Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

It has been pointed out to you numerous times that JFK was leaning over toward Jackie so that shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD lines up.

No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I myself do not have the necessary skills, but, if we know the angle of this supposed wound, and also when in the Zapruder film it was supposedly fired (something I believe MJ has mentioned), then it should be possible to determine the location of this second shooter. This would at least have the advantage of showing whether this shot was even possible (i.e. no obstructions etc.)
This is too close to an actual concrete theory for MJ to attempt, but I was wondering if anyone else would care to give this a try?

No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.

Great. You have shown that you are both willing and able to draw a straight line to disprove Oswald's guilt.
Now you can take the next logical step and draw another one, showing where you think the second shooter was located.

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy report says "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But this could just be the based on the shallow back wound which was angled 45-60 degrees downward. A contemporaneous description of the trajectory through the head is in the 2:00 AM Teletype from Sibert and O'Neill:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md149/html/md149_0001a.htm

...

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL.

...

Suggesting more of an upwards trajectory as if you connected the EOP wound to the top of the head.

So you're arguing now for somebody shooting Kennedy from the trunk of the car? ('boot of the car' for those readers from England).

And you avoid the obvious conclusion, of course, that if you credit that Sibert & O'Neill teletype description, it confirms the autopsy photos, autopsy radiographs, and autopsy report, and totally destroys your own argument here:

The cavity in the lower neck apparent on the X-rays is certainly a good contender for strong evidence that a missile entered near the EOP, deflected downwards and exited the throat.

It's funny to me how often you destroy your own prior argument with your own following argument.

There's a reason for that. It's because you're just criticizing the Warren Commission conclusion with no set argument of your own. You'll fling anything against the wall to see what sticks.

So in trying to salvage one argument, you yourself totally destroyed your earlier one, without any help from anyone else. Sibert and O'Neill reported, within a few hours of the completion of the autopsy, that the bullet entered the back of the head and exited the top of the skull.

Exited the top of the skull.

Not the back of the head. Not the throat. Nowhere but where the autopsy report claims it exited. Nowhere but where the autopsy doctors testified it exited. Nowhere but where the autopsy radiographs and autopsy photos show it exited.

So gone is your argument that the bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head then exited the throat.

Gone as well is your own argument that the autopsy report in existence isn't the original.

Gone is your argument that the autopsy wasn't completed until after 2:00am on Saturday morning.

Gone as well is your own argument that more than one bullet hit JFK in the head.

Gone as well is any argument for body alteration as I explained here using Lifton's research:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11619963&postcount=2304

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.

So the contemporaneous teletype you just cited disproves the EOP argument you advance above.

The entrance wound on the back of the skull MUST be higher on the skull to exit the top of the skull, right? (assuming no deflection).

And Sibert and O'Neill, shortly after the conclusion of the autopsy, sent a teletype that the exit wound of the bullet that hit JFK in the head exited the top of the skull, right?

You're destroying your own prior argument with the new one, once more.

Elsewhere, you were clear you assumed deflection downward to exit the throat. I've asked why you don't assume deflection upward to exit the top of the skull, if you're so confident in the EOP as the location of the entry wound.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12027307&postcount=1756
You never did answer.

Keep up the good work. These posts of mine practically write themselves once you post.

Hank

 

[bknight]

No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.

No, it has been shown by many sources posted here in this thread that the trajectory comes from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Your CT books and websites attempt to deflect that trajectory to somewhere else incorrectly. Get your nose out of those sources and start reading sources that have no economic incentive by writing books for profit.

 

[RoboTimbo]

No, I am referring to the EOP wound. At the position Kennedy is situated in the Zapruder Film, a straight line from the sixth floor to the EOP would exit the right temple or the right side of the face.

Where did the shot come from, MicahJava?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I myself do not have the necessary skills, but, if we know the angle of this supposed wound, and also when in the Zapruder film it was supposedly fired (something I believe MJ has mentioned), then it should be possible to determine the location of this second shooter. This would at least have the advantage of showing whether this shot was even possible (i.e. no obstructions etc.)
This is too close to an actual concrete theory for MJ to attempt, but I was wondering if anyone else would care to give this a try?

Great. You have shown that you are both willing and able to draw a straight line to disprove Oswald's guilt.
Now you can take the next logical step and draw another one, showing where you think the second shooter was located.

Where did the shot come from, MicahJava?

Asked and unanswered.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.

And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that. Lipsey did describe the autopsy pathologists discussing a scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat, and Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound. The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment. The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.

 

[MicahJava]

So the contemporaneous teletype you just cited disproves the EOP argument you advance above.

The entrance wound on the back of the skull MUST be higher on the skull to exit the top of the skull, right? (assuming no deflection).

And Sibert and O'Neill, shortly after the conclusion of the autopsy, sent a teletype that the exit wound of the bullet that hit JFK in the head exited the top of the skull, right?

You're destroying your own prior argument with the new one, once more.

Elsewhere, you were clear you assumed deflection downward to exit the throat. I've asked why you don't assume deflection upward to exit the top of the skull, if you're so confident in the EOP as the location of the entry wound.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12027307&postcount=1756
You never did answer.

Keep up the good work. These posts of mine practically write themselves once you post.

Hank

There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect upwards as soon as if entered the skull bone. If you want to speculate on that, you can, as long as it starts with the EOP wound.

 

[RoboTimbo]

There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect upwards as soon as if entered the skull bone. If you want to speculate on that, you can, as long as it starts with the EOP wound.

What does the selected "evidence" that you choose to believe tell you happened?

 

[bknight]

Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.

And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that. Lipsey did describe the autopsy pathologists discussing a scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat, and Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound. The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment. The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.

He may have claimed that but the evidence is clear that no probe was inserted into the base of the head, since there was no entrance wound nay any wound at the base of the head. Another failure to do proper research before posting nonsense.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent

It doesn't have to be even a little bit fraudulent - the Sibert and O'Neill teletype YOU CITED from 2:00am on 11/23/63 (just thirteen and a half hours after the assassination) establishes that.

Don't you remember citing this line from that teletype:
"TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL."

Sibert and O'Neill, along with the autopsy report, the autopsy doctors, HSCA forensic panel, the radiographs, and the autopsy photos, not to mention the Zapruder film, all establish one shot to the head. That shot exited the top of the skull.

Any pretense on your part otherwise is just that, pretense.

... - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.

And that's the same result we get no matter where we look. One shot to the head, in the back, out the top.

We're just treading old ground now once more. This is just part of your fringe reset routine you sing and dance your way through.

And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that.

One conclusion changed. At the conclusion of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors in Washington were unaware that a tracheotomy had been performed in Parkland over an existing bullet wound in an attempt to save the President's life.

When they found out otherwise, the evidence they had gathered at autopsy fit the conclusion that the bullet transited the body.

Lipsey did describe the autopsy pathologists discussing a scenario with a bullet entering the EOP and exiting the throat...

How many years after the autopsy did he 'remember' this? More than 30?

...and Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound.

That's funny, because the evidence establishes Tom Robinson wasn't at the autopsy. And how many years after the autopsy did he 'remember' this? More than 30?

We covered all this months ago, repeatedly:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12085615&postcount=3092
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12081176&postcount=3005
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12068145&postcount=2698

There are more in the prior thread, going back over a year:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11564268&postcount=1929
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11593166&postcount=2203
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11596500&postcount=2221

Repeating your points doesn't make them more true.
That admonishment goes back over a year too:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11511320&postcount=1746

The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment.

Well, I want to be fair here. Asking you to list all these 'endless' reports would clearly take you to infinity and beyond. So I'll only ask for you to document ten reports 'about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment'.

Here, I'll even start you off, and provide the layout.

1.
2.
3.

Go ahead, list ten. Surely ten reports out of an 'endless' number of such reports won't be a hardship. We'll wait a rather long time for you to comply, I'll wager.

The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.

No, at the autopsy the throat wound was seen to be the tracheotomy performed at Parkland to attempt to save the President's life. It was only later that it was determined the throat wound was over an existing bullet wound, and the facts determined at autopsy fit the conclusion of a bullet transiting the President's neck.

This has been covered in detail with you in the past.

You're just treading old ground well after the point has been settled.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect upwards as soon as if [sic] entered the skull bone.

You conjectured a deflection downward to exit the throat. How do you rule out a deflection upward, especially since the top right quandrant of the brain was missing or badly damaged? *

There is also a trail of minute fragments in the existing brain radiographs pointing from the entry wound in the back of the head to the exit wound at the top of the head.

No evidence has been cited by you of any bullet track downward and out the throat.

In fact, your post would be a lot more accurate if you wrote:

There is no brain damage, no number of fragments, etc. to justify even a scenario where the bullet would deflect downwards to exit the throat as soon as it entered the skull bone.

If you want to speculate on that, you can, as long as it starts with the EOP wound.

I am comfortable with the evidence of a shot to the back of the head exiting the top of the skull. You want to change that conclusion, you need to cite some evidence. Your speculations about a deflection downward -- without explaining how you arrived at that and eliminated a deflection upward or to either side -- are just that, speculation. They don't rise to the level of anything greater than a WAG by an uninformed layman.

______________________

* As in this drawing of the brain, looking down on the brain, with the front of the brain at the top, and the back of the brain at the bottom:

 

[HSienzant]

And I'll just point out that MicahJava ignored all my points in these posts to bring up points not raised:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12151507&postcount=3523

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12151507&postcount=3524

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Deleted duplicate post.

 

[Axxman300]

The autopsy report says "The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But this could just be the based on the shallow back wound which was angled 45-60 degrees downward. A contemporaneous description of the trajectory through the head is in the 2:00 AM Teletype from Sibert and O'Neill:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md149/html/md149_0001a.htm

...

TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL.

...

Suggesting more of an upwards trajectory as if you connected the EOP wound to the top of the head.

And yet when we go to the film:

You're painfully wrong.

All of your assertions only work if JFK was sitting level and straight, but he wasn't, and Elm Street is on an incline.

Neither Sibert and O'Neill were doctors, and the teletype is not a legal document, nor is it meant to be 100% accurate. This is just a simple communication from the agents in the field to HQ, and has no official weight whatsoever. Both men had likely been awake for over 20 hours by the time this was written.

 

[Axxman300]

Hank, the autopsy conclusion of a single gunshot to the head doesn't have to be totally fraudulent - the small head wound had internal beveling indicating entry and the large head wound had external beveling indicating exit.

That's the ONLY GSW to the head.

And that evidence shows the autopsy conclusions were considered malleable. The throat wound stuff from earlier showed that.

There is no evidence. We have shown your source material for this to be fraudulent.

Tom Robinson claimed to see a probe inserted into the base of the head which emerged from the throat wound.

Which never happened since we know the bullet entered the upper back and exited the front. This was proved by the fiber evidence alone. So we know Robinson is inaccurate.

The endless reports about some mysterious earlier autopsy conclusions about the throat wound being a fragment.

CT gossip does not count as "endless reports".

The most innocent argument against that is to say the FBI just casually assumed the throat wound was a fragment and felt it was ok to report that as fact.

Incoming field updates are not always accurate, most are NEVER accurate. That's why they're updates, and not the final report. These communications are meant to keep HQ in the loop on an important investigation, and had you bothered to read the latest document dump from the National Archives you'd see the entire chain where the following field reports correct the previous ones, and then go on to report something that is then corrected later.

All that matters is what the FBI gave to the Warren Commission.

 

[MicahJava]

Deleted duplicate post.

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

 

[CORed]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

I'm not surprised you're getting tired of having every one of your posts shown to be complete nonsense. The best way to stop it would be to stop posting complete nonsense.

 

[RoboTimbo]

While you're at it, delete ALL of your posts because they're all duplicates. I mean seriously I'm getting tired of this.

You don't seem to get tired of running away from answering questions. Typical for CTists. Do you know of any who could answer questions and be coherent?

Refer them to here, please.