JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[aggle-rithm]

For better or worse, most folks idea of terminal effect comes from popular fiction, not real world experience.

Headshots are odd things in real life.

First because most hits are to the body mass, and second there are so many variables in caliber, trajectory and point of impact and the construction of the skull itself.

I've posted links earlier in this thread linking to medical studies of ballistic head wounds and iirc the study found that in a percentage of cases examined, the entry wound was larger than the exit wound.

I'm sure if Robert finds a single counter-example, he will claim that this proves the large hole in Kennedy's head COULD NOT have been an entrance wound. Standard CT operating procedure.

I also expect him to say that fruit is not a perfect analogue for the human head, or they didn't use the right kind of bullet, etc., etc.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Get a high-powered rifle.

Shoot a hole through a watermelon.

Observe the size of the entrance hole vs. the exit hole.

There, you will have your answers.

edit: Here's one with an apple: http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y95/armyyouhave/cruelanimal/bullet-apple-s.jpg

Robert actually posted a video early in his posting history in this thread. It was of shots going thru metal plates. He was trying to show how an entrance wound would have a splash back effect because he knows the Z film shows the exit wound to the right front.

Unfortunately for Robert, the video actually showed the large blowout on the far side of the metal plate, he just hadn't watched the video long enough to see it. We made fun of him endlessly for that.

That was his first shot to his


And he's been shooting himself in the foot ever since.

LOL.

 

[abaddon]

Do you understand the difference between a direct quote which is placed in quotes like "this"? And a summary of what the man said????

"I feel that there was no really entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. "

More lies. Same quote in context follows

Q: To follow that up, the wounds that you describe, was that based on hearing the doctors calling out that this is a wound, this is a wound? Or was that based on your visible sight when you saw the body?

LIPSEY: Both. Because, I could see the body, I could see the rear. I could see obviously the side of the face. Although that’s just when I walked in they took him out the casket -- I saw that. Beside the side wound, because when I went back and sat down, they laid him down to right. The way they laid him I was looking at the left side of his body as opposed to the right side of his body. I remember I could see the blood at the throat area, and in the neck area. As for as me getting down and looking at the exit hole in the front, all I could see was the blood. What I'm talking about is what I heard in conversation from them, from then on.

Q: To follow that up, as you should well know because I take it you do hunt a lot, locating wounds in hair is very difficult. The sighting. Did you visibly see the wounds in the back of the head, what you feel were the entrance wounds? Was based on what the doctors stated that we know their opinions…

[Lipsey is interrupting with "No…That's…No."]

LIPSEY: No. That’s...No. I hope I’m not contradicting myself. But at this point, there again, like I said, it's been a long time. I feel that there was no really entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out..

 

[HSienzant]

Factually incorrect. The enigmatic Humes quote does not come from some phone conversation but from the Warren Commission Hearings.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0184b.htm

Nonetheless, Lifton did call Humes, did converse with him, and did ask about this sentence and did spend a great deal of time in his book BEST EVIDENCE agonizing over the meaning.

That fact that Humes uttered it during his testimony rather than during a telephone conversation with Lifton isn't necessarily germane to my point.

Hank

 

[Tolls]

More lies. Same quote in context follows

I'm not even sure that classes as lies.
Just a woeful inability to read.
It's quite clear even from the short quote that RP uses that Lipsey is saying your couldn't see an entrance wound because the result of the shot was that a large chunk had been blown out, erasing the entrance entirely.

 

[JayUtah]

Please do not make up direct quotes.

Who says that's a direct quote? This is a direct quote:

It denigrates your credibility -- what's left of it, that is.

Reading your latest posts, I see this isn't the only difficulty you're having with summary versus quotation.

If you're that worried about my credibility here at JREF I'm sure we can get one of the good folks here to help measure it relative to yours.

 

[HSienzant]

Duplicate posting removed.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Still waiting for all of those un-cherry picked witnesses you claim exist. Crickets still chirping.

Why. Nobody claimed it was the witnesses who were cherry picked, but the quotes you attribute to them.

Would you kindly refrain from strawmen and argue against what Jay has actually suggested?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Do you understand the difference between a direct quote which is placed in quotes like "this"? And a summary of what the man said????

"I feel that there was no really entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. "

But you did not state that was a summary, you attributed your paraphrase to Lipsey.
Is that not what you explicity told Jay not to do?

It seems odd you would insist others follow rules you ignore.

 

[Tomtomkent]

More lies. Same quote in context follows

Is that not why Robert retracted the witness?

He seems awful defensive about a witness he claimed was contradictory.

 

[Tomtomkent]

By the way Robert.… as you dislike summaries of dialogue that was never said I will happily await your substantiation of the claims that I call myself a JFK scholar or that I declare victory.

Now would be an apt time.

 

[JayUtah]

40 plus medical witnesses plus many others who observed a large blow-out in the back of K's head is not fantasy, but eye-witness fact.

No such thing as "eyewitness fact." Eyewitnesses offer (at best) testimony, not fact. The presence of the gorilla is a fact, yet half the eyewitnesses don't see it. This is why eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable type of evidence. But for some reason you're putting all your eggs in that basket.

Of course, these are facts you and your cohorts simply cannot deal with, but strain to impune for the past 217 pages...

What do you think those 217 pages are filled with? Of course we have "dealt with it," just not in the straw-man way you fervently hope for. You cajole, browbeat, bait, and shame people into accepting a burden of proof that doesn't belong to them and into spoon-feeding you only the rebuttals you're prepared to answer. If you took the same approach to hunting, you'd clamp your rifle to a tree and wait for the deer to paint themselves white and walk into your sights.

There's a World War I story, almost certainly apocryphal, in which a junior officer asks his commander where he thinks the enemy will attack. When the commander points to a certain spot on the front, the junior asks how he knew that. "Because, lad," answered the commander, "that's where our defense is strongest."

...but with zero success.

Claiming victory yet again. Pot, meet kettle.

Your "one question at a time" evasions, liberally flavored with lunchmeat, tell a different story.

Perhaps you could ask Jay about all those un-cherry picked witnesses he seems to know all about.

"Seems to?" What's the problem -- can't find where I actually made any such argument? Your arguments are so predictable: straw man after straw man.

 

[JayUtah]

Is that not why Robert retracted the witness?

It's not clear Robert has withdrawn Lipsey. He did initially, but apparently has un-withdrawn him and is now frantically trying to rehabilitate him.

He seems awful defensive about a witness he claimed was contradictory.

That was his face-saving way of withdrawing the witness. Rather than simply withdrawing it, he has to poison the well for both sides. Keep in mind that Robert's meta-debate subterfuge is to suggest that for every one of his "medical witnesses" we need to provide a "medical witness" of our own that that the tells the opposite story. Apparently in his mind the one with the most witnesses at the end of the debate wins. So if Lipsey can't play for his team, he has to make sure Lipsey can't play for our team. The problem is, we're not even playing his game. We're all up in the stands watching him play against a bunch of straw-man players.

And at this point Robert will likely try to cajole me into "taking a stand" or accuse me of cowardice for not making some affirmative claim to counter his. But that's just his late inability or unwillingness to keep the burden of proof he once agreed to shoulder.

 

[JayUtah]

Lipsey witnessed the medical procedures at the autopsy. That makes him a medical witness. Obviously.

Lipsey was no porter. He was assigned to guard the body during autopsy. That makes him a witness to the medical procedure -- a medical witness.

No, Robert. Tacking "obviously" onto your arguments does not make them as self-evidently correct as you assiduously wish they were.

I suspected your list was padded. I told you the exact way in which I thought it was padded -- a few experts whose descriptions might be more reliable, plus a whole slew of laymen and hearsayers.

So I asked you a question designed to compel you to draw the distinction. You ignored it. I asked the question again, phrased differently. Your answer explicitly repeated the equivocation the question asked you to dispel. And now you simply repeat the double-speak. It's pretty clear you're terrified to be questioned honestly about the nature of your witnesses and it's equally clear you're going to cling tenaciously to that nebulous definition so you can maintain your scoreboard illusion.

 

[CORed]

Interestingly, when I read your first sentence, it made me think of Lifton's approach in his book.

And I absolutely DID get a good laugh out of Best Evidence - at least, as much as I read. I couldn't get much past the first chapter because I was laughing so hard at his photographic analysis that found all the shooters. "This blob over here is another shooter. And so is this blob over here in this picture. And this fuzzy section behind the sign in this picture." etc Given all those shooters in the picture, here is what must have happened....

He made the most creative Rorschach interpretation sound reasonable.

JFK was assassinated by an army of blobsquatches.

 

[CORed]

I didn't. You do know what "from behind" says about the direction of travel, right? If it exited from behind, that means it was traveling back-to-front, and so exited out the front.

I believe that if we accept Robert's interpretation of "exited from other than behind", we would have to conclude that the bullet made a u-turn inside Kennedy's head. Now that's what I call a magic bullet.

 

[CORed]

A medical witness is a person who has medical knowledge whether by background or as being an official observer at a medical procedure or an autopsy.

You're welcome.

In other words, "medical" was a word you just decided to throw in to make the witnesses seem more authoritative than they actually are. Got it.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert. Tacking "obviously" onto your arguments does not make them as self-evidently correct as you assiduously wish they were.

I suspected your list was padded. I told you the exact way in which I thought it was padded -- a few experts whose descriptions might be more reliable, plus a whole slew of laymen and hearsayers.

So I asked you a question designed to compel you to draw the distinction. You ignored it. I asked the question again, phrased differently. Your answer explicitly repeated the equivocation the question asked you to dispel. And now you simply repeat the double-speak. It's pretty clear you're terrified to be questioned honestly about the nature of your witnesses and it's equally clear you're going to cling tenaciously to that nebulous definition so you can maintain your scoreboard illusion.

It's no illusion. Your scoreboard account of un-cherry-picked witnesses remains at zero.

 

[Robert Prey]

Who says that's a direct quote? This is a direct quote:



Reading your latest posts, I see this isn't the only difficulty you're having with summary versus quotation.

If you're that worried about my credibility here at JREF I'm sure we can get one of the good folks here to help measure it relative to yours.

OH, Good. Anther Jay Utah Credibility Poll. What a joke.

 

[RoboTimbo]

What a joke.

When the joke is ready

appears.

LOL.

Hey Robert, link that video again showing the "blow out" in the back of the metal plate! LOL!!