Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[RoboTimbo]

<nonsense snip>

It sounds as if you are trying to make a case for your opinion taking precedence over actual evidence and substituting your layman's opinion for those of the actual autopsy doctors.

Does that play well in CT landia? Unless you can answer the questions put to you, you're still losing.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Surely if one respected the opinions of the autopsy surgeons, when discussing damage to the brain impossible from an "EOP" entry wound, the first step would be to wonder if your interpretations of the wound as a whole was accurate, and reconsider if there is a location described by the autopsy that might fit the damage, rather than assuming a second bullet wound that invalidates all their other findings.

What is more likely:
The entry wound is the ONLY aspect of the head wound correctly recorded in the autopsy, and the neck and back wound is also wrongly described.

Or:

The word "slightly" is subjective and may not mean precisely what Micha expects.

Hmmmm.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Hm, whether to rely on the layman's opinion of some random unknown CTist who clearly hasn't read the WCR, doesn't have enough knowledge to answer simple questions, gets all of his opinions from a CT website and with a proven track record of being wrong or to go with the official autopsy findings which every doctor and qualified autopsist has concurred with...

Yeah, it's a tough call.

 

[MicahJava]

I'm sorry, but some guy who thinks the "splotch looks two dimensional" is not going to convince me.

The photograph we have is not great. It looks like a wound to me, and for the life of me, I don't know what some other leyman expects a wound to look like, but let's see what we can assess from the photograph:

The hair has been deliberately parted (so why somebody would insist it was a natural cowlick makes no sense to me) to reveal the mark that is the focal point of the image. The scale and framing make this obvious. We can therefore know the mark was considered significant.
If it were not a wound, and was indeed just a splotch, we would have to ask why the effort was taken to record an insignificant detail.

Those following the thread long enough to remember Robert Prey's...unique sensibilities, will be more than familiar enough with the oft repeated arguments of "the photographer said those weren't their photographs" to know that there were sanitised and unsanitised photographs taken. With more than one photographer taking pictures at different times, one saying "those are not the ones I took" is not the same as saying "they are not of the body", no matter how dearly conspiracy minded folks wish it did.

There comes a point when the ignorance of procedures and process, required to maintain the belief in a conspiracy, begins to look wilful. Suspicions simply don't survive if you understand what the autopsy says, what the testimony says, and why.

Why would you expect the available autopsy photographs to give a clear view of the EOP wound if they also neglect to expose a significant hole in the forehead above the right eye? Photographs are missing from the collection.

The red spot is around 12mm in diameter and circular-teardrop shaped, not the 15x6mm elliptical wound described in the autopsy report.

 

[Axxman300]

Why would you expect the available autopsy photographs to give a clear view of the EOP wound if they also neglect to expose a significant hole in the forehead above the right eye?

Because there wasn't a hole above the eye which explains why there are no pictures of it.

No honest person saw this hole. None of the ER doctors did, and it wasn't found in the autopsy. Why? It doesn't exist.

Photographs are missing from the collection.

Which ones? List them.

When did you last see them?

Are the negatives missing too?

The red spot is around 12mm in diameter and circular-teardrop shaped, not the 15x6mm elliptical wound described in the autopsy report.

You mean the picture where the SCALP IS BEING STRETCHED?

 

[HSienzant]

Why would you expect the available autopsy photographs to give a clear view of the EOP wound if they also neglect to expose a significant hole in the forehead above the right eye? Photographs are missing from the collection.

The red spot is around 12mm in diameter and circular-teardrop shaped, not the 15x6mm elliptical wound described in the autopsy report.

The 12mm measurement comes from where? And is +- how many mm?

What do you mean it is "circular-teardrop shaped"? It can't be both, otherwise the best way to describe it would be "ellipitical".

The autopsy photos neglect to show a significant hole in the forehead above the right eye? Really?

Hank

PS: And unsuccessful at even making a stab at answering the points below, you decide to go for the logical fallacy of a red herring and change the subject to another wound entirely. Interesting way to attempt to keep your ideas afloat.

You were the one complaining about the lack of faithfulness to the autopsy findings. Then you posit a scenario that isn't faithful to the autopsy findings.

You don't remember claiming both those things?

You also ignore the fact that all the forensic pathologists from the HSCA & Clark panels that reviewed the extant autopsy materials likewise concluded that the shot that hit JFK in the back of the head exited the top right of the head.

So your scenario is not only contrary to the autopsists findings, it is CONTRARY TO EVERY FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST'S FINDINGS as well. You can't salvage it by pretending you're the only one being faithful to the autopsy findings. You're not being faithful to the autopsy findings. You disagree with the experts more than you agree with them. Your layman's view has no standing here -- or anywhere else.

And whatever happened to your complaint about the two large bullet fragments found in the car not being ballistically traceable to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons in the world? Did I resolve that to your satisfaction, or are you still claiming, CONTRARY TO ALL THE EXPERTS THERE as well, that the fragments can't be matched to Oswald's rifle?

So you believe in a conspiracy. What I'm confused about is whether your belief in a conspiracy came first and therefore you purposefully ignore the experts that contradict your faith, or whether you decided at the outset you were smarter than the experts, could therefore ignore all their findings, and reach your own conclusions regardless of their findings.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Why would you expect the available autopsy photographs to give a clear view of the EOP wound if they also neglect to expose a significant hole in the forehead above the right eye? Photographs are missing from the collection.

The red spot is around 12mm in diameter and circular-teardrop shaped, not the 15x6mm elliptical wound described in the autopsy report.

What a lot of irrelevant waffle.
I don't expect the autopsy photographs to show your misinformed expectations.
The point you can't answer is the relevance of what they DO show.
That remains the point, regardless of how many photographs you think are missing.
The photographs, by their very purpose, is of details pertinent and significant. Your opinion it is just a splotch, then should be a question of why it is a detail worthy of record.
The reasonable conclusion being it is more than just a splotch.

 

[RoboTimbo]

<snip running away>

Answer the questions asked, MicahJava.

Did you think you would lose this badly when you first read that CT website and fell for it?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So let's just catch up a moment:
Micha does not think the autopsy photographs we have show his EOP wound, or another wound on the forehead (that the autopsy neglects to mention), and has previously suggested the damage to the brain would be impossible from the EOP wound without a second bullet.

Is this not the point that a reasonable mind might consider that the EOP wound is just plain wrong, and perhaps there is a simpler explanation that does not require a second bullet hole from an impossible silenced rifle, invisible on the film of events?

Like, for example, the entry and exit wound that is visible (if it looks like a splotch or not) being more consistent with the brain damage, the ejecta on the film, and all that pesky autopsy data and testimony? Not to mention the conclusions consistently drawn from that data by actual experts?

 

[Dave Rogers]

It sounds as if you are trying to make a case for your opinion taking precedence over actual evidence and substituting your layman's opinion for those of the actual autopsy doctors.

Does that play well in CT landia?

As far as I'm aware, it's their gold standard of evidence.

Dave

 

[BStrong]

What's the point of counting to 2 if you have chosen to never understand it?

Why do you think head wounds always work like Hollywood?

Why are you expecting witnesses to see a wound that was a small hole covered by his hair?

Serious case of projection right there.

Your version of events is straight out of Hollywood.

 

[MicahJava]

So let's just catch up a moment:
Micha does not think the autopsy photographs we have show his EOP wound, or another wound on the forehead (that the autopsy neglects to mention), and has previously suggested the damage to the brain would be impossible from the EOP wound without a second bullet.

Is this not the point that a reasonable mind might consider that the EOP wound is just plain wrong, and perhaps there is a simpler explanation that does not require a second bullet hole from an impossible silenced rifle, invisible on the film of events?

Like, for example, the entry and exit wound that is visible (if it looks like a splotch or not) being more consistent with the brain damage, the ejecta on the film, and all that pesky autopsy data and testimony? Not to mention the conclusions consistently drawn from that data by actual experts?

Wrong. I said that the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, although they do not specifically prove it. The autopsy report and the repeated clarifying statements by the autopsy participants are one of many proofs.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Wrong. I said that the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, although they do not specifically prove it. The autopsy report and the repeated clarifying statements by the autopsy participants are one of many proofs.

Then it is clear you do not understand the evidence, or the word "Proof", as none of those support your claim, and most certainly do not prove your claims.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Let's look at one point in my summary:

So let's just catch up a moment:
Micha does not think the autopsy photographs we have show his EOP wound, or another wound on the forehead (that the autopsy neglects to mention),
and has previously suggested the damage to the brain would be impossible from the EOP wound without a second bullet.

So why doesn't the present official autopsy photo collection show the EOP wound? Well, we know that autopsy photographs have gone missing, and the doctors and photographers have indicated that they remembered close-up photographs of an entry wound in the scalp and surfaces of the skull. The EOP wound could still be compatible with the BOH photographs if it is hiding within his hairline or under a bit of hair. After all, there is witness evidence that a small hole in Kennedy's forehead above his right eye existed, but the existing autopsy photographs do not give a clear view of any hole there (although they definitely suggest some weird activity in that area, with the red 'V' and all). They were probably destroyed by vultures who wanted to keep the forensic evidence as vague as possible.

I have highlighted where Micha Java states the photographs DO NOT SHOW HIS EOP WOUND. The one he himself has failed to identify.

Looking at his response:

Wrong. I said that the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, although they do not specifically prove it.

Let me explain why this holds no water to me.

I previously asked Micha to identify the location on the photos where he thought the entry wound SHOULD be. He drew several circles he thought were likely candidates.

Even with the X-rays, the actual testimony, the later claims and decades old recollections, he was unable to offer a precise location. How can this be? How can the X-ray show clear evidence supporting a bullet wound, if one can not identify the location from said X-ray?
If the X-Ray shows evidence of a mystery bullet hole (and if we take his interpretation of the discussion of the cutting of the skull and such to be accurate this evidence should be a clear and present bullet shaped hole!) from which he can determine that his theory is supported, he should have had no trouble pointing to the location he expects the wound on the photograph.

Otherwise, the conclusion to be reached is that the materials are not compatible with his theory, because he has not offered any actual analysis from which the location of the wound could be indicated.

This, of course, has already been discussed at length, and I have seen nothing in the conversation since to convince me that his interpretation is in any way valid.

 

[HSienzant]

Let's look at one point in my summary:





I have highlighted where Micha Java states the photographs DO NOT SHOW HIS EOP WOUND. The one he himself has failed to identify.

Looking at his response:


Let me explain why this holds no water to me.

I previously asked Micha to identify the location on the photos where he thought the entry wound SHOULD be. He drew several circles he thought were likely candidates.

Even with the X-rays, the actual testimony, the later claims and decades old recollections, he was unable to offer a precise location. How can this be? How can the X-ray show clear evidence supporting a bullet wound, if one can not identify the location from said X-ray?
If the X-Ray shows evidence of a mystery bullet hole (and if we take his interpretation of the discussion of the cutting of the skull and such to be accurate this evidence should be a clear and present bullet shaped hole!) from which he can determine that his theory is supported, he should have had no trouble pointing to the location he expects the wound on the photograph.

Otherwise, the conclusion to be reached is that the materials are not compatible with his theory, because he has not offered any actual analysis from which the location of the wound could be indicated.

This, of course, has already been discussed at length, and I have seen nothing in the conversation since to convince me that his interpretation is in any way valid.

 

[Axxman300]

Wrong. I said that the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, although they do not specifically prove it.

And you're wrong. If they don't specifically prove it then you have no case.

The combined physical and ballistic evidence shows two bullets fires from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Period.

The autopsy report and the repeated clarifying statements by the autopsy participants are one of many proofs.

The autopsy is the last word on the subject.

The "repeated clarifying statements" come from interviews and depositions in the years after the autopsy, often asked my laymen, or garden variety morons. From these come the cherry-picking CT industry that pulls out quotes that seem to contradict the autopsy, and they pretend they've found a smoking gun that soon gets shot to pieces by experts.

The autopsy explained everything, and is the final legal document on the subject. The fact is that it is possible to over-explain something, which we often see when honest people are confronted by CTist (who are never honest).

You have yet to explain WHERE the second gunman fired from, WHAT caliber of bullet was used, WHY nobody saw it strike the president now why he never reacted to being SHOT IN THE HEAD, or HOW every human being in the autopsy room missed it.

 

[bknight]

Wrong. I said that the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, although they do not specifically prove it. The autopsy report and the repeated clarifying statements by the autopsy participants are one of many proofs.

The only aspect you've shown is that individuals' memory tends to fade/change with years/decades after the fact. But then you are too young to experience that fact.

 

[HSienzant]

The only aspect you've shown is that individuals' memory tends to fade/change with years/decades after the fact.

It is in fact established science that memory is not a recording of the event whatsoever, but is a recreation influenced by what one has heard and seen and read in the time between witnessing the event and recalling the event. The further away from the event one gets, the less likely one is recalling what actually happened.

This is established science, shown in studies repeatedly.

How a conspiracy critic at this late date can claim to be ignorant of that fact, or doubt the science behind it and cite recollections to the Assassination Records Review Board more than a third of a century after the event and offer them as meaningful is beyond comprehension.

In fact, a critic must pretend to be entirely ignorant of that fact to cite those recollections, especially after the truth of the matter has been pointed out to them repeatedly.

Of course, since so little of the evidence accumulated in the first year points to a conspiracy, it's perfectly understandable that they would rely on these later recollections. They honestly don't have much else.

Hank

 

[bknight]

MJ follows the typical behavior of a die-hard CT ignores facts that refute the CT thinking. Misdirects/changes goal posts when caught with beliefs that are debunked. I often wonder how they reconcile all they have on a personal basis.

 

[Tomtomkent]

MJ follows the typical behavior of a die-hard CT ignores facts that refute the CT thinking. Misdirects/changes goal posts when caught with beliefs that are debunked. I often wonder how they reconcile all they have on a personal basis.

I wonder how they reconcile their own facts.
They are happy to say the WC is wrong as so many people disagree with it.
But if the witnesses disagree with each other?