Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

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.”

Calm down. Don't get mad at me for reality taking a dump on your head if you're choosing to stand in the basement of the outhouse.

 

[HSienzant]

By "final autopsy", are you referring to the revisions to history written by a dozen or so Johnny-come-latelys? Because their ideas never clicked with the experts who were there with the body, even when they themselves examined the photographs and X-rays. By the way, how many times does a high-profile murder case get a second "autopsy" with radically different conclusions? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!

As you just noted, Humes himself was all over the map where the entrance head wound in the rear of the head was.

And there was a entrance wound there, right? Destroying your prior argument that a shooter from the closest building couldn't hit JFK in the head from 88 yards away. That was the argument you were advancing before you went back to arguing about the precise location of that entrance wound in the rear of the President's head, wasn't it?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Notice: autopsy witness Dannis David has recently passed away.

More information: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23912-tribute-to-dennis-david/

Nobody by that name was at the autopsy of JFK.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, not only are you ignoring Baden's confirmation of this in the 2/20/2000 conference, you are singling in on a red herring ("I don't think this discussion belongs in this record") that I only transcribed to give Prudy's quote a full context. And you use Purdy's filler words "I think" and "I believe" as evidence that he had a faulty memory and dreamed such a memorable incident. Very dishonest. Meanwhile, I'm always surprised at the stories elderly people remember from when they were way younger.

And, of course, you ignore that Gary Cornwell outright admitted in his book that Humes was coerced. Hilarious. Do you really think that nobody else is going to read the very post above that you're responding to?

How about answering the question about the scalp in the BOH photographs?

 

[HSienzant]

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?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, not only are you ignoring Baden's confirmation of this in the 2/20/2000 conference, you are singling in on a red herring ("I don't think this discussion belongs in this record") that I only transcribed to give Prudy's quote a full context.

NO, the actual transcript gives the full context you're ignoring. And I'd love to see you cite Baden's supposed confirmation for Purdy's two-decade later recollection. Last time I asked, you cited a conspiracy theorist who didn't provide a source of the claim.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11511320&postcount=1746

And you use Purdy's filler words "I think" and "I believe" as evidence that he had a faulty memory and dreamed such a memorable incident. Very dishonest. Meanwhile, I'm always surprised at the stories elderly people remember from when they were way younger.

How is it dishonest to point out the qualifiers, and how you know they are "filler words", and not Purdy's attempt to be as precise as possible? Aren't you guilty of assuming what you need to prove? That's the logical fallacy of begging the question. Keep it up. It makes my job of shooting down your arguments easier. And in what way are you surprised by the stories old people tell? Do you really believe your grandfather had to walk 12 miles to school and back each day, and it was uphill -- both ways? Or are you just guilty of assuming their recollections are spotless and infallible? Science shows us that's a faulty assumption on your part.

And, of course, you ignore that Gary Cornwell outright admitted in his book that Humes was coerced. Hilarious. Do you really think that nobody else is going to read the very post above that you're responding to?

I think everyone will note that claims in a book don't have the force of a sworn statement, and can't of necessity be presumed to be 100% accurate... especially when you're not quoting those words, but simply summarizing them. We saw how well you summarized Purdy's two-decade after the fact recollection, and how you failed to compare his recollection to the actual transcript, to reveal the real meaning of the disclaimer, "This shouldn't be in the record". But citing Purdy's recollection, instead of the transcript, you turned the actual words totally upside down and made it into an attempt to silence Humes, instead of an attempt to silence the other members of the forensic panel and let Humes talk. Your claims about what transpired are based on Purdy's recollection, and of course, as you note, this supposed berating of Humes has no evidence to support it (it was supposedly 'off the record'). Of course it was. Either that, or it never happened.

How about answering the question about the scalp in the BOH photographs?

You mean your loaded question, where you imbed your assumption in the question? I don't do loaded questions. You'd know that if you followed the thread when Robert Harris was here.

Hank

 

[bknight]

Notice it's placement in the list of scenarios I consider most likely.

That avoided answering the question, do you proof that the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated.

 

[HSienzant]

And if not, who did? And what's the evidence for another shooter?

Name the witnesses who came forward on 11/22/63 that saw another shooter anywhere else in the Plaza.

Name the officers that found another weapon or discarded shells in the Plaza on 11/22/63.

Name the FBI agents that found ballistic evidence not traceable to Oswald's weapon.

Surely you must have something.

Don't you?

Hank

MicahJava, Still waiting...

 

[Tomtomkent]

HUMES: "...The second wound was found in the right posterior portion of the scalp. This wound was situated approximately 2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occiptal protuberance which is a bony prominence situated in the posterior portion of everyone's skull. This wound was then 2 1/2 centimeters to the right and slightly above that point..."

"...Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to..."

And there is some discussion of the validity of the Rydberg drawings, which show the small head wound in it's low location, slightly above the EOP.

So no, it does not match the placement beneath the EOP then?

But the wound you are dismissing DOES penetrate the occipital region, damaging as it does the occipital bone, and IS above the EOP.

The only argument you actually have is that your subjective interpretation of "slightly ". If you can quibble that, you should be quibbling if it is above or beneath, but obviously you won't apply the same standard to stuff that is convenient to you.

 

[Axxman300]

By "final autopsy", are you referring to the revisions to history written by a dozen or so Johnny-come-latelys? Because their ideas never clicked with the experts who were there with the body, even when they themselves examined the photographs and X-rays. By the way, how many times does a high-profile murder case get a second "autopsy" with radically different conclusions? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence!

There was only one autopsy.

Everything else you just wrote is JFKCT talking-points woo.

You have no evidence to dispute the autopsy. You ignore the Zapruder film that shows only one gunshot wound to the head, and you can see where it enters...right where they say it did.

Humes had the autopsy photographed at every step, in full detail partially so he wouldn't have to "remember" anything, and instead refer back to the photographs. These are the photographs that no CT loon has ever seen, and are the same photographs that the pathologists present have confirmed at least twice to be the originals.

Again, you are not going to find a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza. Oswald shot the President all by his lonesome.

 

[Tomtomkent]

You have no evidence to dispute the autopsy. You ignore the Zapruder film that shows only one gunshot wound to the head, and you can see where it enters...right where they say it did.
.

This is something important.

MichaJava has been repeating the same few quotes on a cycle. I doubt a few posts back he followed my link to the full testimony, or if he read the whole autopsy report for context. He has a snippet or two, out of context, and he acts like that is ALL that was said on the subject.

At best, it is a misunderstanding of the full evidence.

 

[Border Reiver]

I said it would be very difficult to do with the iron sights, i.e. without a scope. That's all.

Based on what level of experience? There are quite a few shooters on this site - many of whom have more then sufficient experience to tell you that it is not a particularly difficult shot - with a scope or with iron sights.

 

[Tomtomkent]

On the model skull, the circle initialed by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell appears to be exactly on the level of the EOP, neither above nor below it. There's a 15 x 6mm wiggle room, first of all.

So not above it, as made clear in the transcript to the WC.
Clearly then, human memory alone is not accurate.

We will have to keep to the measurements in that pesky autopsy you keep trying to dismiss as "a later draft" or whatever.

Clearly objective evidence, despite your opinion, is more reliable.

 

[MicahJava]

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?

Hank

Did I say I thought the body was altered?

 

[MicahJava]

That avoided answering the question, do you proof that the official autopsy films have been criminally manipulated.

I do no proof of photographic manipulation, nor did I ever argue it.

 

[MicahJava]

So no, it does not match the placement beneath the EOP then?

But the wound you are dismissing DOES penetrate the occipital region, damaging as it does the occipital bone, and IS above the EOP.

The only argument you actually have is that your subjective interpretation of "slightly ". If you can quibble that, you should be quibbling if it is above or beneath, but obviously you won't apply the same standard to stuff that is convenient to you.

The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-ray is in the parietal bone. So you must think the doctors and other witnesses described and remembered the location of the small head wound by a specific landmark in the occipital bone while it wasn't even within the occipital bone.

 

[MicahJava]

So not above it, as made clear in the transcript to the WC.
Clearly then, human memory alone is not accurate.

We will have to keep to the measurements in that pesky autopsy you keep trying to dismiss as "a later draft" or whatever.

Clearly objective evidence, despite your opinion, is more reliable.

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. I'm saying the small head wound was slightly above the EOP, and it has been repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly. Dr. Humes only budged from his position when he once claimed that it was slightly lower than that, then he went back to saying it was slightly above. That's more of an expected wiggle room from the memory of someone who spent hours handling the President's body.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The depressed cowlick fracture on the X-ray is in the parietal bone. So you must think the doctors and other witnesses described and remembered the location of the small head wound by a specific landmark in the occipital bone while it wasn't even within the occipital bone.

What they remembered is less important than what was recorded and photographed.

And yes, wounds on one bone can be described in relation to others.

Do you understand why records are photographed, and measurements recorded in the autopsy record?
Do you understand why doctors don't simply rely on their memory?

 

[Tomtomkent]

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others.

No. I am neither of those things.

I'm saying the small head wound was slightly above the EOP

Yes. But you ignore "slightly" is a subjective term and ignore any evidence that disagrees with your interpretation.

and it has been repeatedly confirmed that "slightly" means slightly.

No. It has been claimed by you, and those claims have been rebutted.

Dr. Humes only budged from his position when he once claimed that it was slightly lower than that, then he went back to saying it was slightly above.

And you posted two pictures showing the apparent wound locations BENEATH the EOP.

You seem not to notice that this is a great illustration of why we don't rely on witness memory, and corroborate with objective evidence.

You however are ignoring better evidence in favour of a moving wound.

That's more of an expected wiggle room from the memory of someone who spent hours handling the President's body.

Yes. It is also why you should be considering more accurate evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I do no proof of photographic manipulation, nor did I ever argue it.

Other than scalps being stretched and the like...