Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

From the book Gunshot Wounds Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques:

Examination of Bullets for Tissue and Foreign Material

If a bullet passes through a body or intermediary target, or ricochets off a hard surface,
fragments of tissue or target material may adhere to or be imbedded in the bullet. If the
bullet is a hollow point, a relatively large wad of this material may be deposited in the cavity.
Recovery and identification of foreign material from a bullet may identify the organs or
intermediary object perforated or prove that the bullet was a ricochet. Nonorganic material,
such as aluminum from a window screen perforated by a bullet or minerals from a
stone off of which a bullet ricocheted, can be identified on a bullet by scanning electron
microscopy with energy-dispersive x-ray (SEM–EDX).14
In a series of tests involving FMJ 9 ×19 mm bullets, fired at 10 different materials and
examined by SEM/EDX, Karger et al.15 found the following:

...

In the case of high-velocity bullets,
they noted extensive fragmentation of the tissue with blood clots, bone fragments, muscle,
and amorphous debris, the most common tissues recovered. Mesothelial cells and organ
fragments were less common. Tissue recovered from low-velocity bullets was better preserved
and more abundant. Adipose tissue, fragments of small vessels, and clumps of spindle
cells were most commonly found; skeletal and cardiac muscles, occasionally. Visceral
organ fragments were not necessarily found even when the organs were perforated. Skin
was the least commonly encountered. In regard to gunshot wounds of the head, bone
chips, skeletal muscle, connective tissue, and strips of small vessels were commonly identified.
Fragments of brain were present but were not readily recognizable as neural in origin.

 

[HSienzant]

Tangential wounds are also known to leave skin tissue on the recovered bullet, which is highly unusual in regular through-and-through wounds.

Says who? You making stuff up again?

From the book Gunshot Wounds Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques:

If a bullet passes through a body ... fragments of tissue or target material may adhere to or be imbedded in the bullet.

So the source you cite directly contradicts your claim. It appears you are making up stuff again.

Thanks for playing. As another poster has said, you're not very good at this.

And we're supposed to not notice:
(a) your source directly contradicts your claim?
(b) you only responded to one point in a lengthy post, ignoring all the other points?
(c) you cannot substantiate your claims?
(d) you're simply performing yet another fringe reset?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

So the source you cite directly contradicts your claim.

Thanks for playing. As another poster has said, you're not very good at this.

Hank

It said that human skin was the least likely to be identified on a bullet, and I assumed the same idea applied to the upper cranial muscles where they are like a sort of skin. But that report copied above says that muscle was indeed found on their test bullets, so that part of the argument was wrong. CE 567 still contains human skin.

 

[HSienzant]

It said that human skin was the least likely to be identified on a bullet

Least likely doesn't mean 'never'.

... and I assumed the same idea applied to the upper cranial muscles where they are like a sort of skin.

Nobody cares about your assumptions.

But that report copied above

Which report?

...says that muscle was indeed found on their test bullets

What test bullets?

so that part of the argument was wrong.

As is every other part. You're only conceding one small error in a mountain of errors by you.

CE 567 still contains human skin.

And your own cited source says that's not surprising:
"If a bullet passes through a body ... fragments of tissue or target material may adhere to or be imbedded in the bullet."

Skin and muscle were both human tissue, last time I looked.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How do trace amounts of frontal muscle tissue get embedded almost totally in the middle of the smashed nose CE 567?

(Quoting): "In the case of high-velocity bullets, they noted extensive fragmentation of the tissue with blood clots, bone fragments, muscle, and amorphous debris, the most common tissues recovered."

Too funny. Ask and answer your own questions.

Thanks for playing.

Hank

 

[Axxman300]

Apparently you didn't read the main part of my question.

You tend to ramble.

How do trace amounts of frontal muscle tissue get embedded almost totally in the middle of the smashed nose CE 567? The nose of the bullet didn't tumble at all after already breaking up? And how would it get a chance to have a close direct encounter the frontal muscles if it first needs to blast out of the skull?

If you bothered to look at the fragments I linked to you might notice a couple of things that, if you use logic, can answer your question. Since you can't or won't, here's what you miss:

You've assumed the nose of the bullet exited first, and if there is indeed muscle, or skin tissue on the pulverized nose then it was following the LARGER base of the round. So the nose of the bullet exited behind the base as it blew through the bone, snagging tissue on the way out. All this happened at 2,000mph.

The bullet clearly fragmented upon striking the rear of the skull, and tumbled (we know this from the damage caused by cavitation shown in the HSCA sketch of the brain). The largest fragment was the base, and is the obvious candidate for the piece that blew out the top-front of the skull as it exited. The nose was right behind it.

If the fragments in evidence are indeed from the shooting,

They are, this is not in dispute.

then them causing a tangential wound on the top-right side of Kennedy's head would give the bullet plenty of chances to directly drive through muscle tissue, because in that case it's clipping the head from the side.

Nope. Remember, the whole thing's on film:

Tangential wounds are also known to leave skin tissue on the recovered bullet, which is highly unusual in regular through-and-through wounds.

Neat-O. That has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Doesn't matter what can happen, the only thing that matters is what did happen. In this case 2 bullets struck JFK from behind. Both bullets were 6.5x52mm Carcano rounds fired by Lee Oswald from the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

All of the evidence proves this.

 

[RoboTimbo]

It said that human skin was the least likely to be identified on a bullet, and I assumed the same idea applied to the upper cranial muscles where they are like a sort of skin. But that report copied above says that muscle was indeed found on their test bullets, so that part of the argument was wrong. CE 567 still contains human skin.

Your one CT source didn't tell you how badly you'd have your ass handed to you, did it?

 

[Axxman300]

I keep saying that the only CT left with JFK is to link him to a compromised Anti-Castro paramilitary group, and nobody wants to do that because unlike Mafia types those guys don't talk, and they're probably all dead.

The HSCA tried hard. The FBI tried hard. The CIA crossed its fingers and didn't find anything linking him to Castro.

If you look at the assassination in conjunction with the Walker attempt one could imply that Oswald was trying to prove his worthiness to someone...if you want to play that game. I don't. I think his rifle gave him a feeling of real power for the first time in his life.

 

[BStrong]

I keep saying that the only CT left with JFK is to link him to a compromised Anti-Castro paramilitary group, and nobody wants to do that because unlike Mafia types those guys don't talk, and they're probably all dead.

The HSCA tried hard. The FBI tried hard. The CIA crossed its fingers and didn't find anything linking him to Castro.

If you look at the assassination in conjunction with the Walker attempt one could imply that Oswald was trying to prove his worthiness to someone...if you want to play that game. I don't. I think his rifle gave him a feeling of real power for the first time in his life.

A little man with a gun and obsessed with feeling important without the skills to achieve his goals.

He'd be the happiest man in captivity if he had lived to know his name was still being discussed in 2017.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Too bad literally none of them can even be considered coherent.

I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.

 

[BStrong]

I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.

Ignorance is bliss....

 

[HSienzant]

I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.

I've tried that. You can explain a non-conspiracy point to a CT until you're blue in the face.

Unfortunately, you can't understand said non-conspiracy point for the CT unless they want to understand it.

Or you certainly can't get the CT to admit he understands it but has no rebuttal.

So they resort to either ignoring the point entirely or weak dismissals of any and all points they disagree with claims like the above of incoherence.

Hank

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I would be happy to go over any post you choose and explain it to you, if you wish.

I've tried that. You can explain a non-conspiracy point to a CT until you're blue in the face.

Unfortunately, you can't understand said non-conspiracy point for the CT unless they want to understand it.

Or you certainly can't get the CT to admit he understands it but has no rebuttal.

So they resort to either ignoring the point entirely or weak dismissals of any and all points they disagree with claims like the above of incoherence.

Hank

Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?

 

[MicahJava]

Frantically hand-waving away the contrary arguments won't do you much good. You never could answer the points made and cited above. Calling them incoherent doesn't cut the mustard as a response.





Not sure what your argument is. You yourself already admitted he got stuff wrong, claiming parts were 'garbled' and incoherent. You don't get to turn around and then claim his diary is credible evidence. You already admitted it's not.

You don't get to throw out everything but the parts you like on the basis that they are garbled, then keep the parts you like because they must be credible.

Sorry, no, it doesn't work the way you want it to.

It's already been pointed out to you that Humes' phone call could have been made shortly after midnight, if the autopsy ended by "about 11pm" as Humes claimed and other contemporaneous evidence you yourself cited suggests. Humes said only that it was made early in the morning on Saturday, and 12:30am certainly qualifies. Dr. Perry said he remembers the call as on Friday night, and a call at 12:30am on Saturday Washington time would be 11:30pm Friday night Dallas time.

And you never did post how long Barnum was at Bethesda, and when exactly this information was imparted to Barnum.

Your argument is just chock full of assumptions you need to establish. All this was pointed out to you in the above. Calling all these points incoherent doesn't make them go away.

Hank

This is the exact passage from the Barnum diary dated 11/29/1963, shown in David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."


The second part where it says "this shot not coming out...." is what confuses me. It sounds kind of like a reference to the first theory on the shallow back wound, that the bullet did not make an exit wound but rather barely penetrated the back and then naturally squeezed out of it's own entry hole. But it appears to be referencing one shot which struck "above and to the rear of the right ear". A reference to the mythical "bullet lodged behind the ear" referenced in that FBI memo? Who knows. But the Barnum Diary is definitely describing a wound in his "lower neck".

We have been over why a "right after the autopsy while the morticians were treating the body" throat wound discovery doesn't work. Dr. Humes has even said that he and his children went to a church function before he finally got around to calling Dr. Perry much later in the morning of 11/23/1963. He estimated to was 10-11 AM to the HSCA and 7-9 AM to the ARRB.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Gosh.
If only we had some way of checking if there was evidence of an exit point for the head wound... like an autopsy, photographs, or filmed footage of mass ejected from a head wound.

Oh wait. We do. No need to be confused then.

 

[MicahJava]

Your one CT source didn't tell you how badly you'd have your ass handed to you, did it?

RoboTimbo, did you read that correctly? Trace amounts of human skin were identified on CE567. Human skin is one of the materials least likely to be found in bullets that have traveled through-an-through a wound. Human skin on CE567 is, however, perfectly compatible with a tangential shot in which a bullet, or a fragment of a bullet, glides along the side-surface of the scalp/skull bone/brain. This leaves more opportunity for contact with those tissues.

 

[Axxman300]

RoboTimbo, did you read that correctly? Trace amounts of human skin were identified on CE567. Human skin is one of the materials least likely to be found in bullets that have traveled through-an-through a wound. Human skin on CE567 is, however, perfectly compatible with a tangential shot in which a bullet, or a fragment of a bullet, glides along the side-surface of the scalp/skull bone/brain. This leaves more opportunity for contact with those tissues.

This is obviously wrong.

The bullet fragmented upon entry and the clearly evident sharp deformity was enough to snag some flesh on the way out.

The better question is DID YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY?

The nifty book you quoted is for general purposes. The fact is you can shoot 100 people in the head from the same distance with the same rifle and get 100 different outcomes.

More to the point, the headshot was dead on, not a tangential shot. There was no grazing .

We get that you're working hard to back engineer irrelevant information, but you are not very good at it.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Over to you, MicahJava. Do you genuinely not understand the posts, or is it as HSienzant says, that this is just a cheap debating tactic allowing you to wriggle out of having to answer any of them?

Ahem.
Bumped in case you didn't notice it, MicahJava.

 

[HSienzant]

RoboTimbo, did you read that correctly?

He did.

Trace amounts of human skin were identified on CE567.

Quote the precise findings, don't paraphrase them.

Human skin is one of the materials least likely to be found in bullets that have traveled through-an-through a wound.

"Unlikely" doesn't mean "never".

Didn't we discuss probabilities in this thread as some point? Every outcome is exceeding rare before the fact. Look at a sporting event like a horse race or a football game. If the winning horse wins by three lengths over the place finisher, and the second place finisher narrowly beats out the third place finisher by a nose, that finish could not have been predicted with any accuracy beforehand. But there's nothing surprising in that finish after the fact.

Or look at the Monday Night Football game between the Steelers and Bengals. The Steelers won 23-20 on a last-second field goal. Before the fact, that was literally one of hundreds of possible outcomes, each of them highly unlikely. After the fact, there's nothing surprising in the fact that the Steelers scored 23 and the Bengals 20. You simply don't understand probability.

Human skin on CE567 is, however, perfectly compatible with a tangential shot in which a bullet, or a fragment of a bullet, glides along the side-surface of the scalp/skull bone/brain.

Says who? You?

This leaves more opportunity for contact with those tissues.

So now the shot never entered the head? This CE567 bullet only grazed JFK?

What caused all that damage to CE567 then? It lost the entire interior of the bullet (the lead core) and the copper jacket was roughly split in half. Both the front and back of the copper jacket were recovered from the limo. Where's the bullet that caused the rear entry wound and exited the top right side of the skull in your scenario?

You're trying to have it both ways again. Arguing for a shot that skimmed JFK's skin, but throwing in that it went in and out of the skull as well.

Can't be both. Pick one.

Hank

 

[bknight]

He did.

Quote the precise findings, don't paraphrase them.

"Unlikely" doesn't mean "never".

Didn't we discuss probabilities in this thread as some point? Every outcome is exceeding rare before the fact. Look at a sporting event like a horse race or a football game. If the winning horse wins by three lengths over the place finisher, and the second place finisher narrowly beats out the third place finisher by a nose, that finish could not have been predicted with any accuracy beforehand. But there's nothing surprising in that finish after the fact.

Or look at the Monday Night Football game between the Steelers and Bengals. The Steelers won 23-20 on a last-second field goal. Before the fact, that was literally one of hundreds of possible outcomes, each of them highly unlikely. After the fact, there's nothing surprising in the fact that the Steelers scored 23 and the Bengals 20. You simply don't understand probability.

Says who? You?

So now the shot never entered the head? This CE567 bullet only grazed JFK?

What caused all that damage to CE567 then? It lost the entire interior of the bullet (the lead core) and the copper jacket was roughly split in half. Both the front and back of the copper jacket were recovered from the limo. Where's the bullet that caused the rear entry wound and exited the top right side of the skull in your scenario?

You're trying to have it both ways again. Arguing for a shot that skimmed JFK's skin, but throwing in that it went in and out of the skull as well.

Can't be both. Pick one.

Hank

"Magic" bullet number two, of course.

MJ must have several doctorial thesis pending peer review, GSW to the body, Time dilation, English, finite analysis, Physics, and of course debating.