Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Tomtomkent]

Cyril kind of goes back and forth between what he thinks. One day he's giving an interview where he refers to the throat wound as an exit for the back wound, one day he's doing a talk where he makes fun of the idea of Kennedy hunching over to make that trajectory possible.

Well, here's an idea, why don't we ignore any interviews he might be paid for, and restrict ourselves to his input to official documents, or sworn testimony for which purgery or falsehood would have a weight of consequence.
What does he say under those situations?

 

[HSienzant]

MicahJava, don't you have any clue as to how many of Oswald's shots hit Kennedy?

Your yapping, much like the little dog in your icon, reminds me of a paraphrased quote by Dan Rather, upon seeing some of David Lifton's filmed interviews with the autopsy witnesses: “But since Oswald assassinated the President, there would be no need to alter the body.”

And we know from the evidence that Oswald was the person responsible. It was his weapon, his shells, his fragments of bullets recovered from the limo.

So there is no need to alter the body. Lifton painted himself into a corner - and he explains exactly how in his book - by refusing to accept what the evidence was telling him -- nay, screaming out to him. And Lifton then invented a elaborate shell game to retain his beliefs... that all the evidence, including the President's body, was altered to frame Oswald for shooting the President from behind.

Why go to the elaborate nonsense of shooting the President from the front and then altering the body? And planting a gun, and shells, and fragments, and a nearly whole bullet at Parkland? And then plant Oswald's prints on the rifle later? All this is part of Lifton's bizarre theory.

Why not just shoot the President from behind using Oswald's gun?

Why didn't the conspirators think of that?

Wouldn't that have been much simpler?

Did I say I thought the body was altered?

You brought up body alteration by paraphrasing a David Lifton paraphrase of a Dan Rather point, pretending Rather's point didn't make any sense. I had to explain to you how Rather's point made perfect sense.

I note you neither affirm nor deny whether you believe in body alteration. Can you take a stand on that subject now?

I will wait to research that subject when Lifton's Final Charade comes out, but for right now I will just say I find it disturbing that no Parkland witness saw that big red triangle on Kennedy's forehead as shown on the autopsy photos.

So no stand on whether Lifton's claims make a lick of sense to you or not. Which means your bringing up Lifton's point about Rather was in the vein of a diversion only, and you had no intention of answering the original question from RoboTimbo. And, in fact , in your latest response, you not only avoid all the points I made, but the original question, and then finally also introduce a red herring -- a change of subject.

If your objective is to reach a resolution here, you are doing a poor job of advancing the conversation. If your objective is to merely prolong the conversation so it appears you have valid points and have us chase you round the mulberry bush trying to get you to take a stand, you are doing a great job of avoiding advancing the conversation.

You think it's fun playing whack-a-mole with you?

So let's take one more stab at advancing the conversation, and trying to pin down some loose ends on your various theories:

Based on the evidence you're aware of, would conspirators do it Lifton's way, or just shoot JFK from behind and frame Oswald for owning the rifle the gunman shot with? Which makes more sense to you at present? Can you pick one and expound upon why it makes the most sense to you?

How many shots from Oswald's weapon struck Kennedy, in your view?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The JFK autopsy is like Rashomon, everybody remembers it a little differently and each one contradicts the official story.

So why believe any of the witnesses at all and not the hard evidence and the experts who know how to interpret the hard evidence?

I'm just trying to make sense of it all, and of all things you can be sure about, you can be as sure as you'll ever be that there was a small wound low in the head near the EOP.

And in making sense of it all, you can sometimes find yourself reaching erroneous conclusions, like the ancient Greeks concluding heavier objects fall faster than light ones. They too were just following the evidence in that case, right?

Nobody has ever shown that the X-rays are incompatible with such a wound...

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF. Nobody has to show your interpretation is wrong. You need to show your interpretation is correct. You can start by quoting some expert opinion that agrees with your viewpoint.

...so nothing has to be faked for this to be true, unlike a lot of other interpretations of JFK's wounds.

Nobody on this side of the ledger is claiming the X-Rays or autopsy photos are faked, all those claims come from the CT side.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I've already explained why the scalp is being stretched back in the BOH photographs.

You've explained that's your interpretation. You haven't established that your interpretation is the correct one.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The small head wound was most likely an entry from behind, and the large head wound was from either direction, it doesn't really matter once you have two head shots.

But the autopsy found only one entry and one exit wound... and evidence of only one head shot.

Actually, my friend, I am the one supporting the autopsy's findings. If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull [sic - gall] the say it.

How can you argue you're the only one accepting the evidence found at the autopsy when you're obviously not accepting the evidence found at the autopsy? The autopsists - and all subsequent forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials - found there was evidence of one shot to the head that entered the rear of the skull and exited the top right of the skull. Quite clearly, you are disagreeing with the autopsy conclusions, but pretending otherwise.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

My favorite piece of LN stupidity is when Bugliosi argued that Oswald buying a Coca-Cola on the second floor instead of a Dr. Pepper on the first floor was evidence of his guilt. Meanwhile, the real truth-seekers are wondering if such an encounter between Oswald and Officer Marrion Baker even really happened.

And yet another change of subject. We're supposed to chase you around the mulberry bush and play whack-a-mole with you at your pleasure?

No. What's the evidence the conspiracy theorist you cite is a 'real truth seeker'? You appear to be assuming what you need to prove, and simply begging the question once more.

Even Oswald in custody admitted to the encounter (as quoted in numerous memoranda for the record by his interrogators). Officer Baker both testified to it, and gave a written statement to the incident. Truly did likewise. Arguing it never happened is nonsense, but what else could we expect from conspiracy theorists who fancy themselves "truthers"?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The autopsy's location of the entry wound on the back of the head is incompatible with a single gunshot to the head from the sixth floor of the TSBD.

Was that the conclusion of the three qualified pathologists who had the body in front of them on the night of 11/22/63, and you are just agreeing with their conclusions, or are you in fact arguing the autopsists were wrong, wrong, wrong?

You really need to make up your mind about whether the autopsists are right or wrong. As someone earlier advised, "If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull to say it".

Who said that? You did:

Actually, my friend, I am the one supporting the autopsy's findings. If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull [gall] the say it.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Considering all evidence with the damage to the brain, the pattern of fragments, and the trajectory required, can you try explaining how bullet could have entered the lower EOP location and exit the top-right side of the head? I'm thinking no.

Why does your thinking "no" override the conclusions of the autopsists who reach that precise conclusion on the night of 11/22/63 with the body in front of them? Can you explain?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The fragments allegedly recovered from Kennedy's head and the limousine is not under discussion. The existence of an additional bullet to the base of the head is.

No, the totality of the evidence is under discussion. You don't get to artificially exclude evidence pointing to Oswald and then pretend there is evidence of "The existence of an additional bullet to the base of the head". I'm unaware of any expert reaching that conclusion. Your conclusions are not evidence. They are argument only.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg] Still no convincing reason to think the red spot on the photographs is an entry wound. [qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]

Except that's where all the qualified forensic pathologists who examined the extant autopsy materials put the wound.

And the other six or so [EDIT - four] reasons given to you months ago earlier in the predecessor to this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11829485&postcount=3324

In there, I wrote:

I see no possible wound location anywhere on the back of the head except for the one you keep calling the "cowlick red spot". You remember, the one which is:

(a) in focus
(b) in the relative center of the photo
(c) has the hair parted around it to apparently show it better
(d) has a ruler next to it

That one, the one that couldn't possibly be a wound entry location (according to you).

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

So Oswald is guilty because he (allegedly) drank a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper? Does that sound like something a real truth-seeker would even try to say and write in their book?

Can you quote where Bugliosi actually says that?

Try to avoid straw men and putting words in his mouth.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

... in his book, he literally uses Oswald drinking a Coke instead of a Dr. Pepper as evidence of his guilt.

So just quote the sentence where Bugliosi says that. Surely you can do that.

... Meanwhile in reality, we can never know for sure how true the Oswald-Baker-Truly encounter is.

Right, because all three men -- one accused man, one police officer, and one neutral party -- affirmed its veracity, it must be false. There's CT 'logic' for you in a nutshell.

...Even if the encounter really did happen, the details are so fuzzy that the "Coca-Cola" in Oswald's hands could've really been a Dr. Pepper.

The encounter happened. Live with it. Removing the encounter removes one of the earliest attempts to provide Oswald an alibi. Numerous critics in the mid-1960s argued that Oswald didn't have time to descend from the sixth floor to the second before Truly and Baker arrived -- therefore, Oswald could not have been on the sixth floor firing the rifle at the time of the assassination. Remove the encounter, and you're admitting all the early critics were barking up the wrong tree.

... "Coke" is, after all, a common noun to describe all soft drinks. And both are a brown liquid in a glass bottle with a red label.

And both are manufactured by Coca Cola Bottling Company.

What exactly is your argument? Oswald was holding a Dr. Pepper for the encounter that never happened? How is that germane to who shot Kennedy?

But either way, who cares?

YOU BROUGHT IT UP! Now you're attempting to argue it doesn't matter either way. Hilarious. If it doesn't matter, why'd you bring it up in any case?

...Bulio probably just put it in his book to justify some of his wasted time spent on tracking down which soft drink machines were on which floor of the TSBD.

So now he is being criticized for being thorough.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

LNers, on the other hand, don't know to recognize a problem where there is one.

What problem is that? The one a uninformed layman keeps insisting exists, but that none of the expert forensic pathologists to examine the extant autopsy materials ever thought of as a problem? That problem?

Maybe the problem is the uninformed laymen is simply wrong about his interpretations. Are you willing to concede that's a possibility? Or is the only possibility that you'll accept is that all the expert forensic pathologists to examine the extant autopsy materials were wrong -- every single one of them?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Do you have a basis for wondering if this was a false positive for a fragment on the X-ray? Maybe a newer, better team of forensic experts should take a look at the originals to clear the cobwebs.

You yourself admitted above it was just an 'apparent fragment' that Wecht mentioned once only -- 43 years ago, and never since.

Cyril Wecht hasn't mentioned this apparent fragment since he reported it in 1974....

That seems sufficient as a basis for wondering if it was an actual fragment or just a anomalous artifact on the x-ray. It is only seen in one x-ray showing that area, and not seen in the side view. Correct?

Didn't you quote Wecht as saying just that?

This is Ceril Wecht's description of this fragment:

"There is the appearance of a very small particle on the right side of the mandible near the midline. No density corresponding to this location is seen on the lateral x-ray. Its location could be in the region of the spinal column and thus relate to the President's back wound."

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Cyril kind of goes back and forth between what he thinks. One day he's giving an interview where he refers to the throat wound as an exit for the back wound, one day he's doing a talk where he makes fun of the idea of Kennedy hunching over to make that trajectory possible.

So even more reason to doubt the existence of the apparent fragment Wecht found in 1974 in one x-ray that doesn't appear in any others?

He contradicts himself at times, and has never affirmed the existence of this supposed fragment?

Not sure how you think you're supporting your original argument that this fragment exists, and establishes the low impact entry wound to the head; maybe you don't know either?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Sorry for the flurry of posts. Been down the Jersey shore for the better part of the past week, and am home only weekends for the next month or so. Hence my only opportunity to respond.

Hank

 

[bknight]

Sorry for the flurry of posts. Been down the Jersey shore for the better part of the past week, and am home only weekends for the next month or so. Hence my only opportunity to respond.

Hank

There is no internet on the Jersey shore?
Sorry couldn't help myself.

 

[HSienzant]

There is no internet on the Jersey shore?
Sorry couldn't help myself.

I am old school (see my photo left). Not as old school as Bugliosi, who wrote out his book on legal pads with a pencil, but nonetheless, I am not about to lug my desktop computer down the shore on the shore train on a weekly basis just so I can post in this forum. I like all you guys, but not that much.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

My favorite piece of LN stupidity is when Bugliosi argued that Oswald buying a Coca-Cola on the second floor instead of a Dr. Pepper on the first floor was evidence of his guilt.

That doesn't begin to summarize Bugliosi's argument adequately. He established that there was a Coke machine on the second floor (that sold only Coke) and a Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor (that sold other soda pop besides Dr. Pepper).

He cites Wes Frazier as saying that he (Frazier) only saw Oswald with Dr. Pepper. He cites author Jim Bishop as noting "Oswald invariably drank Dr. Pepper". He cites Marina Oswald as saying that after supper, Oswald would walk down the street and buy a newspaper and a Dr. Pepper.

He points out that outside of all the evidence Oswald was on the sixth floor firing at JFK during the assassination, Oswald's "... story about going up to the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense. Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a soft drink machine [with a variety of drinks, including your apparent drink of choice - Hank] on the first floor, the floor you say you are already on..."?

He didn't say it was evidence of his guilt. He said Oswald's claim about what he was doing on the second floor doesn't make sense.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

When you feel confident enough to explain what the pin-the-headwound jive you're fixated on means in the larger context of the established evidence there may be a worthwhile debate.

You're coming off like the kid in the guitar store that plays Smoke on the Water over and over and over...

On the contrary, I would compare my postings here to Miles Davis' In A Silent Way. A 4 minute slow part, followed by a more improvisational 12-minute jazz bit characterized by several repetitive takes on the same riff, concluded by the same recording of the beginning 4-minute portion. Redundant, yet an undisputed masterpiece. Any troll can yell "Miles is a Judas" for making the transition to a more electric sound, but that doesn't make it a valid criticism.

The difference is, of course, Miles Davis wasn't online telling everyone what a genius he was for creating that 'undisputed masterpiece'. Others said that of his work.

Right now, however, you're the only one on this board saying your postings are comparable to an 'undisputed masterpiece', so we know your claims in that regard are nonsense. Nobody gets to self-appoint their works as masterpieces.

But that's exactly what you're doing. Along with ignoring the substance of BStrong's point entirely, and just running away with the analogy.

Got any explanation for how your arguments for this wound you're arguing for fits the larger context of all the known evidence? Like Oswald's weapon being the only one found, like the sixth floor TSBD sniper being the only one seen, like the bullet, shells, and fragments recovered being traceable solely to Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world?

Hank