JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[Tomtomkent]

You're 100% correct - chemical traces and projectile material in the bore will give evidence that a given weapon was fired, but there is no test that can determine when that firing took place. If there are other pieces of associated evidence in hand recovered concurrently or at some later time (brass casings, spent projectiles, powder traces on victims/objects, unfired cartridges from the same production lot) it may be determined that a particular weapon was used at a particular point, but without that additional evidence no determination can be made that the weapon in question was fired at a particular time and place.

Given all that has been quoted is a claim somebody once said there was a test, and it not featuring in the literature at the time, I see no reason to offer the benefit of the doubt of there being a test.

It seems to be one of those things that CTists enthuse SHOULD have been done, with no actual real world basis.

Kind of like the assumptions made about latent prints, that seem to ignore why the prints from the rifle can be tied to the rifle by markings FROM the rifle. Or "well, there were no prints after the first ones were lifted," etc.

 

[MicahJava]

NSFW - autopsy photograph

 

[MicahJava]

No Other, if you think the 313 shot came from the front, why does most of the debris appear to be thrown forward? Also, why does his head go slightly forward at 313 (I think even adjusting for the blur in that frame) and slightly tilt at 314 the way it does? Just interested. I'm kind of interested in the explanation that the backwards head movement is some kind of natural recoil that the neck muscles would do when strained so quickly, or the chin just bouncing off the chest. Not saying there wasn't any activity in the grassy knoll area, though.

 

[Tomtomkent]

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ml3rWwF.jpg[/qimg]

Yes. The shot as described by the WC did cause a large ejection wound, that stretched a long way down the side of the head.

Are you finally agreeing that the WC was correct? Or are you, at some point, going to post any evidence that can ONLY be explained by an additional gunshot from another location?

Better yet: Why not just tell us what your theory is for the events of the day, in detail, start to finish?

 

[MicahJava]

Yes. The shot as described by the WC did cause a large ejection wound, that stretched a long way down the side of the head.

Are you finally agreeing that the WC was correct? Or are you, at some point, going to post any evidence that can ONLY be explained by an additional gunshot from another location?

Better yet: Why not just tell us what your theory is for the events of the day, in detail, start to finish?

Boswell is saying that the red spot next to the ruler is nothing more than a minor defect on the scalp, and that the real entry wound was much lower. That picture shows the scalp being pulled back a bit, so that spot was actually way above the level of the ears. As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was really located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

 

[BStrong]

Given all that has been quoted is a claim somebody once said there was a test, and it not featuring in the literature at the time, I see no reason to offer the benefit of the doubt of there being a test.

It seems to be one of those things that CTists enthuse SHOULD have been done, with no actual real world basis.

Kind of like the assumptions made about latent prints, that seem to ignore why the prints from the rifle can be tied to the rifle by markings FROM the rifle. Or "well, there were no prints after the first ones were lifted," etc.

I've rarely seen the flag of ignorance waved more enthusiastically than the go-no-go gauge idiocy above, and I can't wait to pass that nugget of nuttiness around.

 

[Tomtomkent]

No Other, if you think the 313 shot came from the front, why does most of the debris appear to be thrown forward? Also, why does his head go slightly forward at 313 (I think even adjusting for the blur in that frame) and slightly tilt at 314 the way it does? Just interested. I'm kind of interested in the explanation that the backwards head movement is some kind of natural recoil that the neck muscles would do when strained so quickly, or the chin just bouncing off the chest. Not saying there wasn't any activity in the grassy knoll area, though.

Or the back brace JFK wore.
Or the force of the bouncing back from the limit of movement.

Why do CTists presume they can explain any or every apparent movement? There are limits to the analysis we can perform, and too many variables to claim absolute certainty of every point. There are key moments we can compare to other evidence, but pretending we can divine every gesture and motion is trying to read too much from limited information.

 

[Tomtomkent]

As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

Sorry, but this post is completely unclear what you are trying to say. And tracking back through your arguments is not making it any clearer what a "cowlick" wound is meant to be, and what that has to do with the exit portal of the wound...

 

[MicahJava]

Sorry, but this post is completely unclear what you are trying to say. And tracking back through your arguments is not making it any clearer what a "cowlick" wound is meant to be, and what that has to do with the exit portal of the wound...

This is the location of the official cowlick entry wound:

They want you to believe that every professional who placed the small wound lower, at or below the level of the ears, made a mistake of at least four inches.

A more accurate location:

 

[Tomtomkent]

So... you are using "cowlick wound" instead of any more accurate term, because you want to argue that a wound that seems visible in that photograph, that coincides with the diagrams, you just posted, is not actually there?

 

[HSienzant]

Expect [sic - except] your rules do not apply for you. You have yet to explain how you know the rifle was dropped.

It was damaged when found. Either it was damaged after the assassination - which you appear to be arguing against - or it was damaged before the assassination. I suggested a perfectly reasonable explanation for how it suffered the damage after the assassination. You have yet to explain what exactly you're complaining about, what your theory is (damaged before or after), and how it's pertinent to any point you're trying to make.

Not a good showing for you thus far. We're still awaiting an explanation of why you brought up the damaged telescopic sight, and what you hope to establish.

All you have provided is a guess but you passed it off as fact.

That which I stated is, in fact, the most reasonable conclusion. The other possibility is that it was damaged before the assassination. I pointed out the conspiracy conclusion that would lead from that (it was planted to frame Oswald although it already had an out-of-alignment telescopic sight), but you chose to label it rhetoric, but didn't otherwise respond to the point.

We're still waiting for you to flesh out what you think happened here, and how it furthered a conspiracy before or after the fact.

I loved it when you said "gravity" as if gravity put the rifle in motion and the result was a scope that went out of alignment.

That's the force that explains it most reasonably. I suppose the shooter / conspirator could have brought along a mallet and gave it a whack just before he used it or just before he planted it, but I see no reason to make the scenario more complicated than it needs to be. My toaster fell on the floor a few weeks ago when I forgot to unplug it and pulled the table it was resting on away from the wall. It's now got a big dent on one side but is fortunately still functional. Dropping something explains a lot of damage, and I don't see why you're looking for something besides the proffered explanation for the damage to the scope. It certainly explains the damage to the telescopic sight pretty well, and a heck of a lot better than any explanation you've offered (we're still waiting for your first explanation for the damage).

Then after others said the fixed sights were sufficient you joined that bandwagon but you had no idea until it was brought to your attention.

You've scrambled the conversation beyond recognition.
(a) "Gravity" came after the fixed sights were discussed, not before. You have the conversation backward.
(b) I already pointed out you're wrong in your supposition about what I knew and when I knew it; I knew about the iron sights 50 years ago. Repeating your favorite theory despite being told it's untrue (and having no evidence for it) doesn't make you more credible. It makes you less credible.

Give me your facts about the rifle dropping.

Asked and answered. See post 1432 here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11494099&postcount=1432

By the way, you have acknowledged that you do not know very much about weapons yet there is haranguing on the formality of the test.

You're mis-stating what I said. I said I never fired a weapon before July 5th, 2015, when I fired a 1917 Mannlicher-Carcano and made four of six shots in the target at 100 yards. I've read extensively on that weapon and related weapons.

The what you define as "haranguing" was me asking you to document your claims about the test as expressed here:

It's a minor visual test? What's it called? Who can perform it? What qualifications are needed to perform this test? Can you cite any criminology books that mention this test? Or any court cases? Or are you just believing what you read in conspiracy books?

You still haven't cited anything. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Testing for metal in the barrel is conducted by virtually every owner of rifles and handguns, to attempt that it is not used is futile especially from a person who admittedly is a novice when it comes to rifles.

Sorry, calling me a novice does NOT establish your claim is true. Claiming it's done by 'virtually every owner of rifles and handguns' doesn't establish it either. Claiming it's 'futile' to question this doesn't establish it either.

You know what does establish it? Citations to verifiable sources. When can we expect those?

Still waiting for something on this test that can be independently verified. An anonymous poster (i.e., YOU) making claims on this board does not suffice as proof of anything.

Got anything besides your opinion? The closest you came was claiming you were told this by the Phoenix police, but you cited nothing that could be verified.

Conspiracy theorists make a lot of claims in these threads. Most of them are never sourced. Try something different. Try making claims you can actually establish as true.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

So... you are using "cowlick wound" instead of any more accurate term, because you want to argue that a wound that seems visible in that photograph, that coincides with the diagrams, you just posted, is not actually there?

The red spot on that photo isn't the real wound and the autopsy doctors knew it. The HSCA diagram is based on the location of the red spot. All evidence points to the small wound being by the external occipital protuberance.

 

[HSienzant]

NSFW - autopsy photograph

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/ml3rWwF.jpg[/qimg]

Is it Dr. Petty, Dr. Pity, or Dr. Perry asking the questions?

Or all three?

And this testimony was 14 years after the assassination, correct?
You think recollections from that many years after the fact are worthy of credence?

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

The red spot on that photo isn't the real wound and the autopsy doctors knew it. The HSCA diagram is based on the location of the red spot. All evidence points to the small wound being by the external occipital protuberance.

Can you circle it on the photograph?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You see, my issue is "all evidence" doesn't point to it being anywhere else.
We know this by virtue of MichaJava himself posting diagrams that seem to place it exactly where it appears to be in the photographs. I also find it highly suspect to be quoting evidence about the exit of the wound, and using a nonsensical term like "cowlick wound" to show how little evidence there is, rather than quoting the evidence for the entry of the wound.

 

[HSienzant]

Boswell is saying that the red spot next to the ruler is nothing more than a minor defect on the scalp, and that the real entry wound was much lower. That picture shows the scalp being pulled back a bit, so that spot was actually way above the level of the ears. As long as everybody agrees the cowlick entry wound is bunk, and that the small wound was really located lower in back of the skull, my quest for right now is complete.

How many years after the fact did Boswell testify to this?

Oh, that's right. Fourteen years.

Who agrees with you? I don't. Neither do the HSCA pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials. What is your expertise on this subject and why should we assume your interpretation of the evidence is correct?

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

You need to speak from a position of knowledge and currently you do not possess this base.

Actually I'm pretty solid on Kindergarten-Grade ballistics and shooting. When I did ride-alongs with my local police I once asked about the test to see if a gun had been recently fired and 4 cops snort-laughed, and told me "good luck with that".

Here we are in 2016 with all kinds of gee-whiz tech and we still can't tell if a weapon was fired an hour ago or last year.

Metal fouling is accepted by any person who has handled a rifle as this is a "go no-go" gauge. It will eliminate a suspected weapon if there is evidence of it NOT being used.

Yeah...no...

There is absolutely no evidence that this weapon was shot from the 6th floor conversely there is no evidence that it was not.

All the evidence points to it being shot from the 6th floor, and being the ONLY weapon involved.

I have never said that the bullets recovered were not shot from the rifle but you continue to express the non sequitur as if this proves that LHO shot that rifle from the 6th floor.

His gun, his bullets, his place of work from which he was the only one who fled, his prints on the gun, and GSR on both hands.

If peeling back the onion is beyond your capacity, say so, but if it isn't then piece together the sequence of events. If you believe in the "magic bullet" then you will be able to put your mind around the ability to test for metal in the barrel of a rifle.

You know what? I believe in ghosts, but I don't believe in an accurate test to see if a weapon has been fired within a fixed time frame. The irony here is that both do not exist, and while my belief is inconsistent with my knowledge you won't catch me posting things I can't prove on this board.

Question: If this is not a test then why did the McCloy of the WC ask FBI Agent Frazier if they tested for this?

Because he probably thought the FBI had magic powers.

A total lack of knowledge much less understanding are not credentials for being an expert but cute little tidbits like "thanks for playing" are nuggets that are the beginnings for a mountain of wisdom.

Dude, I was a JFK-CT moron just like you. For most of 30 years I made the same stupid arguments you and MC are making right now. I believed that all of those authors who'd written all of those books knew what they were talking about. I thought they had done their homework. Turns out that not a single one of them had ever considered Oswald as the lone shooter, and instead had worked to prove whatever slackjawed theory they were pedalling .

The fact that there is no single consistent counter-theory to the WC should be a giant red-flag to any sane, intellectually honest person.

More to the point, JFK was not a great president, and there was no guarantee he would be re-elected in 1964. So why kill him? The only one with motive on 11-22-63 was Oswald, and his motive was to get into Cuba, and the history books.

Plus, I love when a CTer complains about lack of credentials since CTers base their existence on ridiculing people with credentials.

Thanks for playing.

 

[MicahJava]

Is it Dr. Petty, Dr. Pity, or Dr. Perry asking the questions?

Or all three?

And this testimony was 14 years after the assassination, correct?
You think recollections from that many years after the fact are worthy of credence?

Hank

Lol, it's just Dr. Petty. The optomised character recognition messed up where I copy and pasted it from.

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

Since Humes and Boswell handled the body for several hours and have both remained consistent on that issue since the day of the assassination, I do put credence in their statements.

Got anybody who handled the body and placed the small wound was above the level of the ears?

 

[Elagabalus]

You see, my issue is "all evidence" doesn't point to it being anywhere else.
We know this by virtue of MichaJava himself posting diagrams that seem to place it exactly where it appears to be in the photographs. I also find it highly suspect to be quoting evidence about the exit of the wound, and using a nonsensical term like "cowlick wound" to show how little evidence there is, rather than quoting the evidence for the entry of the wound.

MicahJava's evidence appears to be taken from self-proclaimed experts knowledgeable in the fine art of screenshot analysis.

 

[HSienzant]

Or the back brace JFK wore.
Or the force of the bouncing back from the limit of movement.

Why do CTists presume they can explain any or every apparent movement? There are limits to the analysis we can perform, and too many variables to claim absolute certainty of every point. There are key moments we can compare to other evidence, but pretending we can divine every gesture and motion is trying to read too much from limited information.

Therein lies the problem; there's a multitude of explanations for JFK's rearward movement, and conspiracy theorists universally adopt the one they like (a shot from the right front moved JFK back) and typically simply disregard or denigrate the others.

They offer no solid reasons to dispute the other reasons, they simply claim it must be a bullet (because, of course, they want it to be a bullet).

Hank