JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[MicahJava]

How many decades after the fact did 'the people who were there' give these statements?

Could you share that with us?

Hank

You should be familiar enough. I don't feel like making a timeline of the Bethesda descriptions of the head damage. I've posted enough unambiguous evidence for the EOP hole, and if I start copypasta'ing all of the original statements, you'll make it into a semantics game.

I would like to point out once again that you are simply begging the question... that is, imbedding in your argument the very facts you must prove.

I think if you stop doing that, we'd all be better off.

I meant that the cowlick theory was probably endorsed because people started realizing that an entrance wound that low in the skull could not deflect enough to create the large wound on the top-right side of the head. What was going through these theorists minds, I can not say. You don't have to know you're lying to be a shill.

 

[HSienzant]

Did anyone who was there for the autopsy acknowledge the existence of a cowlick wound when showed the red spot in the photos?

You keep talking about a 'cowlick' wound when it is only your presumption that the part in the hair was a natural part at the cowlick area instead of a part made by the pathologists to show the nature of the wound better. You need to establish your presumption before you can state it as fact.

Yes? They were indeed paid with actual money.

Show us the money. Or the receipts. Tell us how you know. Or is this just another thing you're assuming, like the wound being in the 'cowlick' area?

They didn't have to literally lie, just cram together some puzzle pieces that didn't quite fit. Like placing the small head wound high above the ears.

Do tell us how you put all this together. I'd love to hear it. I'm sure your theory has more holes than both shooting victims in the limo combined.

Two bullets to the head.

From where? What witnesses saw this gunman (or gunmen)?


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The EOP wound couldn't deflect enough to exit out of the top-right side of the head...

Okay, what happened to the bullet that struck JFK at or about the external occipital protuberance?

Where did it originate? Where'd it wind up in the body? Or where did it exit?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/G8wSxaU.jpg[/qimg]

That's curious. You say the official government position is the autopsy photo shows the forehead area, but then you link to an apparently official document that says that photo shows the back of the head.

Can you explain the discrepancy in your arguments?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Okay, what happened to the bullet that struck JFK at or about the external occipital protuberance?

Where did it originate? Where'd it wind up in the body? Or where did it exit?

Hank

I'm still combing through the sea of information at this point, but I've linked to patspeer.com a few times, which compiles evidence that a bullet entered the EOP and a fragment exited the throat (which was the suspicion of some people who saw the body).

Now on your cowlick wound (the agreed-upon term for it): Why are there apparently no fragments on the X-ray around where you think it entered? Could it be that it's just a regular skull fracture given special attention by shills?

 

[MicahJava]

That's curious. You say the official government position is the autopsy photo shows the forehead area, but then you link to an apparently official document that says that photo shows the back of the head.

Can you explain the discrepancy in your arguments?

Hank

That was the original description of the photograph, by people who were there. The interpretation was later changed, by people who were not there, because an EOP wound causes problems with the OS. You could learn all about the history of the photograph at this page which I've already linked: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

 

[HSienzant]

Angle consistent with a through-and-through? What? If you mean the cowlick entrance is, it's not. Even a cowlick entry would have to deflect to the left or it would exit the face. Screenshots from Dale Meyer's animation shows that a straight line like that would trace more than 100 feet above the roof of the Dal-Tex.

While the limo was preceding almost directly away from the Depository at the time of the head shot, it's important to remember that JFK's head was determined by the HSCA to be canted about 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo -- he was looking to the left front at the time of the head shot. His head was also tilted down. Thus, a shot from almost directly behind the limo, striking JFK in approximately the middle of the back of the head would not exit the face, but would exit the top of the head. Exactly as we see in the evidence.

Here's the HSCA reconstruction:

https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/idadox.jpg

Hank

That's a hilarious strawman. The EOP wound did not have to be made at or near the 313 shot. It could be responsible for the 224 reactions.

What? So you think JFK was struck in the back of the head with a bullet, and remained upright and kept his arms flexed at his side, using his left index finger to point to his throat, for five seconds after being struck in the head and through the brain with a bullet? Is that right?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

While the limo was preceding almost directly away from the Depository at the time of the head shot, it's important to remember that JFK's head was determined by the HSCA to be canted about 17 degrees to the left of the centerline of the limo -- he was looking to the left front at the time of the head shot. His head was also tilted down. Thus, a shot from almost directly behind the limo, striking JFK in approximately the middle of the back of the head would not exit the face, but would exit the top of the head. Exactly as we see in the evidence.

Here's the HSCA reconstruction:

https://kennedykilledhimself.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/idadox.jpg

Hank

I don't think you heard the first time. SCREENSHOTS FROM THE DALE MEYERS ANIMATION SHOW THAT A STRAIGHT LINE THROUGH THE HSCA HEAD WOUND TRACES BACK TO MORE THAN 100 FEET ABOVE THE DAL-TEX.

What? So you think JFK was struck in the back of the head with a bullet, and remained upright and kept his arms flexed at his side, using his left index finger to point to his throat, for five seconds after being struck in the head and through the brain with a bullet? Is that right?

Hank

Why do I keep being asked the same question?

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lLWqbNL8Zgo/UYraEfUOHfI/AAAAAAAAuis/RtjG5B8TugM/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_BOH.jpg[/qimg]


Cowlick evidence is the poor evidence. You have what? A picture of a drop of blood? A skull x-ray showing a crack you say is an entrance wound? Maybe a distorted quote here or there if you want to get creative?

Looking at the photo you provide, perhaps you can explain why the apparent wound you discount (that you call 'a drop of blood') is approximately in the center of the image; is next to the ruler; and is right where the hair is parted.

All those are pretty significant markers - to a reasonable person, I think - that that's the location of the wound in the photo. The location of the wound you favor - if I'm understanding you correctly - is near the bottom of the photo; is away from the ruler; and doesn't show the hair parted.

I would again say those are pretty good reasons not to think there's a wound there... in addition to being near the hairline is well below the external occipital protuberance and in the neck.

Hank

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

Why do I keep being asked the same question?

Must be because you can't answer it without admitting that your theory is ridiculous.

 

[Sandy McCroskey]

I'm still combing through the sea of information at this point, but I've linked to patspeer.com a few times,

Why do you place so much confidence in Pat Speer? He's just another conspiracy hobbyist. His career was in the entertainment industry. Apparently that's still his métier.

 

[HSienzant]

I don't know, that's one hypothetical. You're talking about the bullet directly hitting like five inches above the disturbed area. For what it's worth, Dr. Humes thought it was caused by a bullet. This was not a strange suggestion, as the small wound was right by the cerebellum, as Dr. Humes and others established.

It was caused by a bullet. Humes wasn't wrong. You are wrong in misunderstanding he was talking about a direct strike. As shown in the slow motion films cited, the brain undergoes massive disruption from a bullet strike.

It was still at least damaged. The damage was apparently interesting enough to take a tissue slide of it.

That's a retreat from your initial claim. Do you remember claiming the brain stem was severed?

I wonder if Jenkins was actually describing Humes surgically disconnecting the stem at that moment.

If Humes was surgically disconnecting the stem, it was NOT severed by a bullet. Right?

Another question from me: Why was the entrance wound described as slanting to the left?

It wasn't described that way. Boswell's notes show an arrow pointing in that direction. You cited it here: [qimg]http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/face-sheet/graphics/entry.jpg[/qimg]

You don't reach valid conclusions by accepting every anomaly as gospel and letting them be your guide. You discard the outlier information and let the evidence that comes together be your guide.

I used that AARB diagram to illustrate it's resemblance to the F8 photo.

Sorry, can you put these side-by-side to illustrate your point? What AARB diagram? The Boswell recollection?

Boswell ALWAYS placed the wound by the EOP. He created nearly identical face sheets for the autopsy report, a 11/25/1966 issue of the Baltimore Sun, and the HSCA.

Have you cited these side-by-side previously?

Why? Do you still think the red spot could be anything more than some kind of two-dimensional jot? The unlikelihood of that being an entrance wound can not be fully appreciated without seeing a high-quality, un-darkened copy:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/9vFW9cC.jpg[/qimg]

Except it's where the hair is parted, exactly like the pathologists moved the hair out of the way to photo it; it's next to the ruler, exactly what you'd expect if the ruler was held there to show its size, and it's roughly in the center of the photo, again, exactly what you'd expect of a photographer photographing a wound.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

You should be familiar enough. I don't feel like making a timeline of the Bethesda descriptions of the head damage. I've posted enough unambiguous evidence for the EOP hole, and if I start copypasta'ing all of the original statements, you'll make it into a semantics game.

Roughly, how many decades after the fact did these recollections you're citing get noted? I'm asking for a whole number in decades. And the follow-up question will be how much confidence can we have in these recollections?

I'm not asking you to write a book on the subject - it's already been done, and it's a five-volume set.
https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Review-Board/dp/098431444X

I meant that the cowlick theory was probably endorsed because people started realizing that an entrance wound that low in the skull could not deflect enough to create the large wound on the top-right side of the head. What was going through these theorists minds, I can not say. You don't have to know you're lying to be a shill.

Not sure what point you're trying to make. Can you expand on this explanation?

Who exactly are you calling theorists, and shills?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Looking at the photo you provide, perhaps you can explain why the apparent wound you discount (that you call 'a drop of blood') is approximately in the center of the image; is next to the ruler; and is right where the hair is parted.

This is the last good question you could possibly ask. Why is the ruler seemingly measuring that red spot?

While Humes didn't particularly remember what that red spot could be, and suggested that it was a dried drop of blood, Bowell actually stated to the HSCA that it was a part of a very minor scalp injury. Could the ruler be measuring this purported defect? Well, In a double-whammy, Humes also denies that the ruler was measuring anything (Boswell presumably agrees).

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=601&relPageId=4&search=lacerated_scalp

Dr. PETTY: Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the margin of
the hair in the back?

Dr. HUMES: Yes, sir.

Dr. PETTY: Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish
a scale and no more? -

Dr. HUMES: Exactly.

Dr. PETTY: It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something?

Dr. HUMES: No way, no way.

Dr. PITY: 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.

-

There's also the simple problem that the very same BOH photo proves that the red spot is not the same size as the small wound described in the original record. It also isn't slightly slanted to the left like the original record says.

Who needs a well-orchestrated coverup of a purported large blow-out to the back of the head when the pitiful coverup of the EOP wound is so easy to demonstrate?

All those are pretty significant markers - to a reasonable person, I think - that that's the location of the wound in the photo. The location of the wound you favor - if I'm understanding you correctly - is near the bottom of the photo; is away from the ruler; and doesn't show the hair parted.

I would again say those are pretty good reasons not to think there's a wound there... in addition to being near the hairline is well below the external occipital protuberance and in the neck.

Hank

There are a lot of dark spots in the BOH photo which could be the EOP wound. I don't care to pick a favorite. Please note that the scalp in the BOH photos make the hairline look a little lower than it actually was (due to the head being tilted)

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...AAAA_U/8U8A0RGYBQI/john-f-kennedy-smoking.jpg

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 5

 

[HSienzant]

I'm still combing through the sea of information at this point, but I've linked to patspeer.com a few times, which compiles evidence that a bullet entered the EOP and a fragment exited the throat (which was the suspicion of some people who saw the body).

So the best you and Pat Speer can do is argue the Bethesda pathologists were RIGHT, it was an exit wound? And the Parkland doctors were wrong to think it was a entry wound? After 53 years, that's really the best conspiracy theory Speer could come up with?

Can you explain (or does Pat Speer explain) what happened to the REST of this supposed bullet?

Now on your cowlick wound (the agreed-upon term for it): Why are there apparently no fragments on the X-ray around where you think it entered? Could it be that it's just a regular skull fracture given special attention by shills?

You're just asking questions, with no special dog in this hunt, right?

Instead of just asking questions, why don't you try a different approach... just present your theory, and the evidence for your theory.

By the way, I never once said where I thought it entered. Don't put words in my mouth. We're examining your arguments here.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

That was the original description of the photograph, by people who were there.

When you say the original description, you mean about 1963, the time of the assassination? Or do you mean some other time, when they saw it for the first time? When?

The interpretation was later changed, by people who were not there, because an EOP wound causes problems with the OS.

OS? Operating system?

When was it "later" changed, specifically, or roughly, and by whom?

Can you be more precise?

You could learn all about the history of the photograph at this page which I've already linked: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14:demystifyingthemysteryphoto

You don't cite conspiracy cites for your arguments and I won't cite the Warren Report for mine. Deal? Make an argument, and cite the evidence, not somebody else's argument.

I have better ways to spend my time than rebutting every conspiracy theory you can find online and post a link to here.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I don't think you heard the first time. SCREENSHOTS FROM THE DALE MEYERS ANIMATION SHOW THAT A STRAIGHT LINE THROUGH THE HSCA HEAD WOUND TRACES BACK TO MORE THAN 100 FEET ABOVE THE DAL-TEX.

I don't think that response adequately answers the issues I raised, especially since those claims of yours are undocumented and unverified.

Why do I keep being asked the same question?

I don't think that response adequately answers the issues I raised, either.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Duplicate post deleted.

 

[MicahJava]

I'm gonna head to bed now. Literally all other questions can be answered by googling or by checking out the links I've already posted.

 

[HSienzant]

This is the last good question you could possibly ask. Why is the ruler seemingly measuring that red spot?

While Humes didn't particularly remember what that red spot could be, and suggested that it was a dried drop of blood, Bowell actually stated to the HSCA that it was a part of a very minor scalp injury. Could the ruler be measuring this purported defect? Well, In a double-whammy, Humes also denies that the ruler was measuring anything (Boswell presumably agrees).

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=601&relPageId=4&search=lacerated_scalp

Dr. PETTY: Then this is the entrance wound. The one down by the margin of
the hair in the back?

Dr. HUMES: Yes, sir.

Dr. PETTY: Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish
a scale and no more? -

Dr. HUMES: Exactly.

Dr. PETTY: It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something?

Dr. HUMES: No way, no way.

Dr. PITY: 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.

How many decades after the fact did these interviews in fact occur?

And you're not explaining why the ruler is next to the non-wound, why the non-wound is in the center of the photo, and why the hair is parted there, as if to expose the non-wound. All that's just a coincidence, I guess?

There's also the simple problem that the very same BOH photo proves that the red spot is not the same size as the small wound described in the original record. It also isn't slightly slanted to the left like the original record says.

According to whom? You make unsourced, undocumented assertions here, you will be asked to document them to a verifiable source - and conspiracy websites just won't do.

Who needs a well-orchestrated coverup of a purported large blow-out to the back of the head when the pitiful coverup of the EOP wound is so easy to demonstrate?

What coverup? I think you're assuming what you need to prove.

There are a lot of dark spots in the BOH photo which could be the EOP wound. I don't care to pick a favorite.

So you cannot point to anywhere specifically where you can say with confidence the bullet entered JFK's head? You just know it's not the spot determined by the HSCA?

Please note that the scalp in the BOH photos make the hairline look a little lower than it actually was (due to the head being tilted)

The end of the hairline is in the neck. And well below the EOP. The autopsy puts it above that spot, doesn't it?

Hank