Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

[traxy]

Okay, why do you think the wound was 4-5 inches above the EOP instead of right next to the EOP?

Honestly, I don't really care.

The minor difference in location is a meaningless bit of trivia. Witness memory is imperfect, I'm OK defaulting to the x-rays and photos and the endorsement of panels of pathologists.

 

[MicahJava]

Honestly, I don't really care.

The minor difference in location is a meaningless bit of trivia. Witness memory is imperfect, I'm OK defaulting to the x-rays and photos and the endorsement of panels of pathologists.

Witness memory is imperfect when there's nine of them who viewed and examined the body for hours and corroborate eachother?

Okay, but would it have even been physically possible to remove the brain without also separating the portion of bone that you think contained an entry wound? Because Dr. Finck arrived late to the autopsy after the top of the skull had been opened up to remove the brain, and he always said he could examine this wound as an undisturbed perforation low in the empty cranium.

 

[carlitos]

You've cracked the case. Now what?

 

[HSienzant]

You've cracked the case. Now what?

Now, nothing. He just keeps arguing the same points as he did when he first got here. His goal isn't to reach a resolution. It's to keep the argument going so it appears he has a point.

For example, he's bringing up the skull removal argument as if the pertinent parts of the autopsy were never quoted for him.

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

Let's pretend this wasn't quoted here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11946101&postcount=1073

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12039049&postcount=2002

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12040878&postcount=2044

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12040896&postcount=2047

And here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12069504&postcount=2730

And now again, above.

It's the very definition of 'fringe reset'.

In fact, I just looked up 'fringe reset' in the dictionary. They have a picture of Rocky the flying squirrel.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Now, nothing. He keeps going arguing the same points as he did when he first got here.

It's the very definition of fringe reset.

Hank

Hank, don't you agree that the HSCA's official interpretation of the skull photographs is anatomically impossible unless some portion of skull bone from the back of the head was "placed back in"? Otherwise, you can't fit that whole brain through a 5-inch hole.

 

[MicahJava]

You've cracked the case. Now what?

Carlitos, do not be so turned off of the concept of a "smoking gun" that proves a conspiracy. As I went on about in the Iraq thread in this same subforum, the 2003 Manning memo is the smoking gun that proved that Bush and Blair committed the mass murder of the century and got away with it.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, don't you agree that the HSCA's official interpretation of the skull photographs is anatomically impossible unless some portion of skull bone from the back of the head was "placed back in"? Otherwise, you can't fit that whole brain through a 5-inch hole.

Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

So you still haven't looked up what incisions in the coronal plane mean?

How do you spell 'fringe reset'?

M-I-C-A-H - J-A-V-A ?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Carlitos, do not be so turned off of the concept of a "smoking gun" that proves a conspiracy. As I went on about in the Iraq thread in this same subforum, the 2003 Manning memo is the smoking gun that proved that Bush and Blair committed the mass murder of the century and got away with it.

Ok, let's grant for the sake of argument that's true.

And what do you intend to do about that?

Bring a case in world court?

Or just continue to argue the point here?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Ah man, it is like a time machine, rolling 6-7 months ago.

Nailed it.

 

[MicahJava]

Why do you ask questions you already know the answer to?

So you still haven't looked up what incisions in the coronal plane mean?

How do you spell 'fringe reset'?

M-I-C-A-H - J-A-V-A ?

Hank

Literally just pretending you have an argument at this point.

 

[HSienzant]

Tag team match. Manifesto gets suspended, Micah Java comes back.

They both claim to have solved the case, although they never argue the same points.

Curious isn't it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Literally just pretending you have an argument at this point.

'Coronal plane'. Look it up.

The autopsy report literally answers your question right there on page five (as I quoted to you) and you want to ignore it and pretend you still have an argument.:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

What is that sentence telling you?

Interpret it for us laymen, since you're such an expert.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

Or ignore it some more. You've been ignoring it since last August. What's another nine months or so?

Fringe reset.

Micah Java apparently wants to go through it all over again, starting from the top, hoping this time it will turn out different.

Hank

 

[Allen773]

Literally just pretending you have an argument at this point.

Do you have one?

 

[MicahJava]

'Coronal plane'. Look it up.

The autopsy report literally answers your question right there on page five (as I quoted to you) and you want to ignore it and pretend you still have an argument.:

"INCISIONS: The scalp wounds are extended in the coronal plane to examine the cranial content"

What is that sentence telling you?

Interpret it for us laymen, since you're such an expert.

Go ahead. We'll wait.

Or ignore it some more. You've been ignoring it since last August. What's another nine months or so?

Fringe reset.

Micah Java apparently wants to go through it all over again, starting from the top, hoping this time it will turn out different.

Hank

It means that not only did they peel back the scalp in order to remove the brain, but also to expose the small head wound for examination and photography. Statements by the autopsy pathologists indicate that a separate, incision was made low in the scalp to expose the small head wound.

From Dr. Pierre Finck's Clay Shaw trial testimony:

A: As I recall, the brain had been removed. Dr. Humes told me that to remove the brain he did not have to carry out the procedure you carry out when there is no wound in the skull. The wound was of such an extent, over five inches in diameter, that it was not of a great difficulty for him to remove this brain, and this is the best of my recollection. There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the eck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry. At this time I might, for the sake of clarity, say that in the autopsy report we may have called the first wound the one in the head and the second wound the one in the neck, because we did not know the sequence of shots at that time. Again, the sequence of shots was determined by the Zapruder film, so what we did, we determined the entry of the bullet wound and stated that there were two bullet wounds, one in the back of the neck and the other in the back of the head, without giving a sequence.


3/11/1978 HSCA interview of Humes and Boswell:


Dr. PETTY: What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can’t read it-but up close
to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL: It’s the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. Perry: That’s the posterior-inferior margin of the-lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL: It tore right down to that point. And then we just folded that
back and this back and an interior flap forward and that exposed almost the entire, I
guess we did have to dissect a little bit to get to-

Dr. HUMES: To get to this entrance, right?

Dr. BOSWELL: But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the
smaller fragment fit this piece down here-there was a hole here, only half of
which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right
on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.


From Dr. Finck's interview with the HSCA:

Dr. PETTY. All right. Let me ask you one other question. In order to expose that area where the wound was present in the bone, did you have to or did someone have to dissect the I scalp off of the bone in order to show this?

Dr. FINCK. Yes.

Dr. PETTY. Was this a difficult dissection and did it go very low into the head so as to expose the external aspect of the posterior cranial fascia?

Dr. FINCK. I don't remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside and inside to show the crater from the inside.

Dr. BADEN. Do you recall specifically that some dissection was done in the area?

Dr. FINCK. To free the skull from the scalp, to separate the scalp from the skull.

Dr. BADEN. Yes.

Dr. FINCK. Yes. I don't know who did that. I don't know the difficulty involved but the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.

Dr. BOSWELL. But not much, because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface.

 

[Axxman300]

Hank, don't you agree that the HSCA's official interpretation of the skull photographs is anatomically impossible unless some portion of skull bone from the back of the head was "placed back in"? Otherwise, you can't fit that whole brain through a 5-inch hole.

YOU posted pictures from the autopsy where anyone can see that the skull have been sawed open.

You say one thing, but post photographic evidence that proves you wrong.

 

[smartcooky]

And, for that matter, whom is to say "slightly above" can't mean four inches? The autopsy didn't state "right next to", that remains your personal interpretation, shown to be in error many times over.

Have you not yet figured out that "slightly" is another one of those variable terms that can be adjusted left or right, up or down, bigger or smaller, to mean whatever the CT wants it to mean in order to fit their fantasy world?

 

[BStrong]

I didn’t request known nerve reflexes from goats, I requested such from humans, since JFK was, a human.

Do you have any?

Can do easy, disturbing footage at 1:19:



Summary execution of VC suspect by Gen. Nguyen Van Lem, Tet '68. Single .38 special round to the right temple. The victim's head does not move to the left from projectile impact as asserted by your popular fiction based pov of terminal ballistics.

Even better example, w/ no disturbing footage, other than for the adherents of "back and to the left":



Footage for a law enforcement training video on the effects of common caliber projectiles, and this segment shows live fire testing of both military and law enforcement body armor. Pay particular attention to the visible effect of projectile impact on the tester wearing the military oriented hard armor. He is shot twice from point blank range with a 7.62 NATO cartridge out of an early FAL type rifle, once while balancing on one foot. He was not "knocked down" or visibly moved by either impact.

Specs for the 7.62 x 51 NATO round:Muzzle velocity with the GI 147 grain FMJ round is approx 2,700 feet per second, muzzle energy approx. 2,400 foot pounds - Carcano specs 162 grain round is 2,300 feet per second with approx. 1,900 foot pounds of energy. If a point-blank hit from the NATO round doesn't produce the dramatic Hollywood effect from a man balancing on one foot when shot there's no chance that the effect of the lesser Carcano round will produce that much-loved popular fiction instant reaction to a projectile impact.

Just to be clear, because the Hollywood ballistics experts have noted the difference between a headshot and a center of mass hit on armor and drew the completely wrong conclusion, the impacts from the NATO round on the body armor transferred the whole of the kinetic energy to the tester and any penetrating wound that exits a soft target only transfers a very small portion of the energy to the target.

When a human or game animal takes a projectile impact that instantly stops the nervous system (solid brain or spinal cord hit) they collapse according to what their body posture was at that moment. It doesn't matter if it's a .22 long rifle round or a .50 BMG round, they collapse and that's it.

Some more evidence, disturbing footage:



A group of South African miners on strike shot and killed by SA police. The strikers were hit with concentrated fire from the localy manufactured Galil type R4's in 5.56 rounds, semi and full auto and 9mm semi auto pistol fire. Every striker hit collapsed exactly as their body posture was at the moment of impact, moving forward, not backwards as the Hollywood ballistic experts continually assert, and those victims were all hit by multiple projectiles, not single hits. If there was any truth to Oliver Stone's ******** and the jive posted in this thread those strikers should have moved like they were hit by a tidal wave - because a force of water can actually knock someone backwards or in the direction of force from that water, but projectiles can't and don't.

 

[bknight]

Hank, don't you agree that the HSCA's official interpretation of the skull photographs is anatomically impossible unless some portion of skull bone from the back of the head was "placed back in"? Otherwise, you can't fit that whole brain through a 5-inch hole.

This has been explained many times to you, and you just hand wave it away like the explanations never happened, they finished sawing what portion they needed to remove the brain.

 

[smartcooky]

If a point-blank hit from the NATO round doesn't produce the dramatic Hollywood effect from a man balancing on one foot when shot there's no chance that the effect of the lesser Carcano round will produce that much-loved popular fiction instant reaction to a projectile impact.

Just to be clear, because the Hollywood ballistics experts have noted the difference between a headshot and a center of mass hit on armor and drew the completely wrong conclusion, the impacts from the NATO round on the body armor transferred the whole of the kinetic energy to the tester and any penetrating wound that exits a soft target only transfers a very small portion of the energy to the target.

By way of illustration, this ties in with something I discovered very early on when I was just getting interested in hand weapons. My first hand weapon was given to me by my Dad. It was a .177 Webley air pistol, very similar to this one.

It was a single shot, charged by cocking the top lever forward and back. It had one muzzle velocity and was great for shooting empty aluminium soda cans off a log.

Some years later, I bought one of these similar to a Crosman .177 BB/Pellet gun

It was also a single shot, cocked by pumping it up (working the lever). The first thing you notice is that the more you pump the lever, the higher the muzzle velocity, and that had the curious effect (at least to me at that time) that at lower muzzle velocities (2-3 pumps), it would knock these cans off the log and back a few feet and leave a big dent in the front, but at higher muzzle velocities (7-9 pumps) it would hardly move the cans at all, leave a much smaller dent, but punch a hole right through.

As a young man (still at high-school) I found this fascinating enough to get interested in the physics involved and to use it as part of a school assignment on energy and momentum.

 

[MicahJava]

This has been explained many times to you, and you just hand wave it away like the explanations never happened, they finished sawing what portion they needed to remove the brain.

How has it been explained? Phrase your issue with my logic in your words.