Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

If I understand your argument, there was one entrance wound and one exit wound and we have no evidence they're related?

He bought into this foolish nonsense a while ago and needs it to be true otherwise he's forced to admit he's wasted his time.

 

[bknight]

He bought into this foolish nonsense a while ago and needs it to be true otherwise he's forced to admit he's wasted
his everyone's time.

FTFY

 

[traxy]

If I understand your argument, there was one entrance wound and one exit wound and we have no evidence they're related?

I think he's saying there was a second (completely undetected) entrance wound and a second (completely undetected) exit wound.

 

[RoboTimbo]

I think he's saying there was a second (completely undetected) entrance wound and a second (completely undetected) exit wound.

But he can't say it outright because then he has a burden of proof, which he knows he has no chance of ever satisfying.

 

[MicahJava]

If I understand your argument, there was one entrance wound and one exit wound and we have no evidence they're related?

RoboTimbo, there is some evidence that the base of the skull was fractured in some way. The EOP-throat scenario, like described by autopsy witness Richard Lipsey, is probably the best way to account for the EOP wound without the evidence being altered. If the evidence is altered, there could be a number of possibilities. Either way, we know the EOP wound existed.

As for the large head wound, at least 3 square inches of Kennedy's skull from the large head wound was missing by the end of the reconstruction by the morticians. Any valuable evidence from the skull fragments that were blown out of the limousine is now lost. Also consider that tangential wounds do not leave obvious inward beveled entrance wounds, usually they create a long streak of outwardly exit beveling in the bone and lots of missing skin.

Also consider the obvious possibility of a cover-up of evidence for another gunshot wound to the head. Autopsy witnesses Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson have made statements indicative of the EOP-throat scenario.

 

[RoboTimbo]

RoboTimbo, there is some evidence that the base of the skull was fractured in some way.

What do you mean by "there is some evidence"?

The EOP-throat scenario, like described by autopsy witness Richard Lipsey, is probably the best way to account for the EOP wound without the evidence being altered.

Actually, the best way to account for the wound above the EOP is what the results of the autopsy said it was. If you have some other scenario, please present it and the evidence for it.

If the evidence is altered, there could be a number of possibilities.

This seems to be CTspeak for "I got nothin". Do you have actual evidence that evidence was altered?

Either way, we know the EOP wound existed.

The wound above the EOP definitely existed. It explains the huge exit wound we see in the Z film.

As for the large head wound, at least 3 square inches of Kennedy's skull from the large head wound was missing by the end of the reconstruction by the morticians. Any valuable evidence from the skull fragments that were blown out of the limousine is now lost. Also consider that tangential wounds do not leave obvious inward beveled entrance wounds, usually they create a long streak of outwardly exit beveling in the bone and lots of missing skin.

Are you claiming there was a tangential wound that also blew out the right front of Kennedy's head?

Also consider the obvious possibility of a cover-up of evidence for another gunshot wound to the head.

Ah, as it is so "obvious", you will certainly be able to post some "obvious" evidence for it.

Autopsy witnesses Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson have made statements indicative of the EOP-throat scenario.

What were the results of the autopsy which you are citing?

 

[Axxman300]

RoboTimbo, there is some evidence that the base of the skull was fractured in some way.

Weird, almost like a 6.5x52mm Carcano round stuck it.

The EOP-throat scenario, like described by autopsy witness Richard Lipsey, is probably the best way to account for the EOP wound without the evidence being altered.

And yet the X-rays show no evidence of a second bullet striking the skull and passing through the brain case exiting the bottom, and passing out of the throat.

Meanwhile, the x-rays and fiber evidence show a single 6.5x52mm round entered the upper back and exited the throat, and stuck the governor.

So Lipsey's is wrong, assuming he actually said anything.

If the evidence is altered, there could be a number of possibilities. Either way, we know the EOP wound existed.

Two things: first, you just contradicted yourself. If the evidence was altered then there would only be ONE possibility (the one the evidence was altered to replicate). Second, the only wound "we" know exists is the one STILL in the back of head which exited the front.

As for the large head wound, at least 3 square inches of Kennedy's skull from the large head wound was missing by the end of the reconstruction by the morticians. Any valuable evidence from the skull fragments that were blown out of the limousine is now lost.

And let's go to the film again:

One bullet to the head, sports fans, one bullet.

Also consider that tangential wounds do not leave obvious inward beveled entrance wounds, usually they create a long streak of outwardly exit beveling in the bone and lots of missing skin.

Okay, and we'll also consider that you are in no way qualified to talk about what a bullet will and will not to to the human body. Just ask your RN.

Also consider the obvious possibility of a cover-up of evidence for another gunshot wound to the head. Autopsy witnesses Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson have made statements indicative of the EOP-throat scenario.

Cherry-picked statements are not evidence.

The idea of a second GSW to the head is ludicrous, nobody witnessed a second head-shot, the film footage actually only captures the second, fatal shot to the head, "coulda-shoulda-but what-if" doesn't cut it. The facts do not support this second GSW to the head not from a cover-up, but because it doesn't exist.

 

[BStrong]

Like when? Be specific.

Does the word "entire" confuse you?

As an aside, why are conspiracists obsessed with fictional variations on the job description of "Sniper?"

There is no such thing as a "Master" Sniper, an "Olympic" Sniper or a "World Class" Sniper, but they appear often in CTist fantasies.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

My first thought on reading the quoted MicahJava post was to link every post he's made on this thread, but that would take too long and really not be useful.

I was very tempted to go uber-Sienzant and do just that.....

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Cosmic Yak, we have been over this. The autopsy officially concluded that the head sounds were caused by a single shot from behind by the time Sibert and O'Neill departed because Dr. Finck verified that the small head wound exhibited inward beveling in the skull bone like an entrance round, and part of the large head wound exhibited outward beveling like an exit sound. Do you see how there is no proof both wounds are related? The brain was (again, officially) not sectioned to trace the path of both wounds.

Can you point out where in this post you cite the evidence for a second head wound, given that the autopsy concludes there was only one?

You are still ignoring my question about plotting the trajectory of this supposed second bullet.
Can you state for the record exactly when, i.e. in which frame of the Zapruder film, you think this shot was fired?
Is there a reason you are so reluctant to fix a position for a second shooter?

 

[HSienzant]

I was very tempted to go uber-Sienzant and do just that.....

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

For Sparticus, check their sources at the end of the page instead of trusting their articles on face value when it comes to JFK stuff.

Yes, that's good advice to check sources. A pity you didn't do that with Paul Bleau and the conspiracy tripe he repeats in his series of articles cited by you.

The way you phrase the above, however, appears to be disingenuous. Their sources are no more reliable that their articles, and I already established that. Perhaps a reminder is in order that the page devoted to Larry Crafard has the claim that Crafard testified he was in the army, and that is footnoted to the speech given by Gaeton Fonzi where Fonzi claims Crafard was a 'marine sniper' upon his winning a Mary Ferrell award for a 'lifetime of 'truth-seeking', which I find ironic in the extreme given that Fonzi's claim has no truth to it.

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcrafard.htm

And I established that. And you admitted Fonzi's claim was a falsehood. Attempting to salvage 'the sources' while throwing the articles under the bus isn't your best approach.

They have a page on Dealey Plaza witness Richard Randolph Carr which states for a fact some very questionable claims by small-time JFK conspiracy books and Carr himself, including personally foiling plots to murder him before his House Select Committee testimony with no evidence. Some myth like that you just have to flush out.

You mean this page: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm

The problem with the Spartacus website is they cite conspiracy source material almost exclusively.

And the "Garbage in, garbage out" concept isn't limited to math or computer programming. It applies to arguments for conspiracy as well.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Cosmic Yak, we have been over this.

Yes, and you had supposition, recollections from 15 or 33-years after the fact, logical fallacies and quotes out of context holding your argument together.

And bubble-gum and duct tape. Let's not forget the bubble-gum and duct tape.

All that you lacked was evidence then, and now.

So you take us one more time around on the merry-go-round.

The autopsy officially concluded that the head sounds were caused by a single shot from behind by the time Sibert and O'Neill departed because Dr. Finck verified that the small head wound exhibited inward beveling in the skull bone like an entrance round, and part of the large head wound exhibited outward beveling like an exit sound.

The highlighted part is you BEGGING THE QUESTION and inserting into your claim one of yours claims in question.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question

I've pointed out your tendency to do this numerous times in the past. At this point I can only assume it's deliberate, to bypass the proof you must supply.

Do you see how there is no proof both wounds are related?

One bullet entry wound in the head and one bullet exit wound in the head were found.

The three pathologists, with the body and the brain in front of them, concluded one bullet caused all the damage.
- You are disputing this on what basis?

The HSCA forensic pathology panel, with all the extant autopsy materials in front of them, concluded one bullet caused all the damage.
- You are disputing this on what basis?

Quite simply, you have no basis to dispute those conclusions. You are a layman, and you're asserting, at a vary basic level, that all those people, with all their medical training, are incompetent to reach a medical conclusion, and that your supposition, based on nothing more than the desire to find an extra shot not fired by Oswald, should take precedence.

Nobody here is buying that nonsense, no matter how you phrase it, and no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig of a theory.

So perhaps you should peddle those wares elsewhere.

The brain was (again, officially) not sectioned to trace the path of both wounds.

See, there you go BEGGING THE QUESTION once more!

Here's the drawing of the photograph of the brain once more.

It was shown to you here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12151962&postcount=3533

And you ignored entirely all the points I made in that post.

The entire right side of the brain was either missing or massively disrupted, as even you can see. There is no bullet path through that mass to trace via sectioning simply because the brain is too disrupted.


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

RoboTimbo, there is some evidence that the base of the skull was fractured in some way.

Yes, the autopsy stated outright that the bullet that hit the back of the head and exited the right side caused comminuted fracturing of the skull - that fracturing extended down to the base of the skull. The autopsy found no evidence of a bullet passage through the base of the skull, which is what you're trying to argue.

Did you look up the definition of comminuted yet, like I advised in my very first post on this subject to you?

So let's be honest here. You are questioning the results of the autopsy once more, to push your theory of two shots to the head.

The EOP-throat scenario, like described by autopsy witness Richard Lipsey, is probably the best way to account for the EOP wound without the evidence being altered.

No, the best way to account for that wound is what the autopsy doctors found with the body in front of them, and what the HSCA forensic panel concluded with the extant autopsy materials to examine: The bullet that struck JFK in the back of the head exited the top of the head.

So now you're disputing the findings of the autopsy and the HSCA forensic panel once more.

If the evidence is altered, there could be a number of possibilities.

There's an big IF in there you need to establish. We'll await your evidence. Your speculation is meaningless.

Either way, we know the EOP wound existed.

We know there was a wound above and to the right of the EOP. We don't know there was a wound where you attempt to move it.

As for the large head wound, at least 3 square inches of Kennedy's skull from the large head wound was missing by the end of the reconstruction by the morticians. Any valuable evidence from the skull fragments that were blown out of the limousine is now lost.

Sorry, you can't use the lack of evidence as evidence to support your supposition. That's another logical fallacy. "We don't know what that might show" doesn't translate - except in CTish - into "This is evidence of a second shot".

You are admitting once more you have no evidence, only speculation about what the evidence might show if it existed.

Speculation about the evidence isn't evidence.

Also consider that tangential wounds do not leave obvious inward beveled entrance wounds, usually they create a long streak of outwardly exit beveling in the bone and lots of missing skin.

Still disputing the autopsy findings and the HSCA forensic pathology panel findings as well, I see. There is no such development in the autopsy record. I would ask on what basis, but we all know the basis by now... it's simply your strong desire to find a shot not fired by Oswald.

Also consider the obvious possibility of a cover-up of evidence for another gunshot wound to the head.

And, when in stuck for evidence, conjecture a cover-up of the evidence! Hilarious.

Q: Why am I not surprised?
A: Because you're a conspiracy theorist, and that is what CTs do.

Autopsy witnesses Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson have made statements indicative of the EOP-throat scenario.

I've highlighted where you are BEGGING THE QUESTION once more.

These recollections came 15 years or 33 years after the fact. Right?

Don't you remember claiming you didn't rely on those here:

I only post later-day witness statements when they corroborate the contemporaneous stuff.

So where's 'the contemporaneous stuff' by Lipsey or Robinson saying there was any sort of bullet wound from the back of the head to the throat?

You don't have anything of the sort. Just recollections from decades later.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Still waiting for MicahJava to justify his use of witness recollections from decades after the fact when he clearly discounts the contemporary witness statements made within 24 hours of the assassination, as pointed out almost a year ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11760443&postcount=2536

Hank

 

[CORed]

<snip>
This seems to be CTspeak for "I got nothin". Do you have actual evidence that evidence was altered?
<snip>

Well no. The evidence that the evidence was altered, was altered,
and the evidence that the evidence that the evidence was altered, was altered, was altered
and ...

 

[MicahJava]

My first thought on reading the quoted MicahJava post was to link every post he's made on this thread, but that would take too long and really not be useful.

Actually, I'm not responding to links of links of links to this same thread with the false inference that any of my ideas I've spent a long time on have been refuted. When I have something to share and someone pretends to not understand or remember it, usually I'll try reposing whatever direct evidence I shared.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Actually, I'm not responding to links of links of links to this same thread with the false inference that any of my ideas I've spent a long time on have been refuted. When I have something to share and someone pretends to not understand or remember it, usually I'll try reposing whatever direct evidence I shared.

I interpret that to mean that whenever someone asks a question that destroys whatever argument you've made, you run away as fast as you possibly can.

Go back and answer the many questions you've run away from.

 

[MicahJava]

I interpret that to mean that whenever someone asks a question that destroys whatever argument you've made, you run away as fast as you possibly can.

Go back and answer the many questions you've run away from.

Umm... you're free to ask a question if it's coherent and relevant?

note: *coherent* referring to have some grasp of the JFK case, not being able to spell every word correctly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Umm... you're free to ask a question if it's coherent and relevant?

note: *coherent* referring to have some grasp of the JFK case, not being able to spell every word correctly.

Nope, this is where I run away.

FTFY

Go back and answer the outstanding questions you've run away from.