Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
No. You are misinterpreting the autopsy. Did you not suggest before there was something suspicious about the autopsy report being a third draft? Do you now accept those findings?

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. That's why you must rely on this "four inches higher" cowlick idea.
 
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.

Where did another gun shot come from? Who took that other shot? With what weapon? Were any shell casings found? What caliber was the weapon? Who sold the weapon and when? Where did the other person go after taking the shot? What happened to the spent bullet?

These are all questions we have answers to for Oswald. What do you have?
 
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. That's why you must rely on this "four inches higher" cowlick idea.

Where did the other person work? Who were they married to? What were their political leanings? Where did the other firearm come from? What was its country of origin? Where did that other person live?

These are all questions we have answers to for Oswald. What do you have?
 
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. That's why you must rely on this "four inches higher" cowlick idea.

Yes. I believe the wound is higher than your proposal, because that is where the autopsy placed it, the WC testimony placed it, and it explains the full extents of the wound, including the damage to the brain.

You are arguing for a wound you admit is impossible because of the damage to the brain. You are LITERALLY championing the fact your own theory does not explain the evidence.

It also helps that I can see the wound right there in the photographs.
 
Actually, my friend, I am the one supporting the autopsy's findings. If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull the say it :D




Are you referring to the Associated Press newspaper clipping that Jack White had saved?

Holy crap. Do you mean the same Jack White who admitted he had no clue what photogrammetry was to the very same court?

Really?
 
And yet you provide no better explanation for how the bullets from Oswalds Gun left their fragments, and why no evidence of other bullets exist.

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.

How did this fragment get in the upper neck area, represented as that little dot on the level of the right side of the chin?

2UIaqxv.png


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."

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Cabluck%20J/Item%2001.pdf

Do you think that's really a bullet fragment? If so, how did it get there?
 
Last edited:
Yes. I believe the wound is higher than your proposal, because that is where the autopsy placed it, the WC testimony placed it, and it explains the full extents of the wound, including the damage to the brain.

You are arguing for a wound you admit is impossible because of the damage to the brain. You are LITERALLY championing the fact your own theory does not explain the evidence.

It also helps that I can see the wound right there in the photographs.

You are either confused or are trying to confuse others. I am the one advocating for the wound location endorsed by the autopsy report, autopsy doctors, and the Warren Commission. You are the one saying it was four inches higher than where those entities placed it. I hope this clears confusion for you in the future.
 
Last edited:
[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]NOTICE: My first question posted on this thread has yet to be answered.[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/qu2yKFS.gif[/qimg]

To all cowlickers: If the red spot on the BOH photographs is supposed to be an entry wound int he scalp, why is the scalp being pulled back? Wouldn't the doctors choose to photograph the scalp entry wound in it's original location to avoid confusion or misinterpretation?

With the scalp being pulled back in the BOH photographs, the red spot has the appearance of being situated somewhere between the location of the EOP and the depressed cowlick fracture.

qu2yKFS.gif
Still no convincing reason to think the red spot on the photographs is an entry wound.
qu2yKFS.gif
 
Last edited:
Actually, my friend, I am the one supporting the autopsy's findings. If you disagree with the autopsy, have the gull the say it :D
I am supporting that there is one and only head wound with an entrance from the rear exit the front and taking a good deal of tissue and bone with it.
Are you referring to the Associated Press newspaper clipping that Jack White had saved?
I didn't/won't look at any link that has Jack White's analysis, if the links do not contain his analysis, then I missed reading them.
 
[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]

No evidence it is not.
No evidence of any bullet fired by any rifle, other than Oswalds.
No evidence of any entry wound to the skull other than the one you deny.
No explanation for why the only damage to the brain is consistent with the wound you deny!
No evidence of additional head wounds in the film footage of the assassination.
 
You consider yourself a "real truth seeker"?

Yes, this is the strategy of trying to seize the moral high ground and drown out the reasonable criticisms of one's opponents. Very common in CT. It also justifies an endless, unproductive process of "seeking": no obligations to the burden of proof, or the evidence, or rational argumentation. Just the "truth."
 
Yes, this is the strategy of trying to seize the moral high ground and drown out the reasonable criticisms of one's opponents. Very common in CT. It also justifies an endless, unproductive process of "seeking": no obligations to the burden of proof, or the evidence, or rational argumentation. Just the "truth."

From Vincent Bugliosi's 53 reasons for Oswald's guilt:

13. Although in his interrogation on Friday afternoon, November 22, Oswald said he was having lunch on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the assassination, during Sunday’s interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination, making him the only employee of the Book Depository Building who placed himself on the sixth floor, or was placed there by anyone else, at the time we know an assassin shot Kennedy from the sixth floor. In his Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the “Negro” employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined, saying, “You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes.” He said before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he “went downstairs,” a policeman questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was one of their employees. The latter confrontation, of course, refers to Officer Marrion Baker, in Roy Truly’s presence, talking to Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom within two minutes after the shooting. Where was Oswald at the time the Negro employee invited him to lunch, and before he descended to the second-floor lunchroom? The sixth floor. Charles Givens testified that around 11:55 a.m., he went up to the sixth floor to get his jacket with cigarettes in it and saw Oswald on the sixth floor. He said to Oswald, “Boy, are you going downstairs…it’s near lunchtime.” He said Oswald answered, “No, sir. When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator.” There is another very powerful reason why we can know that Oswald, at the time of his confrontation with Baker in the second-floor lunchroom, had just come down from the sixth floor, not up from the first floor, as he claimed. It is an accepted part of conspiracy dogma to believe what Oswald told Fritz during his interrogation—that he had been eating lunch in the lunchroom on the first floor at the time of the shooting and had walked up to the second floor to get a Coke from the Coke machine just before Baker called out to him.
Edited by Agatha: 
Trimmed for rule 4


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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From Vincent Bugliosi's 53 reasons for Oswald's guilt:



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?

Nice strawman, but don't you know that everything goes better with Coke?

LHO's is guilty, and you still have yet to explain why your sideshow act pin-the-headwound jive means anything in the larger context of the established evidence
 
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?

Non-sequitur. But, no, Oswald is not guilty or innocent because of one detail, though CT types revel in bellwether fallacies. His guilt is highly probable because of all the other pieces of evidence that piled up against him--all of which Bugliosi cites. Get off Coke.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, nobody said they saw two separate head shots. Gunshots to the head don't always look like the movies.

Again, there are enough Youtube videos of people getting shot in the head to get a base-line for what to expect.

The only movies which matter are the Zapruder and the Nix footage - NEITHER shows a second head-shot.
 
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.

No.

Again, you have no access to all of the autopsy photographs and x-rays (nobody does), so you have no concrete data to base a conclusion upon, certainly one which runs counter to the facts. After-the-fact testimony is borderline speculation, especially if the testimony comes years or decades later. Cherry-picking testimony of pathologists only digs your hole deeper as it shows your lack of understanding.

Finally, the head wound is almost exclusive to the 6.5x52mm, 160 grain, round fired from a rifle whose barrel has a 1:8 gain-twist. Of all the smoking guns in the history of smoking guns the Oswlad's Carcano should have come with a neon sign he could have hung in the 6th floor window.:thumbsup:
 
From Vincent Bugliosi's 53 reasons for Oswald's guilt:


Edited by Agatha: 
Trimmed for rule 4


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?

Sometimes it helps to read the stuff you cut & paste first before posting.

He says that Oswald claimed to have lunch on the first floor, and then bought a soda on the second floor, but all of the other TSBD employees said he was on the 6th floor.

Look, I admire someone who swings for the fences, but not at a football game.:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom