

No, it's just the only explanation consistent with the evidence both visual and physical.

The small head wound reportedly had internal beveling, and the large defect had external beveling.

Yes, that's what happens when a high powered bullet enters at skull, but whatever.

Since the brain was allegedly not examined, that's not a bad start on a conclusion.

His feet were never examined, thus they were never checked for power burns, and we will never conclusively know if JFK did not, in fact, off himself.

But the fact that the cerebellum isn't severely damaged on the brain photographs and there are no bullet fragments in the occipital area on the X-rays excludes that possibility

Is English your first language?

From what I can gather from you're poorly worded assertion you believe that there should be fragments in the occipital area - the point of entry - even though the pure force of the bullet, and the energy released upon impact would have blown fragments into the front of the brain, and out of the head...which actually happened.

Tangential wounds can have external beveling at the location where a missile actually entered on it's side.

But the 6.5x52mm round entered nose first.

The round that passed through Kennedy's neck entered Connally sideways.

These issues are more complicated that simply asking a man where they remember seeing a wound.

That's why they did the autopsy.

When we ask the men who were there where they remember the wound, they say it was in their lower head area.

That's why they did the autopsy, and recorded everything - so they wouldn't have to rely on memory.

Nobody from the autopsy examined the official autopsy photographs and said the red spot was an entry wound, in fact Dr. Boswell stated pretty clearly to the HSCA and ARRB that he considered the red spot a small scalp defect related to the large head wound.

Nobody's saying that now. No smart people at least, since there's just the one picture, and with no frame of reference using the rest of the picture you'd be pretty dumb to draw a conclusion.

 

[MicahJava]

I know you agree. Just trying to flesh it out.

The problem with not seeing all of the photos is we've never seen the pre-autopsy pictures of the entry wound to the head. The one MJ keeps harping on it taken after the brain has been removed and skull cap removed, and the scalp is being pulled back into place. It is just not a good photograph to base anything on other than JFK had great hair.

Where does that claim come from? There are no different views, only slightly different copies of the same few views of the body.

 

[MicahJava]

How can you know they are missing while they are unavailable?
Given you haven't seen them, how can you know what they show?

Because the autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking photographs that are not a part of the official collection.

 

[Axxman300]

Photographs taken at the autopsy have gone missing.

Offered without proof. They were all there as late as 1998.

Since you're young you probably are unaware that in 1963 pictures were first exposed onto what old people call "Film", and that film was then "Developed" in a "Dark Room" where the film was exposed onto specially treated paper, soaked in chemicals, and developed into "Prints". The original film contained the images in a negative exposure status, and these are called "Negatives".

The cool things about negatives is that you can take them back into a dark room and make as many prints as you can afford. Today you can do this with a digital scanner.

My point?

The photographs were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy Family in 1966...the photographs only...the negatives are in a safe in Massachusetts protected by people you don't want to mess with.

The fact is that none of the pictures are missing because stealing them would be pointless since the negatives are out of reach. The story about missing photographs is just another CT lie. CTists NEED these pictures to be stolen because it adds to the mythology of the assassination, and their continued existence undermines their pet conspiracy theories.

This includes close-up views of the outer and inner surfaces of the EOP wound in the scalp and skull.

Photos you've never seen, yet are listed in the last inventory, which you'd know if you did any real research.

 

[Axxman300]

Because the autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking photographs that are not a part of the official collection.

Oh from memory, after the fact?

And what did they all say when they went to the National Archives? That's right, the pictures were all there. So when did they go missing?

 

[Axxman300]

Where does that claim come from?

From every caption of that photograph since it first surfaced in the 90's. Plus it's obvious from looking.

There are no different views, only slightly different copies of the same few views of the body.

And you know this how? You've never seen all of the photographs. The inventory gave descriptions of what each series covered. Half of the over 40 covered the head inside and out.

Checkmate.

 

[MicahJava]

From every caption of that photograph since it first surfaced in the 90's. Plus it's obvious from looking.




And you know this how? You've never seen all of the photographs. The inventory gave descriptions of what each series covered. Half of the over 40 covered the head inside and out.

Checkmate.

You are making things up. We know what's in the official collection. Plenty of people have been given access to the full official collection.

 

[MicahJava]

Oh from memory, after the fact?

And what did they all say when they went to the National Archives? That's right, the pictures were all there. So when did they go missing?

They did not say they were all there. The doctors and John Stringer described taking several photographs which are not in the official collection. John Stringer even clarified to the ARRB that they were more or less pressured to sign a document from the Clark panel stating that the official collection was complete.

 

[Axxman300]

You are making things up. We know what's in the official collection. Plenty of people have been given access to the full official collection.

...and nothing's missing.

 

[Axxman300]

They did not say they were all there. The doctors and John Stringer described taking several photographs which are not in the official collection. John Stringer even clarified to the ARRB that they were more or less pressured to sign a document from the Clark panel stating that the official collection was complete.

They're all there. More to the point, any missing photographs can be replaced. But they're all there. All one needs to do is check the negatives, which all have their own numbers. If an exposure is missing it would be easy to find out which one.

This event didn't happen in a vacuum, every step was recorded by multiple people. Missing evidence would be noticed and listed.

You have yet to tell us how and why these photographs went missing, and who took them. If you cannot tell us then there is nothing to discuss here.

 

[HSienzant]

Where does that claim come from? There are no different views, only slightly different copies of the same few views of the body.

Because the autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking photographs that are not a part of the official collection.

Can you reconcile these two statements issued back-to-back?

I can't. You seem to be saying in the second post that there are different views we haven't seen that are either lost or not released to the public, but the first post discounts that possibility, saying the views we haven't seen are only slightly different than the ones we have seen.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

Because the autopsy doctors and photographer John Stringer have described taking photographs that are not a part of the official collection.

Again, you are stating what is, or is not, in a collection you have no access to. How? How did you verify what was there? How do you know they are not misremembering?

 

[BStrong]

You are making things up. We know what's in the official collection. Plenty of people have been given access to the full official collection.

You have no objection to it when yo cite such things as evidence, so what's your point?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

MicahJava, beyond your endless fixation on the location of the EOP wound, you haven't shown anything else.
You said there was 'more than enough' evidence to show a conspiracy.
Why not post the rest of the evidence?
Could you also post the forensic evidence you claim proves there were multiple shooters?
Thanks.

 

[Tomtomkent]

MicahJava, beyond your endless fixation on the location of the EOP wound, you haven't shown anything else.
You said there was 'more than enough' evidence to show a conspiracy.
Why not post the rest of the evidence?
Could you also post the forensic evidence you claim proves there were multiple shooters?
Thanks.

I don't think he claims there is any.

His argument as presented so far seems to boil down to:

"If the bullet went in the back of the head as low as I think, it must have exited low, so that big old exit wound was another shooter."

 

[HSienzant]

I don't think he claims there is any.

His argument as presented so far seems to boil down to:

"If the bullet went in the back of the head as low as I think, it must have exited low, so that big old exit wound was another shooter."

He most definitely does think there is forensic evidence of multiple shooters.

He asserted that here:

The forensic evidence strongly supports multiple shooters in the JFK assassination.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

He most definitely does think there is forensic evidence of multiple shooters.

He asserted that here:



Hank

Yes, but offering him the benefit of the doubt... I think he believes he has shown us that evidence. I don’t think he has anything beyond the EOP thing.

I don’t mind being proven wrong. And I could have been clearer in my post.

 

[HSienzant]

Micah Java,

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.
Still waiting for you to cite the forensic evidence of multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.

These are assertions you have made in the past and have yet to defend.

Hank

 

[bknight]

Micah Java,

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.
Still waiting for you to cite the forensic evidence of multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.

These are assertions you have made in the past and have yet to defend.

Hank

He can't post/cite the evidence of any of these questions because that evidence resides in his mind or CT mind set. You and Axxman300 have cite more than enough evidence to show MJ has nothing but beliefs.