JFK - 3 shooters 6 shots

[gillianren]

That's it?  That's what you have?  You don't have a coherent narrative.  You don't have the evidence to show that anything you cite is actually true, and you don't have the decency to admit when you're wrong.  Even when it's over something so basic as a person's qualifications.  You say that all we engage in is name-calling and nit-picking, but we're nuts?  Seriously.  Can you at least acknowledge that you were wrong that Dr. Hume wasn't qualified as a forensic pathologist?  Can you at least admit that he was more qualified as one, given that he was board-certified, than a bunch of ER doctors who weren't?

Yep that's it in 1 blast.

Dr Humes was a qualified pathologist
He was not a qualified forensic pathologist.

And yes Humes was less qualified than the Doctors at Parkland who dealt with bullet wounds on a routine basis, Parkland Doctors where fully qualified to make their stated conclusions.

But ER doctors simply aren't.  That isn't a statement of opinion; it's a statement of job description.  The job of an ER doctor is not to determine where a wound came from, and they do no better than chance at figuring that out.  Multiple studies unrelated to JFK have shown just that.  Whereas unless you can show me evidence that Dr. Humes's qualifications, which I posted, were incorrect, that means that he was certified at knowing where bullets came from.  I can provide you evidence that he later went on to be a professor of forensic pathology.  So tell me how you can state that it's a fact that he was unqualified.  He had been a certified pathologist for seven years at the point of the Kennedy assassination, despite your claim that he wasn't qualified at all.  How do you justify your claim?  What evidence do you have for it?

[Echnaton]

What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?

The rebuttals would be legitimate critiques, as they have been throughout this entire discussion.  We have endeavored to point out your lack of support for what few theories of what happened that you have tried to put forward and rightly questioned your interpretations of what you present. 

Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?

Your failure to separate speculation from supported theory and fact is what got you into this mess in the first place.  The fact that you don't even have a theory about where the shooters would have to have been to make the case that you initially suggested was true is a primarily example of this failure.   

If you are not capable of recognizing the deceptions within the WC report I have doubts that there is anything that I can present to you to help you see.

Don't blame us four your inability to make your point.   It is you who are not capable of demonstrating the knowledge and experience to make a authoritative critique of the several investigations that all arrived at the same conclusion nor of providing an alternative interpretation of events that calls the conclusions of WC report into question.

[twik]

What ever I would present, the rebuttal would be that the evidence is invalid and Oswald in the TSBD 6th floor window, so what would be the point?
Lets try to agree on the wounds first, then it would be easier to speculate on the shooters and positions.
If we can't agree on the wounds then it is rather silly to present information on additional shooters from additional postions is it not?

Well, why didn't you start a thread on "Discussion of Wounds", instead of a ridiculous three-point team of assassins that you clearly have no intention of defending?

I really doubt that you are going to get people to agree with you on the wounds, so, you're right, you're being rather silly. Particularly as you are not willing to commit to any alternative hypothesis.

That's what happens when you pin your case on "what's wrong with the other fellow's story," rather than taking the risk of assembling evidence to tell your own.

[profmunkin]

It is improbable to traverse thru flesh and maintain it's 'pristine' shape
It is an impossibility to shatter bones and not be seriously flattend, deformed and fractured.

Even for a bullet designed to do just that?

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Pristine_bullet/Pristine_bullet.html

Ce-399 appears to be in a more pristine shape then bullets test fired for ballistic comparison.

No it doesn't. See link above. In fact it's about as distorted as would be expected.

There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.

Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that were surgically removed from Connally and given to Nurse Bell who sealed them in an envelope, then passed them on to a State Trooper, that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?
HSCA had nurse Bell draw a picture of the bullet fragments she had placed in the envelope, because they seemed to have inexplicably disappeared from evidence, the HSCA after viewing her drawing promptly destroyed it. (more destruction of evidence, guess the FBI is not alone in this routine)

State trooper recalled the envelope given to him by Nurse Bell, saying Bell had said it contained a bullet, trooper said, thru the envelope it was maybe 2 by 3 inches. Connaly even said they found the bullet and gave it to nurse Bell to give to a trooper. Please explain this.

The bullet that hit Connaly's wrist deformed and broke apart leaving many fragment behind, a large portion embedded into his leg and was found during surgery, this bullet and other fragments from it that were surgically removed were given to Nurse Bell to give to authorities. They couldn't extract all the fragments from his wrist.  You can view x-rays of his wrist with fragments still present. The bullet and some fragments inexplicably disappeared from evidence. (my guess would be FBI was involved)

[twik]

Gee, the HCSA seems a very poor conspiratory body.

First, they order someone to make a drawing and admit it into evidence, then they "promptly" (how promptly?) destroy it. Because, goodness knows, the person who drew it the first time couldn't repeat that feat, so destroying the drawing makes it impossible to ever see what it showed.

And then they conclude there was a conspiracy, based on audio evidence (although that has since been disproved). I guess this was just wheels within wheels, was it?

And your story is internally inconsistent. You claim at the same time that the envelop contained bullet fragments, and a full bullet. Which was it? Was Bell lying when she said it was a fragment, or when she said it was a bullet? Or is this just the normal confusion that goes on in a catastrophic situation, when people misspeak, and other people misremember what was properly spoken?

[profmunkin]

How do you justify your claim?  What evidence do you have for it?

You continue to argue about non-sense.
Repeat - Humes was not a qualified forensic pathologist(.)
He was a qualified pathologist.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhumes.htm


The doctors at parkland have stated that they dealt with bullet wounds on a routine or on a daily basis.
the doctors that viewed the neck wound at Parkland said it appeared to be an entrance wound. They go into detail why thy considered it to be so.
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.
Man what in the world would it take to wake you up?

[gillianren]

Or is this just the normal confusion that goes on in a catastrophic situation, when people misspeak, and other people misremember what was properly spoken?

Which is, of course, one of the reasons hearsay is generally not allowed as testimony.  (There are actually quite a few exceptions, but "I really trust this person" isn't one of them!)  It's important that the person who originally said or did or saw the thing be able to clarify exactly what they meant.

[gillianren]

How do you justify your claim?  What evidence do you have for it?

You continue to argue about non-sense.
Repeat - Humes was not a qualified forensic pathologist(.)
He was a qualified pathologist.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhumes.htm


The doctors at parkland have stated that they dealt with bullet wounds on a routine or on a daily basis.
the doctors that viewed the neck wound at Parkland said it appeared to be an entrance wound. They go into detail why thy considered it to be so.
It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.
Man what in the world would it take to wake you up?

Do you even know what pathologists do?  Do you know that, to an ER doctor, it literally does not matter where a wound came from, so they receive no special training in determining trajectories?  Why would you trust an ER doctor, who had no training in the subject, over someone whose entire job is based around knowing things like that?

[Jason Thompson]

There is nothing on this page that addresses the issue of deformation of bullets when shattering bones.

That page referes to shooting bullets through blocks of wood and notes their relative lack of deformation, and refers to shooting cadavers with the bullets. Do you want to suggest that not one shot through a cadaver went through a bone?

The simple fact is, prof, you don't actually understand the physics of bullet impacts at all. You are simply applying your layman's expectation that a bullet hitting a bone must get massively distorted. Bone might feel hard to you when you hit it, but to a piece of metal travelling at great speed it almost might as well not be there. I repeat, these bullets are designed to penetrate flesh and bone.

Please provide an example of a bullet fired thru both a rib and a wrist that in any way is comparable to the 'pristine' nature of ce-399

I refer you to the episode of Unsolved History where they duplicate the single bullet trajectory and the limited deformation of the bullet. Once again I point out that the shots have been duplicated. Why do you seem intent on ignoring this?

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Please explain why this bullet is now no longer 'pristine' but losing fragments. It can't be both.

Again, I don't have a burden of proof here. you do.

[Jason Thompson]

It is amazing that all the witnesses that were doctors and nurses at parkland stated what the wounds were on JFK, none of them concure with Dr Humes, not one. Witnesses from Bethesda don't even concure with Humes.

I don't care how many people offer their opinions of the state of the wound when none of them are actually properly qualified to make the distinction. An ER doctor's job is to take the wounded patient and fix the wound if they can, not to determine the exact nature and cause of it. A pathologist's job is to conduct a thorough investigation into the nature of the wound and exactly what caused it. This is not a case where numbers make the difference in determining who is more likely to be correct.

[ka9q]

The simple fact is, prof, you don't actually understand the physics of bullet impacts at all. You are simply applying your layman's expectation that a bullet hitting a bone must get massively distorted. Bone might feel hard to you when you hit it, but to a piece of metal travelling at great speed it almost might as well not be there. I repeat, these bullets are designed to penetrate flesh and bone.

A major reason the CE399 bullet is still mostly in one piece is the large amount of energy it lost in first passing through JFK's neck without hitting any bones. It then yawed in the air between JFK and JBC, hitting JBC almost sideways -- his entrance wound was oval, and rifle bullets simply don't do that over a distance of only 60 or so yards unless they pass through something else first.

So when the bullet broke JBC's rib it was going almost sideways, and that's exactly why it appears flattened as it does.

[profmunkin]

Gee, the HCSA seems a very poor conspiratory body.

You feel a compulsion to believe the WC and HSCA, the programing is working well.

Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really, all I can do is point to the truth, if I present evidence, the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.
If you are satisfied that you know the WC is complete and unimpeachable, you have made up your mind, your mind is sealed off from any alternatives, maybe you believe that all the research done by the 'CT' since 1963 is some evil plot with the purpose to contaminate your thoughts, fear can be difficult to overcome.

As posted previously: If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means. You guys are totally closed off, so much so that there is nothing that can penetrate your shields. Nothing.
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?

[Chew]

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that could not be removed from Connally's wrist that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Nothing but speculation.

Please explain the extra bullet fragments that were surgically removed from Connally and given to Nurse Bell who sealed them in an envelope, then passed them on to a State Trooper, that can not be accounted for when compared with the loss of weight from ce-399 bullet?

Did Nurse Bell weigh the fragments before turning them over? No? No, she didn't.

HSCA had nurse Bell draw a picture of the bullet fragments she had placed in the envelope,

From memory? 13, 14 years after the fact? And you accuse us of stretching credulity.

because they seemed to have inexplicably disappeared from evidence, the HSCA after viewing her drawing promptly destroyed it. (more destruction of evidence, guess the FBI is not alone in this routine)

State trooper recalled the envelope given to him by Nurse Bell, saying Bell had said it contained a bullet, trooper said, thru the envelope it was maybe 2 by 3 inches.

Citation needed.

Connaly even said they found the bullet and gave it to nurse Bell to give to a trooper. Please explain this.

Do you really need to have explained to you that an unconscious man under anesthesia could not possibly have observed that?

Assume this O is a lead bullet fragment and it is half as thick as its diameter. Calculate its mass in grains.

[gillianren]

Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.
Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really, all I can do is point to the truth, if I present evidence, the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.
If you are satisfied that you know the WC is complete and unimpeachable, you have made up your mind, your mind is sealed off from any alternatives, maybe you believe that all the research done by the 'CT' since 1963 is some evil plot with the purpose to contaminate your thoughts, fear can be difficult to overcome.

As posted previously: If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means. You guys are totally closed off, so much so that there is nothing that can penetrate your shields. Nothing.
Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?

You really just do not get how any of this works, do you?  The reason it is your responsibility to present this evidence is that we have looked at the evidence.  Several of us have told you repeatedly about having seen the "magic bullet" shot reproduced, unto the appearance of the bullet.  We have told you where to go to see it yourself.  Now, this is not our responsibility.  It really isn't.  You are the one arguing that it's impossible, therefore you are the one who is supposed to do the research to find experts who said it was.  You've said an expert did, but you didn't even provide his name. 

You once made a claim that the site you used to back it up said was fallacious.

You don't understand what "hearsay" means.

You don't understand how presenting evidence in a court of law works.

You don't understand how ballistics works.

You don't understand the jobs of ER doctors.

And you are the one saying we are looking at things blindly?

[Jason Thompson]

Getting silly posting anything if you are unwilling to do the work to determine the validity of what I am presenting.

It is your job to prove its validity.

Ya I know your response, that's my job, no it's not, not really,

Yes it is, very much so. It is always your burden to prove yourself right.

the only way you will really know, is to investigate the evidence thread yourself and discover if it is validity.

Why do you assume that we have not actually done that and reached different conclusions?

If there is no evidence the conspiracy theorist can present that is valid... ||| stop ||| and think what this really means.

That is your assertion, not ours. We have never said there is nothing that can be presented that is valid. We are simply not convinced by the validity of anything you have presented.

Is there any reason to continue to post other then having a passtime of arguing, uh huh... na huh?

You tell us.

Oh, and continued refusal to acknowledge the duplication of the two shots noted.