BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Let's get back to your assertion that criminal shooters police their brass after shooting - will a cite to a documented instance of this be forthcoming or is this another example of you making things up as you go along?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
Let's get back to your assertion that criminal shooters police their brass after shooting - will a cite to a documented instance of this be forthcoming or is this another example of you making things up as you go along?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Dr. Shaw himself said that the wound could have been created by striking at a tangent. You do realize that the wound was only 1.5 centimeters, not 3 centimeters like the entire length of a Carcano round? So already you have to do a little haggling over the significance of a wound no more elliptical than Kennedy's small head wound.
What "kill shot entry wound"? The small head wound described by the autopsy physicians and confirmed by numerous additional autopsy participants is not the red spot in the cowlick on the back-of-head photographs.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Cite a single instance of a person committing a crime with a firearm and then picking up the shell casings to remove evidence? I just don't think that's worth my time, BStrong. If you want to think that never happens, you can have that.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Why?
The one described by the autopsy, which you keep citing. Is there another one?
What is the red spot?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
I can cite one where he didn't police his brass. LOL.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Your lack of deductive reasoning is staggering.
1.5+1.5=3
The bullet didn't strike full-on sideways, just at an angle.
Nobody cares. All that matters is that there is only one entry wound in the back of the head, and one big exit wound in the front.
Axxman300
Philosopher
Actually, it's key to your silly theory.
You've already posted the CIA Assassination paper where they say not to use guns, and while they do talk about silenced weapons they don't discuss picking up your shells...probably because it doesn't matter.
You need to cite a bunch of high-profile, assassination by high-powered rifle, cases where the killer vanished with the shell casings, and the brass.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The "red spot" is that flat-looking red defect next to the ruler. Dr. Boswell told the HSCA and ARRB that the red spot was a minor wound in the scalp related to the large defect, NOT the small head wound described in the autopsy report. All other autopsy participants just thought it looked like a drop of blood, but IMO that's unlikely.
Extreme close-up:
Which is a from this view:
More versions of the back-of-head photographs found on the internet:
Scroll 3/4 way down to see a high-quality 3D morphing animated gif of the back-of-head photos: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster
I don't know if this teardrop-shaped thing with a hair growing out of it is the same red spot, but the hair is parted somewhat differently in the view shown in the back wound photographs:
Last edited:
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Shaw was wrong, its that simple. He had no training in ballistics, and was not a forensic scientist. Those forensic scientists and forensic ballistics experts who have observed the autopsy photos disagree with Dr. Shaw.
The kill shot entry wound is on the back of JFK's head. FACT, get over it
Its your fantasy is that the entry wound is on the right temple. You are wrong... end of story. An entry would on the side of the head could not have blown JFK's brains out in the forward direction the way it did... it would have blown the left side of his head out.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
If you're saying that that isn't the entrance wound, could you please now post some pics of the entrance wound?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Really? You demonstrably have not a clue what you are looking at? That's your theory? Therefore there must have been 238 invisible ninja snipers who all vanished without trace taking their hollywood silencers with them? And their brass? And their forensics? And their records of ever even existing?
And the best you can come up with is "just because" and that's it?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Well, I was all up and ready to start a meaningful discussion with somebody who could grasp the easy stuff I'm posting here. Why do I bother?
This whole time I've been establishing the existence of a small wound, almost certainly of entry, in the back of the head next to the external occipital protuberance. The specific location of this wound is where you get your conspiracy.
Tom Robinson did say he saw a small hole in the right temple, but that he was under the impression it was an exit wound from a fragment. Either way, the autopsy doctors never mentioned such a wound, so Robinson's statements are considered evidence for a plot to sanitize the forensic evidence.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
The autopsy team has established that photographs were taken showing the inner and outer surface of the small wound in the scalp and skull, and that these photographs are not present in the collection.
There are at least two unexplained semicircular dark areas in Kennedy's hairline that cannot be explained by some illusion of shadows, as these dark spots are apparent in every view showing the back of the head. However, one or both of these appear to be below the external occipital protuberance. The external occipital protuberance basically marks the area between Kennedy's long hairs and short hairs in the back of his head, so it could be hidden by a lock of hair, as photographer John Stringer suggested. After all, if there was a small hole in the right temple as Tom Robinson said, then that wound would also be covered by locks of hair in the autopsy photos.
You should also check out the history of the confusion over the open-cranium photographs and what they show: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
So your entire line of argument goes poof! just like that.
And these points of mine still stand.
And to that we can now add your silly argument:
I gave numerous counter-examples that disprove your contention. Asked to provide one verifiable link to somewhere a criminal did what you claim, you say now you can't be bothered to prove your claim is true. Hilarious.
You might as well be making it up. It sure appears that way when you cannot cite for your claims.
Hank
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Yeah. Robert Harris tried that approach too. He and you are so much smarter than the rest of us, that everything he and you say just goes over our heads.
All of the above is just you begging the question that we're the problem, not your argument or your evidence. That didn't work well for Robert Harris. You'd know that if you read the thread. It's not going to work for you either.
FTFY.
Or his recollections, decades after the assassination, are meaningless froth that only a conspiracy theorists would consider "evidence" and cite as meaningful.
You've claimed you only cite the recollections where there's contemporaneous evidence to support it. Cite the contemporaneous statement from the morticians that supports that claim by Robinson. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
Look, we get it. You want a conspiracy really badly, so you have to pull recollections made to the ARRB, a full third of a century after the assassination out of the junk pile to suggest a conspiracy. But nowhere are recollections this late in the game considered evidence. Nowhere do they overturn the statements in the first days, weeks, and months after the assassination. Nowhere do they overrule the autopsy report and the autopsy x-rays and photographs.
But you have a case to make, and you're stuck with mining the junk pile for something usable.
It won't make a silk purse out of that copper wiring you're pulling from an old Betamax player.
Hank
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Hank, we know Tom Robinson said that 15 years later. You aren't special by pointing it out. It's supposed to be something the reader silently considers. I don't have a lower standard of evidence than you, I'm just being thorough (and no, denial is not a standard of evidence).
Axxman300
Philosopher
And today you post a photo that shows where the front of the skull at the forehead had been sawed, meaning Humes cut the skull-cap off just as he said he did.
For those keeping score, MJ has:
Cited a CIA document on assassination that recommends against using firearms.
Thinks a .22 caliber squirrel gun is a high powered rifle.
Posts a photograph that undermines his theory with physical evidence.
Ouch...
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
The stuff you are posting is wrong.
You are having to create whole new scenarios about suppressed weapons and extra shooters to fit a scenario that is WRONG, obtained from evidence that doesn't exist, and that you are making up as you go
I have looked at all your autopsy photos very carefully; I am not seeing what you are seeing.
I could ask the same question!
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Where does it say (or show) there was no brain in Kennedy's cranium when these photographs were taken? The scalp isn't reflected. The doctor is indeed holding a loose piece of scalp, but that isn't peeling the entire scalp back. Either way, you can't use a picture of the scalp to judge what the skull looked like.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Nice dodge, but the fact is that it was worth your time to cite:
Hank, in the real world, shooters hide their guns and pick up their shells.
In the finest tradition of CTists in every subject, you will say, write -whatever- anything that appears to support your version of events without regard to the accuracy or truthfulness of whatever you have as your assertion du jour. In this particular example it's not a question of what you let me have but it's the fact that you can not provide evidence for your assertion, as usual.
This leads me to the conclusion that for all the claims of "searching for the truth" in the JFK assassination or on any event subject to discussion the last thing you or any other CTist wants is "truth."
- Status