• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories VI: Lyndon Johnson's Revenge

Status
Not open for further replies.

BStrong

Penultimate Amazing
B
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
13,087
Location
San Francisco
This is a continuation of Part V, found here. The split was made arbitrarily. Any post from Part V or any previous incarnation may be quoted here. Thank you.
Posted By: Loss Leader





MicahJava said:
Just a reminder that Axxman is the same dude who thought the passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm" meant that the wound itself was 2.5 centimeters (or almost one inch). This is your skeptic, people. He should know this stuff by heart, but apparently not.

I think another poster here once confused centimeters with millimeters regarding the 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision, I forgot if it was BStrong or TomTomKent or someone else.
Click to expand...

Considering that your ISF membership lifetime factual batting average is in negative numbers and you quite honestly don't know which end is up that's pretty funny.

When will you ever address the uncomfortable questions you're being asked? Would there be something dated in 2004 you could provide as evidence of what happened in '63?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MicahJava said:
Just a reminder that Axxman is the same dude who thought the passage "Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a laceration wound measuring 15x16mm" meant that the wound itself was 2.5 centimeters (or almost one inch). This is your skeptic, people. He should know this stuff by heart, but apparently not.
.
Click to expand...

Wrong, you were making yet another failed attempt at debunking the autopsy, saying that the bullet was an inch above the EOP, like you're some kind of Sherlock Holmes, and I was pointing out that this was EXACTLY WHAT THE AUTOPSY SAID.

So there you are arguing FOR THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY, while arguing against it. I just assumed you were a moron who needed help with metric conversion, turns out English is not your first language hence the trouble.

If you understood English better you would have taken the cue from where I quoted you saying there is some question about the entry would to the skull, and my one inch reference was in relationship to the DISTANCE FROM THE EOP AS STATED BY THE AUTOPSY.

Got it?:rolleyes:
 
MicahJava said:
Given that until today you thought the red blob on the Zapruder film was brain tissue, I would suggest staying in the rabbit hole to gather more facts.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what he thought, he's not working the case, he's just an interested bystander who happens to have a life. He knows Oswald did it - alone - and got tripped up by a stupid question. It happens.

The JFK-CT Rabbit Hole full of nothing but self-centered losers. When you read their work you find that they revel in how their work received negative reaction from the official bodies who actually investigated the crime. They find ways to write themselves into the story because, like Oswald, they know that their names will forever be linked to JFK, and to fill their fantasy of being a great savior of the truth, embattled agent against the faceless powers that be, and to fill that real void in their sad empty lives.
 
MicahJava said:
Oh my God, it's already page 99 and it fizzles out with pages of useless nonsense from you guys lol
Click to expand...

And still running away from answering the questions that destroy your fantasies.

Sad really.

MicahJava, you have a chance to not be every other CTist. What will you do with your chance? Face reality and the hard questions or... be every other CTist.
 
MicahJava said:
All you do is quote your own posts and say "you didn't respond to this!" even though I did. That does't make you look good.
Click to expand...

In which post did you give a clear and accurate measurement of the entry wound you wish to debunk?
Was it four inches or five above the EOP?

When I asked, you gave a photo from a book, with no measurement. From all the documents you are apparently familiar with first hand, the autopsy, WC, the HSCA, you were unable to provide a single measurement of four inches or five. You had the trawl a CT book and find a picture of a skull, you can not show us you are capable of understanding.

You constantly call other posters incoherent, or suggest we are trying to confuse others. Has it never occurred to you that we are trying to understand the difference between what the autopsy stated, and your interpretation? If, indeed, you are as familiar with it as you suggest? If you understand what face sheets and diagrams are, and what their use is?

In short, if you lie, or if you are simply very confident in things you are wrong about.
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
Well, let's break this down into assumptions you are making here.
1) That the "stupid theory" states the wound was four to five inches above the EOP.
2) That the autopsy doctors ALWAYS said this was not the case.
3) That you are capable of looking at the X-rays and identifying what is claimed to be the entry wound.
4) That you have located it and found it unconvincing.
5) That you are capable of recognising a more likely entry wound.

I am currently addressing step 1). I want to be thorough. I want to understand WHY you believe the measurement is variable between four and five inches, and to do this I want to know which measurement you are basing that incredibly broad range upon. I want to know where on the EOP you are describing, and to which point on the wound.

So, are you measuring from the top of the EOP, or the closest point of the EOP? Is the wound an inch long, measuring from four inches to five? Or are you pulling these figures from thin air? Is it YOUR estimate based on the photographs?
Click to expand...

So point one is not proven. Let’s try point two:
Did the autopsy doctors ALWAYS stare the WC and it’s conclusions were wrong?
The contention here seems to be that MicahJava has one quote from the autopsy where he argues that “slightly” above the occipital can not mean the given wound location. Seeing as I don’t much care for his opinion of what is or is not “slightly” above the EOP we shall stick to simple objective facts. We have the WC testimony, we have the autopsy report, photographs and X-rays. If the autopsy surgeons “always” claimed the wound was in a different location we should be able to identify that location, and show it consistently across the range of evidence.

So where is it? Show me that location on the photograph of the back of the head, on the X-rays, show me the descriptions in the autopsy report, and in the testimony that state the “correct” location and specifically deny the WC interpretation
 
MicahJava said:
Oh my God, it's already page 99 and it fizzles out with pages of useless nonsense from you guys lol
Click to expand...

Can't you remedy that by laying out your coherent theory of what happened that day? Obviously it has to fit the facts, but you should be able to do that by now.
 
Disbelief said:
Can't you remedy that by laying out your coherent theory of what happened that day? Obviously it has to fit the facts, but you should be able to do that by now.
Click to expand...

Really? MJ is JAQ......lol. How he could make all that into some kind of coherent whole would be amusing. To get all that weirdness in he'd have to bring in time traveling alien lunatics and/or an organization with a highly strange sense of humor coupled with one of the world's most off beat and stupid plans in history.
 
Disbelief said:
Can't you remedy that by laying out your coherent theory of what happened that day? Obviously it has to fit the facts, but you should be able to do that by now.
Click to expand...

Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance. And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile. To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance. The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it. So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
 
MicahJava said:
Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance. And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile. To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance. The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it. So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
Click to expand...

Wasn't Oswald behind JFK? How many entrance and exit wounds did the autopsy find?
 
MicahJava said:
Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance. And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile. To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance. The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it. So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
Click to expand...

Sorry, you seem to have quoted a post, then answered a completely different question.

Could you answer your critics with a fully formed theory or not?
 
Also: MicahJava's last post seems to posit the following, in place of any real theory:

1) The only thing he is certain of, is the small bullet wond next to the EOP (which he has not been able to identify in any existing evindence).
2) That the evidence does not show anything that would be expected by a high powered round of ammunition (which appears to say it does not contain whatever it is HE expects a high powered rifle round to do, as the wounds are fully compatible with a comparatively heavy Carricano round fragmenting in the skull. We must also note he offers no viable alternative).
3) That the expected exit wound was not caused by trauma displaced ejecta, but by another missile, (which we can ONLY assume was NOT a high powered rifle round, unless he has contradicted his claim that the wounds are "nothing we would expect from a high powered round. Which is odd, to say the least, as he already posited this was a silenced high calibre rifle, as stated in the CIA handbook).
4) That it is a mystery what happened to the bullet that struck in the wound he has yet to identify.(Assuming of course he is not going to simply admit he is wrong in his interpretation of the autopsy, and simply underestimated the distance suggested by the word "slightly".)
5) That the anomalies can not be conciliated by correcting his wound placement (despite it already having been shown that the 'anomalous' brain damage is accounted for by simply adjusting his placement, and that he has repeatedly shown that he has no clear idea where the correct placement is describing it as "four or five" inches, and failing to produce an actual measurement. As of yet, he has yet to respond to my posts asking for proof that his claims of the wound placement are what the autopsy surgeons claimed at the time, rather than remembered later).

It seems to me that when somebody believes their own opinion is a reason to for certainty, rather than scepticism, despite all he has FAILED to produce, we have reason to be wary.
 
MicahJava said:
Given that until today you thought the red blob on the Zapruder film was brain tissue,
Click to expand...

If you're talking about the big red blob on Frame 313, it IS brain matter, and blood, and bits of bone exploding out of JFK's head.

MicahJava said:
I would suggest staying in the rabbit hole to gather more facts.
Click to expand...

There are no facts to be gathered in the rabbit hole..only half-truths, outright lies, and false assumptions. The rabbit hole is inhabited only by nutcases, self-serving liars and people like I used to be, who hadn't done the research and believed the crap dished out by people like you and the rest of the "inhabitants".

MicahJava said:
Disbelief, there is one thing that I can be certain of in a case as murky as this: Kennedy had a small bullet wound next to his external occipital protuberance.
Click to expand...

Which is in about the right place to be the entrance would for the kill shot

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/6gkhc38my3k4ima/JFK-Zapruder312.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]

When you take the actual position of JFK's head in Frame 312 of the Zapruder film, i.e. tilted down at an angle of about 40° and turned inward toward Jackie by about the same amount, and then superimpose the trajectory of the kill shot bullet (yellow line) about 16° downwards, it passes through the area right where the autopsy photo shows the entry wound that you have been harping on about.


MicahJava said:
And since the brain photographs and X-rays show nothing we would expect from a high-powered round could have entered there and exiting the frontal-parietal area (severe damage to the cerebellum, bullet fragments in the lower head area), it would appear that the large head wound was created by a completely separate missile. To me, the biggest mystery in the shooting is what happened to the missile that struck next to the external occipital protuberance.
Click to expand...

Its no mystery to me at all. What some people expect regarding the explosion of JFK's head is that an exiting bullet ripped a large defect and the bullet and brain matter exited at the defect. Then people like you question where the exit marks are and why the bullet cannot be found. The answer is that the bullet fragmented (exactly as a full metal jacket bullet is designed to do when it hits bone) so it left no intact bullet, and no single exit hole. Instead, it created what is known as a pressure cavity, which is caused by the bullet losing most of its kinetic energy in under a millisecond, and that energy has to go somewhere. The result looks like a small stick of dynamite had been set off within the head.

MicahJava said:
The authorities from the autopsy were clear and affirmative that the small wound in the scalp and skull was not high above the EOP at all, but right next to it. So one can't get out of this problem by simply raising this wound to fit a preferred trajectory.
Click to expand...

No, they only thought that before it was understood that JFK had his head tilted forward and to the left. At the time the autopsy was done, the Zapruder film had not even been developed yet, let alone seen by any of the pathologists. They assumed that JFK was sitting upright when he was hit. Once you place Frame 312 against the bullet trajectory as I have done above, it becomes clear what happened. - the entry wound is where I would expect it to be, and the explosion of brain matter and blood seen on Frame 313 is also where I would expect it to be..
 
MicahJava said:
An oldie but a goodie: Axxman confuses centimeters for millimeters regarding Kennedy's 6.5 centimeter tracheotomy incision: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11587959&postcount=2173
Click to expand...

Remember when it was pointed out that the CIA handbook contradicted you?
Remember the quote about high powered rifles with silencer being viable WHEN they were invented?

Remember how you mistook an advert for a .22 vermin rifle, as 'proof' a different weapon, with a different use, of a different calibre, existed?

People can make mistakes. How they act when those mistakes are pointed out is more important.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom