• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, I am not doing that again.

Don't fool yourself, you never did it the first time.
I think you err. MJ seems to wheel out the same non-arguments in a kind of cycle. Note how we are back to the long debunked "impossible shot" argument as an avoidance of the failed autopsy fakery claim. Once the "impossible shot" argument has run it's course, something else will be brought up (2nd, 3rd gunman, grassy knoll, overpass, hoboes, etc before coming full circle right back to "impossible shot.

Every time you guys choose to forget one of a few things:

Comedy ensues.
Indeed. Truth be told, MJ is actually hoping that we will forget things, and is peeved that we do not.

1. It was an elevated shot.

Making it hard how? Have you ever seen a guard tower before? They're kinda on the tall side for a reason.
Interesting, isn't it? Throughout the history of war, there are so many examples of trying to capture this ridge or that hill to gain the higher ground. In MJ world, this is a disadvantage, because...no idea.

2. The limousine was moving somewhat horizontally as well as vertically.

Not enough to make a difference, not at that range, not with that gun.
The relative motion was negligible. It is called leading the target. MJ seems to think that it is only possible to hit a static target because who knows?

3. It was a moving target.

Relative to Oswald, not really. He had a relatively stationary sight picture long enough to make two shots.
Anyone who has stood for a moment on the margin of a highway/motorway understands all that. MJ for some reason, does not.

4. the limousine slowed abruptly.

And that made the shot harder?
Dunno what to make of that wild claim. The slower the target, the more difficult the shot?

5. There weren't an infinite amount of chances.

Oswald was 2 for 3.

Circular logic is circular.
He could have cranked off five shots had he wished, but once he got the head shot he wanted, why would he keep going?
 
Axxman, only autopsy participants and people involved in the investigation knew about the back wound. Barnum should not have known about the back wound on 11/29/1963 unless his story is true or something pretty darn close to it is true. And that was a written personal journal intended for his children to grow up to read. No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account.

Doesn't matter, nobody cares, and this autopsy/mortician thing is a non-issue.

None of it changes the basic facts:

Oswald+Alone+6.5x52mm Carcano+2 shots strike the President, 1 in the upper back, the other in the head.

Anything else is a sad attempt at smoke and mirrors that doesn't fool anyone.
 
He could have cranked off five shots had he wished, but once he got the head shot he wanted, why would he keep going?

The sad/funny thing is that most people in 2017 know what one guy with a rifle can do once he's become unglued. As we've said before, the world is lucky Oswald had a bolt-action Carcano, and not an M-14, or M-1 Garand. He could have killed everyone in the limo with either rifle in eight seconds, re-loaded, and started in on the VP's limo.

If this were to happen today, with an AR-15, Oswald could kill everyone on the sidewalk and hold off the police for a few hours. Granted today the POTUS rides around in an upholstered tank, but the fact is the 6th Floor of the TSBD is a great place from which to kill people with a long rifle.
 
Oh, I get it, you've never fired a weapon of any kind.

Dude, the first time I ever had a turn shooting clay pigeons, I got all 5 in a row. I instantly had a feel for the effects of the recoil, compensating my aim, etc.

This is not true. Having been to the building and stood on the 6th floor I can state this is a lie.

I've been there,
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP> Edited for civility
. I was there last year.

Weird, me too, because the only weapon used was a 6.5x52mm Carcano. Case closed.

Axxman, has there ever been an experiment that shows the elasticity of the human anterior neck skin to cause an exit wound to be smaller than it's correlated entrance wound?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The sad/funny thing is that most people in 2017 know what one guy with a rifle can do once he's become unglued. As we've said before, the world is lucky Oswald had a bolt-action Carcano, and not an M-14, or M-1 Garand. He could have killed everyone in the limo with either rifle in eight seconds, re-loaded, and started in on the VP's limo.

If this were to happen today, with an AR-15, Oswald could kill everyone on the sidewalk and hold off the police for a few hours. Granted today the POTUS rides around in an upholstered tank, but the fact is the 6th Floor of the TSBD is a great place from which to kill people with a long rifle.

Okay, but then you have the evidence for more than three shots fired.

If there weren't multiple shooters, why does the evidence indicate that the autopsy pathologists knew that Kennedy's tracheotomy was originally a bullet wound during the course of the autopsy?

Why does the evidence indicate that autopsy photographs have gone missing, such as ones showing views of the interior torso Y-incision, a bruise on the right lung, close-ups of the outer and inner surfaces of the small head wound in the scalp and underlying skull?

Why did the autopsy doctors always swear that there was no beveled exit in the skull bone until beveling was discovered in skull fragments from the limousine were corresponded to the missing cranium area, and yet the open-cranium photographs in evidence are focally show a beveled exit on some margins of the empty cranium?

Why have panels of government investigators endorsed the theory that the autopsy report, autopsy pathologists, and almost a dozen more witnesses were completely mistaken about the anatomical location of a small wound in the back of Kennedy's head?

Why does Kennedy's torso X-rays show a long cavity between the right neck tissues resembling a bullet track going from the lower anterior throat to well within the upper neck to where it could not be associated with the back wound?

Why was Kennedy's throat wound so small?

Why did Cyril Wecht report noticing a possible bullet fragment in the upper neck area on the official X-rays?

Why have experts such as John Lattimer, the Clark Panel, and a couple of guys on the HSCA forensic pathology panel reported possible bullet fragments apparent on Kennedy's lower neck on the official X-rays?

Why have experts such as John Orr re-affirmed the strong possibility that CE 567, the smashed nose of a Carcano round, contains human muscle tissue embedded right inbetween the tip of the former rounded point nose? If you want to say that it's frontal muscle tissue from the bullet exiting, how did the bullet travel nose-first into the center of the back of the head and still have the tip of the nose stay straight upon exiting even after breaking up?
 
Last edited:
Dude, the first time I ever had a turn shooting clay pigeons, I got all 5 in a row. I instantly had a feel for the effects of the recoil, compensating my aim, etc.
What you've demonstrated here is a complete lack of knowledge of how firearms work. I simply don't believe your braggadocio to be more than CTist hollow posturing.

I've been there,
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP> Edited for civility
. I was there last year.
How difficult would the shots have been for such a trained marksman as yourself?

Axxman, has there ever been an experiment that shows the elasticity of the human anterior neck skin to cause an exit wound to be smaller than it's correlated entrance wound?
Has there ever been a CTist who was able to string together a coherent narrative from all the crap they throw at a wall? Or have they all followed your same pattern?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dude, the first time I ever had a turn shooting clay pigeons, I got all 5 in a row. I instantly had a feel for the effects of the recoil, compensating my aim, etc.

And yet you believe a Marine, who spent many hours dry firing his Carcano, and time at two shooting ranges is somehow incapable of making an easy shot from the 6th Floor.


I've been there,
Edited by zooterkin: 
<SNIP> Edited for civility
. I was there last year.

You look yet you do not see.


Axxman, has there ever been an experiment that shows the elasticity of the human anterior neck skin to cause an exit wound to be smaller than it's correlated entrance wound?

Nobody knows how big the exit wound in the throat was. Parkland elongated it for the tracheotomy. More to the point, we know it's an exit wound from the fiber evidence from JFK's clothes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, but then you have the evidence for more than three shots fired.

No, there is no evidence. Only two shots struck and they both came from Oswald.


If there weren't multiple shooters, why does the evidence indicate that the autopsy pathologists knew that Kennedy's tracheotomy was originally a bullet wound during the course of the autopsy?

Evidence shows that they didn't know it was an exit wound. This has never been in dispute.

Why does the evidence indicate that autopsy photographs have gone missing, such as ones showing views of the interior torso Y-incision, a bruise on the right lung, close-ups of the outer and inner surfaces of the small head wound in the scalp and underlying skull?

No evidence for this whatsoever.

Why did the autopsy doctors always swear that there was no beveled exit in the skull bone until beveling was discovered in skull fragments from the limousine were corresponded to the missing cranium area,

That's what happened.

and yet the open-cranium photographs in evidence are focally show a beveled exit on some margins of the empty cranium?

No, they do not.

Why have panels of government investigators endorsed the theory that the autopsy report, autopsy pathologists, and almost a dozen more witnesses were completely mistaken about the anatomical location of a small wound in the back of Kennedy's head?

Are we trusting government investigators now? You don't seem to understand the hypocrisy of buying into the findings of the HSCA in 1977, but blowing off the Warren Commission from 1966. You have a record on this board of believing government investigations are all rigged, so you cannot turn around and start quoting them. Either the government gets it right or they don't.

Does not matter if the entry wound is low, we know where it came from.

Why does Kennedy's torso X-rays show a long cavity between the right neck tissues resembling a bullet track going from the lower anterior throat to well within the upper neck to where it could not be associated with the back wound?

It doesn't. You've chosen to embrace a crap interpretation of the x-ray, and you don't know what the other x-rays show.

Why was Kennedy's throat wound so small?

It was 6.5mm or so. We know why.

Why did Cyril Wecht report noticing a possible bullet fragment in the upper neck area on the official X-rays?

Bigfoot told him?

Why have experts such as John Lattimer, the Clark Panel, and a couple of guys on the HSCA forensic pathology panel reported possible bullet fragments apparent on Kennedy's lower neck on the official X-rays?

Possible does not mean conclusive.

Why have experts such as John Orr re-affirmed the strong possibility that CE 567, the smashed nose of a Carcano round, contains human muscle tissue embedded right inbetween the tip of the former rounded point nose?

Orr is not an expert. He's an Anti-Trust attorney.


If you want to say that it's frontal muscle tissue from the bullet exiting, how did the bullet travel nose-first into the center of the back of the head and still have the tip of the nose stay straight upon exiting even after breaking up?

First, the DNA testing just said it was human skin. No further detail, so this is another non-issue.

Source: The Actual report of the testing:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf

Second, does this look straight to you?:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

Here's the base:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

You're not very good at this.
 
...

Source: The Actual report of the testing:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf

Second, does this look straight to you?:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

Here's the base:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

You're not very good at this.

From the report you linked they bullet fragments were studied to find out all about any foreign items on them. This is consistent with all of your posts that the events of the assassination where studied to the nth degree contrary to what CT's would have you believe.
 
not an expert. He's an Anti-Trust attorney.




First, the DNA testing just said it was human skin. No further detail, so this is another non-issue.

Source: The Actual report of the testing:

https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf

Second, does this look straight to you?:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305150

Here's the base:

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305151

You're not very good at this.

03: The sections show flattened superficial epithelium with well preserved nuclei. The PAS stain shows glycogen granules and the trichrome shows a thin layer of positive material, possibly underlying muscle. Other stains are noncontributory.

Impression: human skin.


https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf

Dr. Michael Zimmerman is actually the expert who did this study, here he is on a Fox News special report clearly saying that he found muscle tissue:

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20131117_030000_FOX_News_Reporting/start/3240/end/3300

This dude tests mummies for a living. Some bullet fragments from 1963 are like tee ball to him.
 
Last edited:
03: The sections show flattened superficial epithelium with well preserved nuclei. The PAS stain shows glycogen granules and the trichrome shows a thin layer of positive material, possibly underlying muscle. Other stains are noncontributory.

Impression: human skin.


https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf

Dr. Michael Zimmerman is actually the expert who did this study, here he is on a Fox News special report clearly saying that he found muscle tissue:

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20131117_030000_FOX_News_Reporting/start/3240/end/3300

This dude tests mummies for a living. Some bullet fragments from 1963 are like tee ball to him.

Why did you cherry pick what that report actually concluded?

Is it that you failed to read it?
 
Dr. Michael Zimmerman is actually the expert who did this study, here he is on a Fox News special report clearly saying that he found muscle tissue:

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20131117_030000_FOX_News_Reporting/start/3240/end/3300

This dude tests mummies for a living. Some bullet fragments from 1963 are like tee ball to him.


Neat. Remember how you didn't know what an RN was?

Look up "Frontal Belly of Occipitofrontalis". Why? Because that's the muscle the 6.5x52mm Carcano round exited through. So finding muscle tissue on the fragment is about as earth-shattering as finding blood on JFK's shirt and jacket.

Is your Google broken?
 
From the report you linked they bullet fragments were studied to find out all about any foreign items on them. This is consistent with all of your posts that the events of the assassination where studied to the nth degree contrary to what CT's would have you believe.

That's right, John Orr thought the fibers came from JFK's clothes, meaning that Connally with a different missile, thus four shots. The test showed the fibers came from the limo carpet, which is consistent with the actual event.
 
03: The sections show flattened superficial epithelium with well preserved nuclei. The PAS stain shows glycogen granules and the trichrome shows a thin layer of positive material, possibly underlying muscle. Other stains are noncontributory.

Impression: human skin.


https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/other/fragment_tests/NaraFragmentTests.pdf

Dr. Michael Zimmerman is actually the expert who did this study, here he is on a Fox News special report clearly saying that he found muscle tissue:

https://archive.org/details/FOXNEWSW_20131117_030000_FOX_News_Reporting/start/3240/end/3300

This dude tests mummies for a living. Some bullet fragments from 1963 are like tee ball to him.

You mean you're doing a fringe reset yet again?

This was asked and answered previously:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12077791&postcount=2948

Hank
 
Neat. Remember how you didn't know what an RN was?

Look up "Frontal Belly of Occipitofrontalis". Why? Because that's the muscle the 6.5x52mm Carcano round exited through. So finding muscle tissue on the fragment is about as earth-shattering as finding blood on JFK's shirt and jacket.

Is your Google broken?

Apparently you didn't read the main part of my question. 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 the fragments in evidence are indeed from the shooting, 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. Tangential wounds are also known to leave skin tissue on the recovered bullet, which is highly unusual in regular through-and-through wounds.
 
Last edited:
Axxman, only autopsy participants and people involved in the investigation knew about the back wound. Barnum should not have known about the back wound on 11/29/1963 unless his story is true or something pretty darn close to it is true. And that was a written personal journal intended for his children to grow up to read. No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account.

Your arguments about Barnum were addressed back when it was warm... in July of this year.

Another fringe reset?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

Brought up again in November:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12062810&postcount=2558

and rebutted again and again since then:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066946&postcount=2650

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067903&postcount=2688

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12068145&postcount=2698

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12073492&postcount=2797

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074224&postcount=2809

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074318&postcount=2812

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074327&postcount=2813

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074513&postcount=2818

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074550&postcount=2824

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074575&postcount=2826

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074783&postcount=2830

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074799&postcount=2834

And so on and on and on...

It appears you have no argument, you understand you have no argument, but you don't want to concede you have no argument, so you keep bringing up old items that were examined months earlier as if they were never addressed.

They were. Your arguments are still toast, no matter how many times you recycle them.

And it's amusing that while you originally claimed Barnum's account was garbled, you're now taking a different approach and pretending it's not: "No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account."

Here's where you said Barnum's account was "garbled" and contained points of "incoherence":
This is based on a personal journal entry dated 11/29/1963. If the relevant text had stopped at "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat", that would be too much sense. But then Barnum had to throw in "The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out". "This shot not coming out"? That sounds like a garbled reference to the original theory on the back wound, a short shot with the bullet squeezing out of it's own entry wound. Could this be a garbled reference to the mythical EOP-throat connection as attested by Lipsey? Nobody can know. Despite the incoherence, this is some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound earlier than claimed.

You contradict yourself in search of that elusive conspiracy you never will find.

Because it doesn't exist.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Your arguments about Barnum were addressed back when it was warm... in July of this year.

Another fringe reset?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

Brought up again in November:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12062810&postcount=2558

and rebutted again and again since then:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066895&postcount=2647

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12066946&postcount=2650

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12067903&postcount=2688

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12068145&postcount=2698

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12073492&postcount=2797

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074224&postcount=2809

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074318&postcount=2812

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074327&postcount=2813

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074513&postcount=2818

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074550&postcount=2824

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074575&postcount=2826

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074783&postcount=2830

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12074799&postcount=2834

And so on and on and on...

It appears you have no argument, you understand you have no argument, but you don't want to concede you have no argument, so you keep bringing up old items that were examined months earlier as if they were never addressed.

They were. Your arguments are still toast, no matter how many times you recycle them.

And it's amusing that while you originally claimed Barnum's account was garbled, you're now taking a different approach and pretending it's not: "No media reports or attention-seeking towards conspiracy theorists could have garbled Barnum's personal account."

You contradict yourself in search of that elusive conspiracy you never will find.

Because it doesn't exist.

Hank

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

George Barnum's diary was dated November 29, 1963; it references the back wound, and the throat wound as an exit. The existence of the back wound only became public knowledge later in December. I don't know where else there is to go with this besides accepting that Barnum's story is credible.
 
Apparently you didn't read the main part of my question. How do trace amounts of frontal muscle tissue get embedded almost totally in the middle of the smashed nose CE 567?

By striking muscle.



The nose of the bullet didn't tumble at all after already breaking up?

Straw man.


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?

By striking the muscle underlying the skin on the way out.



If the fragments in evidence are indeed from the shooting, 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.

Except there's NO EVIDENCE of a tangential shot whatsoever. Try to stick to the evidence and not conjecture into existence the stuff you need to argue for a conspiracy.



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?

Oh, yeah, try to remember the quote you're arguing from:
03: The sections show flattened superficial epithelium with well preserved nuclei. The PAS stain shows glycogen granules and the trichrome shows a thin layer of positive material, possibly underlying muscle.

So you're arguing for muscle, but muscle isn't even proven. It just says it's "possibly muscle".

Which means it's also possible it's not. You understand that, right?

But it certainly appears you're content to ignore that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Too bad literally none of them can even be considered coherent.

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.



George Barnum's diary was dated November 29, 1963; it references the back wound, and the throat wound as an exit. The existence of the back wound only became public knowledge later in December. I don't know where else there is to go with this besides accepting that Barnum's story is credible.

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
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom