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

[HSienzant]

Daily reminder that Kennedy's autopsy pathologists concluded the beveled exit on the skull bone was situated anatomically higher than the beveled entry on the skull, next to the EOP.

See the arrow pointing up here on the face sheet diagram which is stained in the President's blood:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/tUPeu8F.jpg[/qimg]

Do you think the bullet exited the left / top of the head? Or does the document you're citing as evidence contain an obvious error?

Hank

 

[manifesto]

You ignored the point I made to make a different point. If somebody does labor for the love of it, should they get paid or not?

Hank

I believe that MicahJava is trying to illuminate that ”paid” research has a tendency to confirm the ”payers” implicit/explicit expectations.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

 

[HSienzant]

I believe that MicahJava is trying to illuminate that ”paid” research has a tendency to confirm the ”payers” implicit/explicit expectations.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Straw man.

It was not my point or his. He was claiming that people who love what they are doing shouldn't get paid. My point was people should get paid regardless.

Hank

 

[traxy]

No. The only photographic film detailed enough is maybe the Zapruder film. I write ”maybe” because the back of the head is in shadow during the whole event sequence AND that it looks like the ”shadow” is painted on afterwards. Ergo. The apparent absence of a big gaping wound in the back of the head in the Z-film, is not conclusive evidence of absence.

If there was a "gaping wound" in the back of the head, it would be visible in all 3 films. All 3 of them show the rear of Kennedys head. Here they are again if you need a refresher:

Zapruder - https://imgur.com/UAFlDvp
Nix - https://imgur.com/00wJCMH
Muchmore - https://imgur.com/2WYYaND (this one is surprisingly clear).

3 views of the back of the head. No exit wound.

Is it? Do you see any spatter at all in the photo? Show me.

Here's a super clear scan of it online, just to refresh your memory.

http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/i/strea...rman-polaroid-jfk-assassination-131114-tz.jpg

This is a few frames after the headshot. Clear unobstructed view of the rear of the head. No gaping exit wound.

4 views of the back of the head. No exit wound.

Name this experts. I haven’t found them.

Of course you haven't. I've only linked you to their report 3 or 4 times now. Maybe the 5th time is the charm.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_vol6.htm

The few photographs, I belive it’s two of them, that actually shows the back of the head can very well have been taken after the reconstruction of the head.

The autopsy physicians verified that the photos of the back of the head were taken during the autopsy, not after. The condition of the back of the head in those photos matches Zapruder, Nix, Muchmore and Moorman.

There are blood stains on different regions of Kennedy's body that are visible in multiple shots, which verifies that all the shots were taken at the same time. This is all laid out in the report I've linked you to 5 times already.

Did they? Who are these witnesses and what did they say to whom?

Let's start with Zapruder himself - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-AZNRzuspI

Total convergence of evidence my friend.

 

[Hans]

This is all laid out in the report I've linked you to 5 times already.

Let's start with Zapruder himself - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-AZNRzuspI

Total convergence of evidence my friend.

Yes

Well said and well laid out but you are forgetting an important fact

Manifesto cannot be wrong therefore everyone else has to be. Any evidence that differs with him his fake.

You're trying to have a rational reasoned argument with someone who neither rational nor reasonable.

Good luck thou.

 

[HSienzant]

I have provided linked citation of a regulatory document showing that bank endorsement stamps had to be present on 1963 PMO’s in order for a mailorder purchase to go through.

No,you linked to a CT forum where a non-expert CT presented what he claimed was the appropriate document and present what he claimed was the appropriate interpretation. I showed he was citing the wrong language from the wrong part of the document.

#66 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

No such bank endorsement stamps are present on the alleged Oswald/Hidell PMO = evidence of fabrication by FBI.

It contains the PAY TO THE ORDER OF THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO, which is the required endorsement.

#67 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

I’ll continue with Hank’s little list one issue at a time. No worries, that is the soul reason for me being here.

Continue??? You haven't yet started!

#68 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

To tell you the truth.

Haven't seen any evidence of that yet.

#69 - Cite the evidence. Explain it. Argue for its veracity.​

Hank

 

[traxy]

Yes

Well said and well laid out but you are forgetting an important fact

Manifesto cannot be wrong therefore everyone else has to be. Any evidence that differs with him his fake.

You're trying to have a rational reasoned argument with someone who neither rational nor reasonable.

Good luck thou.

I have 3 young boys at home. I have the patience of a goddamn saint, trust me.

 

[HSienzant]

And, testimony in total conflict with testimony given 25 years earlier isn’t worth bat **** if not given a plausible explanation.

Can you explain that to MicahJava who is fond of quoting recollections made to the ARRB in the mid-90s, about a third of a century after the assassination?

We've all tried to point out the problem with recollections from that far after the fact, but he hasn't listened. Perhaps if he hears it from a fellow CT?

But be prepared to be called a shill if he remains unconvinced.

Hank

PS: On a separate note, which of you is correct about recollections from long after the event? You cannot both be right.

 

[MicahJava]

Do you think the bullet exited the left / top of the head? Or does the document you're citing as evidence contain an obvious error?

Hank

Occam's razor would say that the fact that arrow is pointed to the left isn't as important as the fact that it is pointed upwards. The autopsy doctors were asked about this later, and they said the leftward deviation of the arrow simply meant nothing.

 

[MicahJava]

Can you explain that to MicahJava who is fond of quoting recollections made to the ARRB in the mid-90s, about a third of a century after the assassination?

We've all tried to point out the problem with recollections from that far after the fact, but he hasn't listened. Perhaps if he hears it from a fellow CT?

But be prepared to be called a shill if he remains unconvinced.

Hank

PS: On a separate note, which of you is correct about recollections from long after the event? You cannot both be right.

Hank, If you have a problem with even bothering to read witness statements from 30+ years after the fact, then don't. What you call gish gallop is actually called being thorough with presenting the evidence. Real students of the case organize and save facts, not past internet arguments like you or David Von Pein do.

P.S. Sometimes 30+ year old witness testimony that may seem questionable turns out to be true, like the later 90's+ statements of the DPD officers who claimed to have looked at a wallet that may have had Oswald's identification, which was later fueled by CBS rediscovering a tape taken at the scene of the Tippit shooting showing two Police officers looking at a wallet (in a similar, but not identical, fashion to the Oswald wallet in evidence) with apparently no civilian standing nearby who it could have belonged to.

 

[Hans]

I have 3 young boys at home. I have the patience of a goddamn saint, trust me.

I bow to your earned expertise!

 

[MicahJava]

Anybody on this forum willing to mark a diagram explaining how a bullet entering 4-5 inches above the EOP, at z312 from the angle of the Depository could create a beveled exit anatomically higher than the entrance, while also explaining how both beveled holes could be seen in the photographs of the skull taken after the brain had been removed?

A "frontal" brain removal procedure requires a lot of the frontal bone being separated down to the forehead, so if you wanted to say the brain was removed without even touching the back of the head then that causes some issues for cowlick theorists wanting to say the skull photos show a beveled exit notch in the frontal bone in the foreground, because of trajectory issues as well as issues with how to fit the earliest documentary evidence and witness evidence saying the beveled exit they reported on a skull fragment matching the top of the head was anatomically higher than the beveled entrance hole they reported in the back of the head.

Also, as I asked earlier, is it even possible to do a "frontal" brain removal procedure without separating a large portion of the left side of the skull? Because no matter how you interpret the skull photographs, they show a lot of the left side of the skull intact. Where is the room to remove the brain.

 

[bknight]

Daily reminder that Kennedy's autopsy pathologists concluded the beveled exit on the skull bone was situated anatomically higher than the beveled entry on the skull, next to the EOP.

[snip]

Citation required for this statement.

 

[MicahJava]

Citation required for this statement.

You snipped it. Those were two of the earliest pieces of evidence unmistakably indicating that they concluded the beveled exit notch on the skull fragment they received fit a location anatomically higher than the small head wound. Other testimonies from the autopsy participants went into further detail saying the same thing.

 

[HSienzant]

Occam's razor would say that the fact that arrow is pointed to the left isn't as important as the fact that it is pointed upwards. The autopsy doctors were asked about this later, and they said the leftward deviation of the arrow simply meant nothing.

No, your interpretation of what occam's razor would say if consulted isn't evidence of what occam's razor would say if consulted.

You're advancing the argument that the marking on the drawing is solid evidence for precisely where the entry wound was in the back of the head.

But you're ignoring the fact that the other marking on the drawing is obviously in error, so how much credence can we put into that errant dot?

You're also ignoring the fact that Dr. Boswell (who created the drawing) said the drawing was intended solely as aide-memoire and not as an absolutely accurate representation of the wounds or their location.

Hank

 

[bknight]

You snipped it. Those were two of the earliest pieces of evidence unmistakably indicating that they concluded the beveled exit notch on the skull fragment they received fit a location anatomically higher than the small head wound. Other testimonies from the autopsy participants went into further detail saying the same thing.

It makes no difference, cite the whole explanation, not out of context.

 

[bknight]

No, your interpretation of what occam's razor would say if consulted isn't evidence of what occam's razor would say if consulted.

You're advancing the argument that the marking on the drawing is solid evidence for precisely where the entry wound was in the back of the head.

But you're ignoring the fact that the other marking on the drawing is obviously in error, so how much credence can we put into that errant dot?

You're also ignoring the fact that Dr. Boswell (who created the drawing) said the drawing was intended solely as aide-memoire and not as an absolutely accurate representation of the wounds or their location.

Hank

I suspected he took the lines out of context.

 

[manifesto]

I have 3 young boys at home. I have the patience of a goddamn saint, trust me.

Been there, done that. Now, imagine debating a whole pack of rabid nominal ”skeptics” all at once.

Ever wondered why there is so few independents writing on this forum?

I have immense patience.

 

[MicahJava]

No, your interpretation of what occam's razor would say if consulted isn't evidence of what occam's razor would say if consulted.

You're advancing the argument that the marking on the drawing is solid evidence for precisely where the entry wound was in the back of the head.

But you're ignoring the fact that the other marking on the drawing is obviously in error, so how much credence can we put into that errant dot?

You're also ignoring the fact that Dr. Boswell (who created the drawing) said the drawing was intended solely as aide-memoire and not as an absolutely accurate representation of the wounds or their location.

Hank

Hank, the arrow next to the dot signifying the small head wound is more detail than just the dot alone. The autopsy pathologists said what the arrow signified. What do you think the upwards pointing arrow means? Why do you disagree with the autopsy pathologists? Also, you forgot this:

2 AM 11/23/1963 teletype - [...]TOTAL BODY XRAY AND AUTOPSY REVEALED ONE BULLET ENTERED BACK OF HEAD AND THEREAFTER EMERGED THROUGH TOP OF SKULL. PIECE OF SKULL MEASURING TEN BY SIX POINT FIVE CENTIMETERS LATER FLOWN IN FROM DALLAS HOSPITAL AND XRAYS BETHESDA DISCLOSED MINUTE METAL FRAGMENTS IN THIS PIECE WHERE BULLET EMERGED FROM SKULL.": https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md149.pdf

 

[HSienzant]

And, testimony in total conflict with testimony given 25 years earlier isn’t worth bat **** if not given a plausible explanation.

Hank, If you have a problem with even bothering to read witness statements from 30+ years after the fact, then don't.

Straw man. That wasn't my argument. Try rebutting the points I made, not the ones you wish to pretend I made.

What you call gish gallop is actually called being thorough with presenting the evidence.

Where did I call it a Gish Gallop? I said recollections from a third of a century later have no value but you're awfully fond of quoting them anyway.

Real students of the case organize and save facts, not past internet arguments like you or David Von Pein do.

I'm still waiting for your to present your organized theory of the assassination that fits more of the available evidence than the known resolution of the case you and Manifesto are continually sniping at.

P.S. Sometimes 30+ year old witness testimony that may seem questionable turns out to be true, like the later 90's+ statements of the DPD officers who claimed to have looked at a wallet that may have had Oswald's identification, which was later fueled by CBS rediscovering a tape taken at the scene of the Tippit shooting showing two Police officers looking at a wallet (in a similar, but not identical, fashion to the Oswald wallet in evidence) with apparently no civilian standing nearby who it could have belonged to.

One recollection which proved true does NOT make any other random 30+ year old recollection necessarily true. I note with some amusement you need to go outside the medical evidence entirely to find anything to cite in your favor. Sorry, that won't do and doesn't help you establish the 30+ year old recollections you are fond of quoting are correct.

Again, can you work it out with Manifesto and get back to us? Which of you two is correct about the value of 25+ year old recollections?

Hank