Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

A post that has a lot of IFs that are all about wild speculation without the least bit of evidence.

Frame z190 has been shown to have no movement consistent with a gunshot, fail again. The first frame that indicates reaction to weapons is 223, JFK has been shot and JBC reacting to being shot between z223-224.

No evidence of a "silenced" shot only speculation and a vast majority of people heard three shots, indicated by the three shell casings in the TSB. Most of the credible witnesses heard the shots from the right of the vehicle, JBC reacted to the right, SS reacted to the back right. They all knew approximately where the shots came from.

You haven't answered any of Hank's question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12059989&postcount=2426

Copied from a previous long comment of mine:

From the 1971 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, Photographic Evidence and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by physicist Don Olson and criminalist Ralph Turner:

"The Warren Commission believed that frames 225-230 represented the President's reactions to a shot fired somewhere in the interval of Zapruder frames 210-224, while the President was behind the road sign. However, certain observations in the Zapruder film will be noted here to indicate that the first wounding of the President may not have been blocked from the record by the road sign. The transition in the President's appearance between frames 183 and 230 (described above) in fact seems to begin with certain reactions in the intervals of frames 194-206.

First, a general trend in the frames 194-206 may be noted. Beginning as early as frame 194, the President's body seems to undergo a motion forward and to the left. This motion, which can be visually approximated to be on the order of six or seven inches, seems to begin in frame 194 and continues through about frame 200. The President seems to move away from the seat back and tilt to to the left, away from the window ledge."

...

"Study of the frames reveals further information. Recalling the descriptions above, it is clear that between frames 183 and 230, two specific changes occurred in the President's position. First, the President turned his head and shoulders back from the crowd until he was facing forward. Also, the President's right arm moved from a position with the elbow below a chrome strip on the outside of the car, into a position with the arm and elbow well inside the car and raised almost to chin level. These frames and motions have been described in such great detail because both of these specific changes in Kennedy can be observed to occur in the "early Zapruder frames," i.e., those before the President disappears from view behind the road sign. In this context, It happens that frame 204 is very important.

On the interval the President's body is seen to narrow somewhat to the view, indicating that he not only leans to the Left front, but also is rotated to the left. The rotation of the shoulders begins as early as frame 195. His head comes around at 200-202. By frame 204 the President is facing almost directly forward.

As the President moves and rotates to the left, his right arm is pulled back into the car. While his elbow has been resting outside the car, it comes up noticeably at frame 195. The President's elbow can be seen to cross the chrome strip on the side of the car at frames As President Kennedy disappears from view behind the sign, his right arm seems to he in a particularly unusual position the clearly visible gray of his suit coat indicating that his right arm and elbow have been raised at least to the level of his chin."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/J%20Disk/Journal%20of%20Forensic%20Science/Item%2001.pdf



From the 9/12/1978 testimony of Calvin McCamy, spokesman for the HSCA photographic evidence panel:

"...There is considerable blurring at this point. The President's arm is up in a waving position. His head is still toward the right. At this point there is considerable blur, and by here, it appears as though his head is beginning to turn quite rapidly to the left. His head is now to the left. That is only one-eighteenth of a second from one frame to the next. He continues to look toward the left. One barely sees his right ear toward the camera. It is quite clear he is here now looking directly at his wife. He and his wife can be seen looking at one another in this sequence. He now goes behind the sign, and only a fraction of a second later we see his hands moving upward. He has a gasping expression. His hands are in a classic position of a person who has been startled. He now begins to raise his arms into what I would call a defensive position. He may be clutching at the throat wound."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81#relPageId=148&tab=page


From the HSCA photographic evidence panel's final report:

64. (a) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207 as he is seen going behind a street sign that obstructed Zapruder's view.

...

70. At approximately Zapruder frame 200, Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus. By the time he emerges from behind the sign at Zapruder frame 225, the President makes a clutching motion with his hands toward his neck, indicating clearly that he has been shot.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=22&tab=page


HSCA photographic expert Cecil Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGsD8i3qOgo&t=2m55s

Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.

 

[MicahJava]

Do you really want to go there?

Let's hear your one truth.

It only happened one way.

Here's the way I put it together:

The evidence indicates that one Lee Harvey Oswald brought his rifle(1) to the Depository within a paper bag(2). Ballistic and witness evidence indicates his rifle fired three shots during the assassination(3). Further ballistic evidence indicates his rifle fired the bullets that wounded the two men(4). All three of these pieces of evidence - along with the three shells - were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. No other weapon was found in Dealey Plaza, no other shooter was seen in Dealey Plaza other than the one in the sniper's nest, and no shells, bullets, or bullet fragments were found in Dealey Plaza after the shooting other than those ballistically traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons. The autopsy determined - and all subsequent forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy material agreed - that JFK was struck twice - and only twice - both shots entering the posterior of the body in the upper back and head, and exiting the anterior of the body in the throat and top-right side of the head, respectively.

That's what the evidence indicates. One shooter - Oswald - with Oswald's weapon, from Oswald's place of work. Two bullets struck JFK with an entry and exit for each.

Now, let's hear your evidence for this one truth.

No hemming and hawing or changing the subject.

If it only happened one way and there's only one truth, and if the above is not it, how did it happen?

Point to the medical evidence of more than three shots.

Point to the forensic evidence of multiple shooters.

Tell us where they were located. Provide the evidence for that. Tell us what they struck - if anything - and why all of the evidence large enough to examine points only to Oswald's weapon.

Name names. Tell us why all the autopsists and forensic pathologists said just two bullets struck JFK.

Tell us your one truth.

Your problem is you don't have a coherent alterative story. All you have is your opinion which more often than not disagrees with what the experts determined everywhere in this case.

And still you can't come up with a coherent story and spell out your one truth. Because you don't have any truth, just a series of quibbles and alternative opinions, with nothing supporting them but your own opinion.

Your 'weapon', upon examination, strongly resembles a wet noodle that you are attempting to lash us with.

Hilarious!

Hank
_____________________
(1) A rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was found in the Depository after the assassination; that weapon was shipped from Kleins to Oswald's PO Box; Oswald was photographed with the weapon; his prints are on it.
(2) He was seen by two witnesses with a long paper sack that morning and a long paper bag with his prints on it was found in the Sniper's Nest.
(3) Three shells were found at the window traceable to his rifle and about 90% of the witnesses heard three shots.
(4) A nearly whole bullet was found at Parkland and two large fragments were found within the limo.

When you go on these rants, you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters. For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering (perhaps from firing an undercharged round or using a sabot), allegedly those and the one live round were found by police originally in that condition with those markings.

Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).

 

[Tomtomkent]

Tomtomkent, the autopsy face sheet diagram is translated as meaning a lower head wound. A human EOP is roughly level with the top of your ears, depending on how your head is tilted.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/AzVKdD8.jpg[/qimg]

How does that document describe itself?
Show me where it says "face sheet".
It doesn't. Because it's a descriptive sheet. It even says "Descriptive Sheet" on it.

It is not "translated" to mean anything than a rough, unscaled, diagram, and a few notes.

Please stop trying to make it anything more. It does not strengthen your argument, it only highlights gaps in your understanding.

 

[Tomtomkent]

TomTomKent, can you make a case for the cowlick entry wound theory?

No.
This conversation has been going for five incarnations of the thread, since before you joined in. Let's do it properly:

I'm not going to make a "case" for the wound, as described in the autopsy, the photographs, the x-rays, and the WC testimony, and confirmed by the WC findings. That case has been made. It is currently the Null Hypothesis. Unless you can provide alternate evidence, (and so far you have failed to do so, regardless of if you believe any of your posts contained actual evidence or not) it will remain the Null Hypothesis.

I am not running in circles, repeating the same "case" over and again so you can pretend there is a fringe reset. I am happy with what has been established as fact, over hundreds of pages of discussion.

If YOU want to convince OTHERS of an alternative then feel free to change your posting tactics and offer us a fully formed, well described, hypothesis that best fits the totality of evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

It doesn't indicate that. No many how many times you repeat that falsehood, it doesn't become more true with repetition.

Read these two links carefully. You may want to think twice:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931229&postcount=956

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11931291&postcount=962

Since you haven't seen these supposed missing photographs, how can you claim they would clear up anything? For that matter, you're simply begging the question, assuming there are mysteries, and then claiming photos you've never seen would clear them up.

That's a nonsensical argument.

What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today. And have you ever wondered why there are no photographs which clearly show the original head wound detailing the damage to the brain? Plus, Saundra Pencer's testimonies have already confirmed that there once existed post-mortem photographs of Kennedy's body once it had been partially reconstructed by the autopsy doctors.

Then you have other stories, an x-ray of a probe going from the back to the throat, a photograph of probes going into the wounds on the body. Who knows.

Uhh, allow me to take a wild guess, the same explanation Dr. Lattimer and every forensic pathologist thought it showed? The bullet path from the upper back that exited JFK's throat?

Instead of asking nonsensical / meaningless questions, why not try answering the ones you've been asked, repeatedly, and avoid studiously?

You should know that Lattimer located the back wound way too high. The photographs and clothing evidence show that the back wound was slightly lower anatomically than the throat wound.

Once reported? Did anyone else report it? Did Wecht ever mention it again? If it's a 'possible' bullet fragment, doesn't that mean it's also possible it's NOT a bullet fragment? You will ignore this question.

Wecht wrote it off as a minute fragment from a missile that entered the back and exited the throat. You should know that any fragment there couldn't be from that. This fragment needs more investigation.

You are begging the question by inserting as a fact ("the EOP wound") the very point you need to establish is true.

For some people, all the evidence in the world isn't enough.

You've really got this begging the question logical fallacy down pat, don't you? Why not mix it up a bit and try some other logical fallacies? [/quote]

Gary Cornwell of the HSCA that admitted 20 years later in his own book Real Answers that he coerced Humes and that he thought Humes was a lying prick trying to cover his ass for being wrong in the autopsy report.

That's not true.

Please state your case based on any sampling of witness evidence for a loud gunshot before Zapruder frame 190.

That's true, but entirely misleading. He defined the entire assassination shooting sequence as happening in a brief span of time, but estimated that brief span of time as 10 to 12 seconds!
Mr. SPECTER. What is your best estimate as to the timespan between the first shot which you heard and the shot which you heretofore characterized as the third shot?
Governor CONNALLY. It was a very brief span of time; oh, I would have to say a matter of seconds. I don't know, 10, 12 seconds.

That's five to six seconds between shots. Your argument is contrary to most other CTs, like Robert Harris, who claimed the second and third shots were closer together than the first and second (consult the earlier portions of this thread chain). You are arguing above for the first and second shots being bunched together.

But earlier this year you argued the last two - not the first two - were bunched together here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11757954&postcount=2434
"I really think the best option is to have the first shot at z190-224, and the last two shots bunched together."

So you are caught once again flip-flopping around like a fish on a boat deck. So which shots were closer together? The first and second or the second and third? Or are they all bunched?

I'm tempted to quote what Glenn said to Rick over the radio the first time they spoke in the Walking Dead television series. The bullet travels faster than sound, so the sound would have arrived at Connally after a bullet had just transected his trunk, sliced through his wrist, and struck his thigh. I think he had more important things to worry about than listening for the sound of the gunshot at that point. As Connally himself explained:
Mr. SPECTER. In your view, which bullet caused the injury to your chest, Governor Connally?
Governor CONNALLY. The second one.
Mr. SPECTER. And what is your reason for that conclusion, sir?
Governor CONNALLY. Well, in my judgment, it just couldn't conceivably have been the first one because I heard the sound of the shot, In the first place, don't know anything about the velocity of this particular bullet, but any rifle has a velocity that exceeds the speed of sound, and when I heard the sound of that first shot, that bullet had already reached where I was, or it had reached that far, and after I heard that shot, I had the time to turn to my right, and start to turn to my left before I felt anything.
It is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot.

And even though Connally didn't hear it, numerous other people did. For instance, Nellie Connally, who WASN'T struck by a bullet, testified that she heard the shot that struck her husband.
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes; and it seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and he just sort of slumped down.
Then very soon there was the second shot that hit John. As the first shot was hit, and I turned to look at the same time, I recall John saying, "Oh, no, no, no." Then there was a second shot, and it hit John, and as he recoiled to the right, just crumpled like a wounded animal to the right, he said, "My God, they are going to kill us all."





Well, let's ask the witnesses, shall we? Here's one:
Mr. BELIN - And were you able to form an opinion as to the source of the sound or what direction it came from, I mean?
Mr. BOWERS - The sounds came either from up against the School Depository Building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. BALL - Were you able to tell which?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, had you had any experience before being in the tower as to sounds coming from those various places?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; I had worked this same tower for some 10 or 12 years, and was there during the time they were renovating the School Depository Building, and had noticed at that time the similarity of sounds occurring in either of those two locations.
Mr. BALL - Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS - No; I could not.
Mr. BALL - From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS - There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
Mr. BALL - Had you heard sounds originating near the triple underpass before?
Mr. BOWERS - Yes; quite often. Because trucks backfire and various occurrences.

Bowers was there. You were not.

I think you're confusing witnesses describing large head shot. The witness evidence indicates that the last two out of three loud gunshots were closely bunched together, to the point that many apparently mistook the last two shots as only one shot.

 

[Tomtomkent]

When you go on these rants, you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters.

Then supply some. Better yet, offer a fully formed, fully evidenced theory.

For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering (perhaps from firing an undercharged round or using a sabot),

No. They don't. You have supplied none.

allegedly those and the one live round were found by police originally in that condition with those markings.

And the allegations remain meaningless unless you produce verifiable evidence this is so. I thought you were talking about what could be theorised, and now you are offering allegations? Theories have to best suit the totality of evidence. If you have to say "allegedly" it isn't a theory, and you are not theorising.

Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).

As we only have EVIDENCE of two rounds hitting people, and only thin evidence of what happened to the third, then you have just talked your way out of this evidence to conclude multiple shooters.

But, by all means. Show us another shooter, in their location, with a viable weapon, and the evidence they left...

 

[MicahJava]

No.
This conversation has been going for five incarnations of the thread, since before you joined in. Let's do it properly:

I'm not going to make a "case" for the wound, as described in the autopsy, the photographs, the x-rays, and the WC testimony, and confirmed by the WC findings. That case has been made. It is currently the Null Hypothesis. Unless you can provide alternate evidence, (and so far you have failed to do so, regardless of if you believe any of your posts contained actual evidence or not) it will remain the Null Hypothesis.

I am not running in circles, repeating the same "case" over and again so you can pretend there is a fringe reset. I am happy with what has been established as fact, over hundreds of pages of discussion.

If YOU want to convince OTHERS of an alternative then feel free to change your posting tactics and offer us a fully formed, well described, hypothesis that best fits the totality of evidence.

I don't think that's fair. You're taking the words of historical figures and pretending they're saying something that they're clearly not. I think you're pretending you actually think that. An honest person would acknowledge that they are disagreeing with the statements of the autopsy participants.

 

[Tomtomkent]

What are you on about? The autopsy doctors and the photographer said they took views of the interior of the dissected body showing the damage to the right lung, as well as close-up views of the exterior and interior of the small wound in the scalp/skull. Those photographs are not in the collection today.

How did you gain access to the photographs?
What documentary evidence do you have for the contents of the photographs?
Or, more likely, why do you keep claiming to state with a measure of authority what is, or is not, in a collection you do not have access to?

And have you ever wondered why there are no photographs which clearly show the original head wound detailing the damage to the brain?

No. Because nobody else claims to know what is, or is not, in the photographs they have not seen. Or that the wounds visible in the photographs we DO have might not be "the original wounds". We use only the evidence we actually have, and compare it to what the autopsy actually said...

Plus, Saundra Pencer's testimonies have already confirmed that there once existed post-mortem photographs of Kennedy's body once it had been partially reconstructed by the autopsy doctors.

Yes. Why would you find this suspect?

Then you have other stories, an x-ray of a probe going from the back to the throat, a photograph of probes going into the wounds on the body. Who knows.

And why do you think stories have to be validated by other evidence? People can misremember, honest people make mistakes, some people even *gasp* like to tell tall stories to CTists. Even assuming everybody is honest and well intentioned, you are doing this backwards:

You should be looking for what can be validated by objective evidence, and not pretending that stories throw doubt on it.

You should know that Lattimer located the back wound way too high. The photographs and clothing evidence show that the back wound was slightly lower anatomically than the throat wound.

Even if this was correct, and factored in JFK's body position, etc:
So what. You want us to believe a bullet can deflect sharply down, from the skull to the throat, but not slightly upwards, due to the impact force of the materials encountered in a body?

And, actually, YOU should check YOUR statement, and not rely on flawed CT sources.

Wecht wrote it off as a minute fragment from a missile that entered the back and exited the throat. You should know that any fragment there couldn't be from that. This fragment needs more investigation.

Once again you are claiming to know better than your own sources?
Your evidence is Wecht identified a possibility, that he himself decided against?


Maybe you should try offering a full and comprehensive theory, that fits all known evidence, and support it with something other than your own assertions?

 

[Tomtomkent]

I don't think that's fair. You're taking the words of historical figures and pretending they're saying something that they're clearly not. I think you're pretending you actually think that. An honest person would acknowledge that they are disagreeing with the statements of the autopsy participants.

No.
I am taking the documentary evidence, their testimony, their conclusions, analysis, and supporting objective evidence, and accepting the most likely outcome is that which has been given.

I'm taking the time to check your claims about what "they meant", and finding your assertions are failing, or simply counter to the given conclusions by the same witnesses, when placed in context.

Take for example your discussion of Wecht. You have made such a fuss about something he stated as a possibility, but ignore his given conclusions, because they do not match what you want to believe.

That sort of cherry picking shows no respect to actual people, who made it quite clear what they believed, what their doubts were, and why they reached their actual conclusions.

You are claiming an autopsy is suspicious, or containing lies, or mistakes, but offering no actual evidence, because you are trying to harvest only the facts you think you can twist to something different.

Perhaps, before you complain about what historical figures may, or may not, have been trying to say, you should read their testimony in full, in context, and the supporting documents, objectively, rather than searching for a few breadcrumbs you hope might make a conspiracy.

 

[Axxman300]

Like the presence of the military at the autopsy, Burkley's influence may have been downplayed in subsequent Dr.'s testimonies for political purposes.

Either way, Burkley witnessed the autopsy very closely.

Doesn't matter. He didn't know what he was looking at.

 

[Axxman300]

If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, .

There is no possibility without proof. There is no proof.

then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility: The small head wound had inward beveling, the large head wound had outward, so they had a place for the EOP shot to go.

There was no outward beveling. The round shattered the skull from the inside. Again, have you read the autopsy?

Let's pretend for a moment that the doctors didn't know full well that Kennedy's throat wound was originally a bullet hole on the night of the autopsy;

No.

they didn't have any place for a back entrance wound to go besides speculating that a bullet barely penetrated the back and naturally squeezed it's way out.

Sorry, I can't pretend doctors are that stupid....naturally squeezed its way out...

When they discovered the throat wound, allegedly without having investigated it at all as the possibility of a bullet wound, they had a place for the back shot to exit.

Problem here is that it WAS and exit wound, the fiber evidence proved this.

Two gunshots, perfectly clean with the three-shot scinareo

Scenario.

Also no, at the time of the autopsy the thinking was the 3rd bullet struck Connally. So there was no SCENARIO to fit.

 

[Axxman300]

Where did the EOP bullet go? There are explanations without anything being faked.

The bullet that struck Kennedy in the head ended up in the front of the limo:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

The damage to the round is testament to the power of the 6.5x52mm Carcano.

 

[Axxman300]

Tomtomkent, the autopsy face sheet diagram is translated as meaning a lower head wound. A human EOP is roughly level with the top of your ears, depending on how your head is tilted.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/AzVKdD8.jpg[/qimg]

And yet the autopsy says it's about an inch higher. Your point?

 

[Axxman300]

*snipped a huge amount of pointless cut & paste* Notice how Bugliosi is using evidence of conspiracy as evidence of whatever the hell he believes in (he doesn't address the z190+ problems in his book Reclaiming History)!!

Not to mention the photograph taken by Dealey Plaza witness Phillip Willis, corresponding to Zapruder frame 206-210, which he always swore was snapped as a startle reaction to hearing the first shot.

Not one thing you just spammed us with indicates an early GSW to the head. Not one single line. We KNOW what JFK was reacting to as the car came back into view from behind the sign - THE BACK WOUND - Connally is reacting too.

You are so bad at this.

 

[HSienzant]

So you're saying that you think the official autopsy report is incorrect? And the statements from the autopsy participants who unquestionably verified the specific detail of the EOP wound location are not providing evidence are not evidence?

The recollections from a third of a century after the assassination are not evidence, no. But that's what you cite in many cases.

Your idea of evidence is the questionable interpretations of twelve or so purported "experts"?

No. Let's discard your begging the question entirely. My idea of evidence is the expert opinion of twelve forensic pathologists who were specifically selected for the panel because of their expertise and reputation. Including one you reference quite frequently, Cyril Wecht. And another who you complained six months or so ago should have performed the autopsy in Dallas (Dr. Earl Rose), until you found out he was on the HSCA panel. Then you dropped that complaint like a hot potato.

How many of your cowlick entry experts have researched the complexities of the same X-ray and photography equipment used at the autopsy?

Who's whining now?

What complexities? All know how to read a radiograph and orient photos of the head. How many autopsies have you conducted, participated in, or even witnessed? Is it a nice round number like "O"? Well, these twelve men conducted, collectively, the nice round number of over 100,000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_autopsy#HSCA_analysis_.281979.29

You have no basis for complaint. You don't know what you're talking about. You're not an expert.

How many of your cowlick entry experts supported the ridiculous idea that the open-cranium photographs depict an entry and exit on the margins of a skull cavity only 5 inches wide after the brain had already been removed?

Asked and answered at least half a dozen times. Your complaint doesn't become more real because you refuse to accept the answer and simply repeat the question.

How many of them do we know were actually trained whatsoever in x-ray interpretation for gunshot wounds?

Hilarious! What part of "forensic pathology" do you not understand?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_pathology#United_States
"In the United States, all told, the education after high school is typically 13–15 years in duration (4 years undergraduate training + 4 years medical school + 4–5 years residency [anatomic and clinical pathology combined] + 1-2 year forensic pathology fellowship)."

I think at some point they learned how to read radiographs.

Heck my daughter knows how to read radiographs, and she's "only" a DMD.

Do you have any photographic study that provides evidence that the "red spot" on the back-of-head photographs is indeed 4-5 inches above the EOP and not only ~2 inches above the EOP?

Do you have any photographic study that it's not? It's the expert opinion of those twelve men on the HSCA forensic pathology panel that's where the wound is, it is not?

It's on you to show all twelve men are wrong. Go ahead, we'll wait.

Nothing you've posted to date calls any of their opinions into question.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Like the presence of the military at the autopsy, Burkley's influence may have been downplayed in subsequent Dr.'s testimonies for political purposes.

Or not. Remember, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence (Hitchens)

Either way, Burkley witnessed the autopsy very closely.

You didn't cite Burkley. You referenced a line from Manchester's book and merely conjectured Burkley was the source. That's not evidence of anything Burkley said.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

When you go on these rants, you should know that it is not uncommon to theorize...

It is also not uncommon for a CTist to ignore the list of question asked in the previous post by blowing smoke.

that CE399 and the official fragments were originally fired from the rifle in evidence could have been fired in the actual shooting, and you'd still have plenty of evidence to conclude multiple shooters.

No, not in 54 years has there been any evidence of other gunmen.

For one thing, each of the three shell casings themselves have evidence of tampering

We've covered this and it is an unqualified lie.

Unless you wanted to invoke a sabot, I guess that in that situation that would mean the rifle in evidence did fire at least two shots (with at least one of the shell casings being a chamber plug or a plant).

Is this based on your 12 years with A Squadron? Or your years as a gunsmith and competition shooter?

 

[RoboTimbo]

Where did the EOP bullet go?

Actually, where did it come from? It's your made up wound. Didn't your one CT source tell you?

There are explanations without anything being faked.

What's your explanation for who fired your made up shot?

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Lattimer actually [provided? - Hank] evidence for conspiracy, including:

A. Concluding that the dense particles in the lower neck area on the JFK X-rays are bullet fragments.

How is that evidence of conspiracy? It's evidence of a bullet passage.

B. Concluding that the dark cavity of air in the lower neck area is consistent with a bullet track.

How is that evidence of conspiracy? It's evidence of a bullet passage.

The Clark Panel concluded the same couple of doozies.

How is that evidence of conspiracy? It's evidence of a bullet passage.

I still believe that Lattimer was incompetent to analyze the complexities of the JFK skull X-rays.

He was a surgeon operating on soldiers during war time. He certainly saw more than his fair share of wounded men. What's YOUR background in this area?

After all, he claimed that the X-ray's black void spot on the right forehead mean that area was blasted out, while really it can only mean that a pocket of air between the tissues occurred there.

Thanks. Again, let's contrast your expertise with his, and the HSCA's forensic pathology panel. Lattimer - operated on soldiers wounded in battle in Europe during WWII. HSCA forensic pathology panel - over 100,000 autopsies. MichahJava - ZERO medical expertise.

Sorry, No offense but I'm going with Lattimer and the HSCA forensic pathology panel.

Who do you want reading your radiographs? A trained surgeon with war time experience, a group of twelve forensic pathologists with over 100,000 autopsies combined, or just some internet nobody? (no offense).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things...

These are the people you are quoting for the EOP entrance, and above you suggest they might be liars. If you don't understand why that destroys any argument you might make from what they said, we cannot help you understand it.

Suggesting they are untrustworthy cuts the very legs out from under your argument.

We can explain it to you, we cannot understand it for you. That you need to do on your own.

...then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility: The small head wound had inward beveling, the large head wound had outward, so they had a place for the EOP shot to go. Let's pretend for a moment that the doctors didn't know full well that Kennedy's throat wound was originally a bullet hole on the night of the autopsy; they didn't have any place for a back entrance wound to go besides speculating that a bullet barely penetrated the back and naturally squeezed it's way out. When they discovered the throat wound, allegedly without having investigated it at all as the possibility of a bullet wound, they had a place for the back shot to exit. Two gunshots, perfectly clean with the three-shot scinareo [sic - scenario].

So here you suggest they were incompetent. But again, that's a problem for YOUR arguments, because you rely on their expertise when you wish to cite them, but dismiss them as incompetent when it serves your purposes.

Sorry, no. We can see the problem with your argument, even if you remain blind to it (or pretend to be blind to it, or are incompetent to see the problem with it).

And you don't have the qualifications, experience, education, or background to make that criticism in any case. Maybe Earl Rose could criticize something Cyril Wecht or James Humes said, but you can't. You're not qualified to judge.

Hank