• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
A "thorough job" doesn't involve literally calling an upholstery company to remove and destroy the padding, cushioning, etc.
Click to expand...

After the limo was thoroughly searched by separate teams including FBI and Secret Service agents.

You're now hanging on by a thread.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
At the mock trial, John T. Orr will be discussing the serious possibility that CE567 contains muscle tissue. Last I checked, the parietal area does not contain muscle, only the temporal, frontal, and occipital areas.
Click to expand...

1. He will have to prove there's enough tissue to test.

2. The bullet fragment exited in a place where muscles connected to the jaw and forehead intersect.

3. Nobody cares.
 
HSienzant said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporoparietalis_muscle (scroll down until you see the rotating image with the muscle in red).

Compare to the damage to JFK's skull, especially over the right ear. The damage extends all the way down to the level of top of the ear.
Click to expand...

Yes, the right temporal area was opened up. Do you think a bullet entered or exited there? Or traveled anywhere near there?

You appear to have abandoned your arguments for the autopsy lasting until after 2am on Saturday morning at this point. We're not fooled, we know you'll back arguing for that fringe reset shortly, pretending that you weren't schooled in this subject.

Hank
Click to expand...

Do you want me to continue reconstructing a timeline for the autopsy right here, right now? That would be constitute a long essay. I would like to do that, but that takes time and now I think the evidence is pretty impressive here.
 
MicahJava said:
Enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Enlighten yourself.

At this point you have disagreed with yourself so often it is quite plain that you do not have the foggiest what your argument actually might be.

What is anyone to do with that?

Testimony gets included or exclude on a whim, and it is a race to keep up with the next claim. You are qualified to assess professional testimony or you are not, you make up stuff or you do not, you claim expertise or you do not.

Frankly, it seems to me that you have no clue at all, and flail around because of utter crap you read somewhere.

It may be that you don't like that assessment and that's fine.

Nobody claimed you have to like it, nevertheless, it is how you present yourself, so it is rather odd that you would have a problem with how you self represent.

Mostly, I lurk this thread. And I cannot help but conclude that it is rather nutty. Hank, et al provide cogent argument supported by evidence and you provide what?

Nothing.
 
MicahJava said:
At the mock trial, John T. Orr will be discussing the serious possibility that CE567 contains muscle tissue. Last I checked, the parietal area does not contain muscle, only the temporal, frontal, and occipital areas.
Click to expand...

So he'll be chasing another rabbit down a rabbit hole by building a strawman argument and trying to establish that.

So typical conspiracy nonsense.

Like I said, it's co-sponsored by a conspiracy group, so what do you expect?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Yes, the right temporal area was opened up. Do you think a bullet entered or exited there? Or traveled anywhere near there?
Click to expand...

You brought up the parietal area. The damage extends to the pariental area. There is muscle in the parietal area. The image shows muscle in the temporal-parietal area.

Are we supposed to not notice that's another strawman you're attacking?



MicahJava said:
Do you want me to continue reconstructing a timeline for the autopsy right here, right now? That would be constitute a long essay. I would like to do that, but that takes time and now I think the evidence is pretty impressive here.
Click to expand...

You have provided plenty of hearsay and recollections from decades after the fact, mixed liberally with speculation and conjecture.

You have provided no evidence.

And again, nobody cares what you think.

Hank
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Enlighten yourself.

At this point you have disagreed with yourself so often it is quite plain that you do not have the foggiest what your argument actually might be.

What is anyone to do with that?

Testimony gets included or exclude on a whim, and it is a race to keep up with the next claim. You are qualified to assess professional testimony or you are not, you make up stuff or you do not, you claim expertise or you do not.

Frankly, it seems to me that you have no clue at all, and flail around because of utter crap you read somewhere.

It may be that you don't like that assessment and that's fine.

Nobody claimed you have to like it, nevertheless, it is how you present yourself, so it is rather odd that you would have a problem with how you self represent.

Mostly, I lurk this thread. And I cannot help but conclude that it is rather nutty. Hank, et al provide cogent argument supported by evidence and you provide what?

Nothing.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with muscle fibers on CE 567?
 
MicahJava said:
I would like to see the evidence for a frontal exit.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. The autopsy report, autopsy x-rays, and autopsy photos establish where the exit wound was.

Do you have problems now understanding where the large exit wound was and need help locating it, after pretending to be an expert on this subject and lecturing us about how much you know about the locations of the wounds?

Start by avoiding strawman arguments.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Do you want me to continue reconstructing a timeline for the autopsy right here, right now? That would be constitute a long essay. I would like to do that, but that takes time and now I think the evidence is pretty impressive here.
Click to expand...

If you believe the autopsy was staged then who cares when it ended since you now believe it was just a puppet show?

If you are embracing Lifton you have to buy into the whole thing. That's where his "evidence" took him.
 
"Around midnight Ken, Larry, and I picked out a coffin for our President"

-David Powers, Handwritten notes of November 22–23, 1963.

cited in The Death of a President by William Manchester, 1967

This is referring to the mahogany coffin that was then transported along with the morticians that worked on Kennedy.
 
Last edited:
Axxman300 said:
If you believe the autopsy was staged then who cares when it ended since you now believe it was just a puppet show?

If you are embracing Lifton you have to buy into the whole thing. That's where his "evidence" took him.
Click to expand...

I think you've resorted to actual gibberish.
 
HSienzant said:
Hilarious. The autopsy report, autopsy x-rays, and autopsy photos establish where the exit wound was.

Do you have problems now understanding where the large exit wound was and need help locating it, after pretending to be an expert on this subject and lecturing us about how much you know about the locations of the wounds?

Start by avoiding strawman arguments.

Hank
Click to expand...

This is not the place to use the term "exit wound " loosely. You need evidence for an actual bullet or a piece of a bullet exiting there. The autopsy photographs show the mysterious red triangle in that area of the scalp, not a hole. The open-cranium photographs? Where's the suture line?
 
MicahJava said:
This is not the place to use the term "exit wound " loosely. You need evidence for an actual bullet or a piece of a bullet exiting there. The autopsy photographs show the mysterious red triangle in that area of the scalp, not a hole. The open-cranium photographs? Where's the suture line?
Click to expand...

OK, Present your evidence for the exit wound of your choice. You cannot.

Where do you think the "suture line" is and why you think this means anything at all?

Have you seen the "Open-cranium" photographs? Yes or no?

Don't you think that if you are going to make such wild claims you should have at least some modicum of actual evidence?

Why have you no evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom