Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

We only have two photographs and and X-ray that could show us the nature of the beveling.

Who is "we"?

 

[Axxman300]

I don't know what you're talking about. Photographs are required to be taken at an autopsy just as much as X-rays are.

Had you bothered to read the link to Humes' deposition he clear states that the photographs were his idea, and that the Kennedys were upset that they were being taken. In 1963 photographs were not mandatory, and x-rays were done on a case-by-case basis.

What's your point? We know from the vivid testimonies of the Dr.'s and photographer that photographs were taken of a bruise on Kennedy's right lung and close-up views of a small wound on the back of the head, in the scalp and the outer/inner surfaces of the skull.

If it's not in the autopsy report it didn't happen, and Humes also discusses the examination of the inside of the skull in that link I posted that you have not/cannot/are too lazy to/ cannot understand.

I think you're a little lost. You must be thinking of Floyd Riebe, who was taking photographs of the crowd gathered to view the autopsy and not the body itself. He did not take any photographs of the body and he was not the official autopsy photographer. The official autopsy photographer was John Stringer.

You are the worst researcher in the history of research. This is written by a CT-oriented expert on the incident, and Riebe was clearly taking more than photos of the gallery:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/robertson.htm

What is this strange concept that lone nutters have that the Kennedy family could have had the jurisdiction to literally destroyed any trace of the some of the most valuable evidence in the murder case of a President?

You mean the same Kennedy folks who took the body back to D.C. against Texas law stating the autopsy had to be performed there? Or the Kennedy family that rushed the autopsy to get the President into the ground in accordance with Catholic rights? Maybe just RFK, the guy who removed JFK's brain from the archives to bury it with the body when it was moved to its final resting spot (also the guy who, with his brother, condoned assassination plots against Castro using the mafia)?

Pick up a history book sometime, it will do you good.

Yeah, you're beyond strike three at this point. The Kennedy family did not have the jurisdiction to destroy the original autopsy films.

From the National Archives:

The autopsy photographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were donated to the National Archives by the Kennedy family by an agreement dated October 29, 1966. This agreement limits access to such materials to: (1) persons authorized to act for a Committee of Congress, a Presidential Commission, or any other official agency of the Federal government having authority to investigate matters relating to the assassination of President Kennedy and to (2) recognized experts in the field of pathology or related areas of science and technology whose applications are approved by the Kennedy family representative, Mr. Paul Kirk.

Guess what, Hotrod, not only did they have "jurisdiction" they outright owned them. If they didn't then the pictures would already be in the public domain.

Nobody's going to let valuable evidence be destroyed in the murder case of a President because his family doesn't like it.

Weird because RFK shut down lines of investigation that would have implicated him and his brother in illegal assassination activities against Castro.

Where do you get your information, newsfordummies.com?

I'm not the one getting shellacked on this forum.

 

[Axxman300]

Where did I say that I believed the X-rays are altered? I did not.

You have done this dozens of times. Your problem is your poor sentence construction. Plus you're sloppy, and you throw the idea that the evidence was fake so you can debate that it wasn't, but since your arguments are weak it comes across as if you are saying they're fake.

The official evidence is compatible with the EOP wound under certain parameters.

Translation: You've twisted the evidence so much you no longer know what's real.

I just said that there's so much evidence that even if the photographs and X-rays didn't show it, I would then believe them to be faked because there's too much evidence for the EOP wound to ignore.

*see my first point*

I mean, where do you go when there's the world's fattest contradiction between the autopsy participants and it's official conclusions? Do you plug your ears and yell "but the government autopsy concluded one gunshot to the head"?

The participants that count were the three Pathologists, and their conclusions are that JFK was struck twice, once in the back and once in the head by bullets fired from the same rifle at the same location. All three have repeated their conclusions multiple times under oath, and any other way they can.

 

[Axxman300]

What does a second shooter making the EOP bullet wound have to do with the fragments which officially caused the large head wound?

We'll never know because there was only one shooter.

Even the fragments in evidence could have created a tangential wound on the side of Kennedy's head which had no relation to the EOP wound.

But we know what they DID do.

There were trace amounts of human skin identified on one of the fragments, and human skin is very unlikely except in cases of tangential wounds.

Do they teach that in your 3rd or 4th year at Harvard Medical School, or was this just something you noticed in your decade with the British SAS?

That's a hypothetical where nothing is faked. As soon as I started looking at the forensic evidence, I was attracted to the idea of reconciling the official evidence with the case for conspiracy.

And you have painfully failed.

 

[bknight]

Literally go to the testimonies of Humes, Boswell, Finck, and John Stringer, then look for any time they're talking about taking photographs. They described taking a few photographs which aren't in the official collection now.

Shifting the burden of proof. It is not my responsibility to do research for you, cite what you alleged.

Oh no, no backward explosion in the Zapurder video? And that negates my hypnosis? Even if it was spelled right, your comment makes literally no sense. You should have a grasp of the things I talk about by now. The EOP bullet wound to the head did not have to be created at z313, it could have been created as early as z190-224. Volley fire is not necessary.

My apologies for the spelling, but you know/knew what I meant. No I don't have the foggiest ides of what you talk about since you talk in circles, post contrary thought/ideas. You should learn a few tricks instead of whining about what others post. I asked you before if you watched the Zapruder videos, it is clear by your comment "The EOP bullet wound to the head did not have to be created at z313, it could have been created as early as z190-224"
that you have not watched the video. JFK is busy waving at the crowd in that sequence. You keep referring to a small wound to the back of the head, do you consider 6.5mm a small wound? If not what is your definition of a small wound? BTW only one entry wound to the back of the head was noted and that hole fits nicely with a 6.5mm round.

Every time there is a new "investigation", it uncovers plenty of evidence for conspiracy. Not just the EOP wound location (which is undeniable at this point).

The only evidence for a conspiracy is in the minds of CTs no other investigation has had at its findings a conspiracy in the assassination.

 

[MicahJava]

Remind us what position RFK held in the government and what his powers were in that role. Some here may have forgotten.

Hank

Could the prime minister of France destroy the Mona Lisa?

 

[MicahJava]

Hilarious. It's time to give up when you can't even remember your own arguments from a few days previous. You certainly suggested they could be:



Hank

I said that I DON'T think the X-rays or photographs are faked. They can be compatible with the EOP wound, if not prove it. If the X-rays or photographs were ever proven to be incompatible with the EOP wound, only then I would then think that they are faked.

 

[HSienzant]

Could the prime minister of France destroy the Mona Lisa?

Sashay.

Remind us what position RFK held in the government and what his powers were in that role. Some here may have forgotten.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

No. The fragments (which you previously questioned the legitimacy of) were found forward of the President AND are traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Those fragments can't be linked to any hypothetical second shooter in front of the President, because they are in the wrong place based on the physical laws of the universe and are also linked indubitably to Oswald's rifle.

The only reason I question if the fragments aren't faked is the trace amount of human skin found on one of them.

Let us know when you make some headway. Thus far you haven't reconciled any official evidence with a case for conspiracy.

Hank

Oh ok, you're in denial. Ok.

 

[MicahJava]

Let me correct one thing: "original autopsy films" probably does not mean the photographs at the National Archives today. We know from the ARRB testimony of John Stringer that at the very least the brain photographs are copies of the original. The originals are missing.

 

[HSienzant]

What does a second shooter making the EOP bullet wound have to do with the fragments which officially caused the large head wound? Even the fragments in evidence could have created a tangential wound on the side of Kennedy's head which had no relation to the EOP wound. There were trace amounts of human skin identified on one of the fragments, and human skin is very unlikely except in cases of tangential wounds.

The only reason I question if the fragments aren't faked is the trace amount of human skin found on one of them.

Great, then we're back at your prior argument being wrong. Those fragments could not have come from a second shooter because they were determined to have been fired from Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world.

As I said here: "No. The fragments (which you previously questioned the legitimacy of) were found forward of the President AND are traceable to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world. Those fragments can't be linked to any hypothetical second shooter in front of the President, because they are in the wrong place based on the physical laws of the universe and are also linked indubitably to Oswald's rifle."

Are you going to say the fragments are faked now? Of course you are.

Thus far you haven't reconciled any official evidence with a case for conspiracy.

Oh ok, you're in denial. Ok.

I'm not the one claiming most of the evidence in the assassination 'could be' fake and suggesting the autopsists 'might be' lying and the entire HSCA pathology panel didn't know how to read radiographs.

You have to deny the validity of 99% of the evidence to argue for a conspiracy. And you've done that.

And we're still waiting for you to explain why Dr. Lattimer, the original three autopsy doctors, and all the forensic pathologists on the HSCA panel were all fooled into thinking the massive head wound was an exit for the entry wound in the back of the head.

And how you, with no medical training whatsoever, and never having viewed the original autopsy radiographs nor autopsy photographs, were able to determine the actual pathway for that bullet.

That should be fun to read.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

My apologies for the spelling, but you know/knew what I meant. No I don't have the foggiest ides of what you talk about since you talk in circles, post contrary thought/ideas. You should learn a few tricks instead of whining about what others post. I asked you before if you watched the Zapruder videos, it is clear by your comment "The EOP bullet wound to the head did not have to be created at z313, it could have been created as early as z190-224"
that you have not watched the video. JFK is busy waving at the crowd in that sequence. You keep referring to a small wound to the back of the head, do you consider 6.5mm a small wound? If not what is your definition of a small wound? BTW only one entry wound to the back of the head was noted and that hole fits nicely with a 6.5mm round.

Kennedy was lowering his arm from waving the last time at z190+.

In what way does a 15x6mm elliptical entry wound fit well with a 6.5 round?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let me correct one thing: "original autopsy films" probably does not mean the photographs at the National Archives today. We know from the ARRB testimony of John Stringer that at the very least the brain photographs are copies of the original. The originals are missing.

Several steps of logic missing.
What analysis has been applied to show the films are copies? Based on what photographic artefacts?
More to the point, what difference does it make, unless you can prove the copies are incomplete or tampered with?

 

[MicahJava]

If the fragments are real, then they were created by a 6.5 round tangentially striking JFK's head from behind.

 

[HSienzant]

Let me correct one thing: "original autopsy films" probably does not mean the photographs at the National Archives today. We know from the ARRB testimony of John Stringer that at the very least the brain photographs are copies of the original. The originals are missing.

Sigh. There you go, quoting 33-year after the fact recollections once more as if they were meaningful. They aren't.

You know they aren't, but if you don't have those worn-down recollections to cite, you don't have anything.

No wonder you clamor for a new investigation. A new investigation means more fallacious recollections to data-mine for anything and everything that could be painted as pointing to a conspiracy.

Show us how you determined the photos in evidence are not the originals and Stringer's recollections were validated. You won't because you can't.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I see little point of questioning if John Stringer, even as an old man, could remember the types of film stock he used throughout his entire career. He said the photographs are copies because they aren't made with the film he always used. So not only are some autopsy photographs missing from the official collection, but some of the versions in evidence today are apparently just copies.

 

[HSienzant]

If the fragments are real, then they were created by a 6.5 round tangentially striking JFK's head from behind.

I should add this to the list of assertions you made that you never cited any evidence for.

Which qualified person who examined the extant autopsy photos or autopsy radiographs or who examined JFK's body on the night of the assassination agrees with your newest theory?

You have these people to choose from:

1. Dr. Pierre Finck, Bethesda autopsy team
2. William Carnes, Clark Panel member, 1968
3. Russell Fisher, Clark Panel member, 1968
4. Russell Morgan, Clark Panel member, 1968
5. Alan Moritz, Clark Panel member, 1968
6. Robert McMeekin, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
7. Richard Lindenberg, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
8. Werner Spitz, Rockefeller Commission, 1975, HSCA Panel, 1978
9. John Coe, HSCA Panel, 1978
10. Joseph Davis, HSCA Panel, 1978
11. George Loquvam, HSCA Panel, 1978
12. Charles Petty, HSCA Panel, 1978
13. Earl Rose, HSCA Panel, 1978
14. Cyril Wecht, HSCA Panel, 1978
15. James Weston, HSCA Panel, 1978
16. Michael Baden, HSCA Panel, 1978
17. Fred Hodges, Radiologist, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
18. Alfred Olivier, Wound Ballistics, Warren Commission, Rockefeller Commission, 1975
19. Dr. John Lattimer, independent
20. Dr. James Humes, Bethesda autopsy team
21. Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Bethesda autopsy team

Go ahead, we'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I see little point of questioning if John Stringer, even as an old man, could remember the types of film stock he used throughout his entire career.

Wait, what? So you just want to accept his 33-year after the fact recollection with no attempt at validation?

He said the photographs are copies because they aren't made with the film he always used.

So how do we establish he's accurately remembering what film he used on the night of the assassination? We don't? We just accept any and all recollections as true, and throw out anything that disagrees with those recollections? Are you seriously arguing for that approach?

So not only are some autopsy photographs missing from the official collection, but some of the versions in evidence today are apparently just copies.

You have asserted both. You have established neither. Asserting someone's recollection from a third of a century later is accurate without even attempting to validate that recollection is a foolish endeavor.

Your conclusion here does not follow from the one fact in evidence. You have a recollection from 33-years after the fact that you apparently intend to beat until it carries you across the finish line.

But you got nothing else, and we both know it.

Keep beating that dead horse.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Kennedy was lowering his arm from waving the last time at z190+.

So no reaction to being struck then. Maybe a reaction to hearing something that sounded like a shot shortly (1-2 seconds) before that, allowing for reaction time?

Does that sound possible? How did you eliminate that possibility?

In what way does a 15x6mm elliptical entry wound fit well with a 6.5 round?

It what ways does it not fit well? You're the 'medical expert' on this forum (or so you'd like us to believe). You tell us how you excluded a 6.5mm round as making that wound, and tell us how many bullets were manufactured in the history of the world having cross-sectional dimensions of 15mm by 6mm, and how those bullets would spiral down a barrel.

Or do you suppose there might be another reason for the elliptical entry wound other than an elliptical bullet?

Hmmm?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Let's backtrack a bit.

In the prior thread, you argued here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11847719&postcount=3845

For this:

One autopsy conclusion was that there was a small wound devoid of scalp and skull approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance. If you can think of a way this wound could have any relation to the large head wound, be my guest.

If the wound was devoid of both scalp and skull, what was the wound IN?

Please note the original autopsists had no problem thinking of the way that wound could have a relationship to the large head wound... they determined the small wound was the entrance and the large wound was the exit.

Tell us on what basis you think they are not related. Cite the evidence, not your opinion of the evidence. That means quoting the actual experts for their opinions, not telling us what you think they missed, what you think they should have done, or what you think they should have thought.

We're looking for evidence from qualified medical professionals here.

Hank