• 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:
tomtomkent, the posters here are the ones claiming the x-rays show a defect indicating an entry wound rather than a regular fracture, 4-5 inches above the EOP. It's YOUR stupid theory. I think it's baloney and there is no entry wound on the X-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP. I think the wound was right next to the EOP like the autopsy pathologists always said.
Click to expand...

Where did the shot come from that made the wound you're claiming?
 
MicahJava said:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/4yTMMYH.jpg[/qimg]


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:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/fJPXONY.jpg[/qimg]


Which is a from this view:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/YRxrfUJ.jpg[/qimg]


More versions of the back-of-head photographs found on the internet:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/iXtmZWd.jpg[/qimg]


[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/gbpV8U8.jpg[/qimg]


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:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/spSTHvt.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Also, if you could point out on the photos where the one entrance wound was to JFK's skull. You've posted some good photos of the back of his head where you say it is.
 
Sandy Larsen on the JFK education forum posted these accusing Oswald's marine corps teeth of being different from Oswald's corpse exhumation teeth.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24626-more-evidence-for-harvey-lee-oswald-was-missing-a-molar-but-his-exhumed-body-was-not/

Marine corpse dental records:

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_dark_tooth.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_jawbone.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_tipped.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_fit_tooth.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/marines_x-ray_root_spread.jpg

1981 exhumation dental records:

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/teeth_side_numbered.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/teeth.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray_jawbone.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray_tipped.jpg

http://harveyandlee.net/Teeth1/x-ray_fit_tooth.jpg

kXFn0LF.png


I wanted to know if teeth can naturally shift like that. Usually there's an easy simple solution to things like this, but when I google "teeth naturally straightening" I only get bogus home remedies for home dental care.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava, wasn't Oswald behind JFK? Would you point to the entrance wound on those photographs you provided?

Thanks in advance for your honesty.
 
MicahJava said:
tomtomkent, the posters here are the ones claiming the x-rays show a defect indicating an entry wound rather than a regular fracture, 4-5 inches above the EOP. It's YOUR stupid theory. I think it's baloney and there is no entry wound on the X-rays 4-5 inches above the EOP. I think the wound was right next to the EOP like the autopsy pathologists always said.
Click to expand...

Well, let's break this down into assumptions you are making here.
1) That the "stupid theory" states the wound was four to five inches above the EOP.
2) That the autopsy doctors ALWAYS said this was not the case.
3) That you are capable of looking at the X-rays and identifying what is claimed to be the entry wound.
4) That you have located it and found it unconvincing.
5) That you are capable of recognising a more likely entry wound.

I am currently addressing step 1). I want to be thorough. I want to understand WHY you believe the measurement is variable between four and five inches, and to do this I want to know which measurement you are basing that incredibly broad range upon. I want to know where on the EOP you are describing, and to which point on the wound.

So, are you measuring from the top of the EOP, or the closest point of the EOP? Is the wound an inch long, measuring from four inches to five? Or are you pulling these figures from thin air? Is it YOUR estimate based on the photographs?
 
MicahJava said:
Sandy Larsen on the JFK education forum posted these accusing Oswald's marine corps teeth of being different from Oswald's corpse exhumation teeth.
Click to expand...

Oh no! Questions that show flaws in your arguments! Quick! Change topic rather than address them!
 
Wow, I thanked him for his anticipated honesty and everything. I'm shocked and disappointed that he ran away from answering again.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Well, let's break this down into assumptions you are making here.
1) That the "stupid theory" states the wound was four to five inches above the EOP.
2) That the autopsy doctors ALWAYS said this was not the case.
3) That you are capable of looking at the X-rays and identifying what is claimed to be the entry wound.
4) That you have located it and found it unconvincing.
5) That you are capable of recognising a more likely entry wound.

I am currently addressing step 1). I want to be thorough. I want to understand WHY you believe the measurement is variable between four and five inches, and to do this I want to know which measurement you are basing that incredibly broad range upon. I want to know where on the EOP you are describing, and to which point on the wound.

So, are you measuring from the top of the EOP, or the closest point of the EOP? Is the wound an inch long, measuring from four inches to five? Or are you pulling these figures from thin air? Is it YOUR estimate based on the photographs?
Click to expand...

You've been here long enough to grasp this subject. You are just playing dumb and trying to confuse others.
 
MicahJava said:
You've been here long enough to grasp this subject. You are just playing dumb and trying to confuse others.
Click to expand...

It's not my grasp on the subject that time here has lead me to question.

I am asking one last time for you to cite your source for the measurement of four to five inches, and the precise measurement.
If you do not cite a precise measurement, and clarify if you mean four inches or five, I will simply accept that as evidence of your ignorance.

Would you care to cite the measurement?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom