Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots. The mystery, according to him, may have been solved if the brain had been properly sectioned.
Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue statement. To quote President Truman, "That's a load of Horse Manure".

This has been explained to you more that once. You apparently don't understand what Burkley meant when he used the word "eliminated" as quoted below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835439&postcount=3418

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755259&postcount=2393

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905

Repetition of a disproven claim doesn't make the claim more credible. Nor does it make the poster more credible. You are following the CT playbook precisely. "Accept no corrections. Continue to post disproven arguments until your opponents give up and stop rebutting your arguments."

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Argument from what's your suggestion to the contrary?
Click to expand...

Burden-shifting. Do you recognize that, MJ? If not, you have a problem. If you do, and are ignoring it, you have a problem. You have a problem.
 
HSienzant said:
According to whom? You?

Hank
Click to expand...

The cowlick fracture on the X-rays is right beside the large defect, which has fractures emanating from it. We know from the Dr.'s statements how shattered and brittle the areas around the large defect was.
 
MicahJava said:
Volume III pge. 441 starts the testimony of Ronald Simmons, whose -e is: Chief of the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the Ballistics Research Laboratory of the Department of the Army, in a nutshell he used three NRA MASTERS Staley, Miller and Hendrix (capable of Olympic competition) in an attempt to duplicate the accuracy and timing attributed to Oswald. Their reenactments were under better conditions than Oswald contended with.

1. All the time they wanted to aim first shot.

2. No oak tree obscuring their vision.

3. Thirty feet up instead of the sixth floor

4. Targets two feet square.

5. Stationary targets as opposed to a moving target.

6. Had advantage of shimmed scope for accuracy.

7. Targets. No pressure of killing a President of the U.S.

NEEDLESS TO SAY, THREE NRA "MASTERS" COULD NOT DUPLICATE SHOOTING SKILLS OF ONE LONE NUT NAMED LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
Click to expand...

This is all covered in detail in the prior threads with the poster named Robert Prey. Please review and let me know if any questions.

Further, please advise what you define as duplicating Oswald's shooting.

Would three shots, with two misses and one hit to the head of the target suffice to "duplicate" Oswald's feat? Oswald, after all, wasn't trying to perform the shooting any particular way. He was trying to kill the President. The fact that it took him three shots is happenstance.

Hank
 
OKBob said:
Burden-shifting. Do you recognize that, MJ? If not, you have a problem. If you do, and are ignoring it, you have a problem. You have a problem.
Click to expand...

This is internationalskeptics.com, dude. The former James Randi forum. I've presented my arguments, and a lot if not most people would consider them proof. Do I gotta chop up my $40 Chinese skull to demonstrate this basic concept? Aren't you supposed to be the guys who get some enjoyment out of arguing against stuff like this?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Yeah Speer's website was one of the first CT sources I came across discussing the medical evidence that argued from a perspective with no forged or altered films, substituted brains etc.

If anything, I don't think Speer drives this point into the ground enough.

I've linked to it several times, because it provides useful information, any opinions are usually cited to other existing experts and not the author himself. You would know that if you read once in a while.
Click to expand...

Really?

Tell me the sources for Speer's belief that shots came from the Dal-Tex Building.

From the source you cited: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

"It's just that it seems obvious to me that an honest depiction of Connally’s size, when coupled with an honest projection from the wound in his armpit back through Kennedy’s wounds, would point back to the Dal-Tex Building, and not the sniper’s nest. ... When one corrects the position of the limo within its center lane, and begins the trajectory from Connally's right armpit and not the center of the limo, the trajectory points back to the Dal-Tex Building."

It sure looks like his own opinion and nothing else to me. What's it look like to you?

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Absolutely untrue statement. To quote President Truman, "That's a load of Horse Manure".

This has been explained to you more that once. You apparently don't understand what Burkley meant when he used the word "eliminated" as quoted below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835439&postcount=3418

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755259&postcount=2393

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905

Repetition of a disproven claim doesn't make the claim more credible. Nor does it make the poster more credible. You are following the CT playbook precisely. "Accept no corrections. Continue to post disproven arguments until your opponents give up and stop rebutting your arguments."

Hank
Click to expand...

Why don't I just repost the compilation of Dr. Burkley's relevant (available) statements so new viewers can get a fresh perspective?

1967 oral history interview:

McHUGH: "I see. Do your conclusions differ at all with the Warren report of the circumstances or cause of death?"

BURKLEY: "My conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvariurm."

McHUGH: "I see. The brain and the what?"

BURKLEY: "And the skull, calvarium."

MCHUGH: "I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?"

BURKLEY: "I would not care to be quoted on that."

https://web.archive.org/web/20160317173917/http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/burkley.htm

Official memo from HSCA staffer Richard Sprauge:

From: Richard Sprague To: File March 18, 1977

William F. Illig, an attorney from Erie, Pa., contacted me in Philadelphia this date, advising me that he represents Dr. George G. Burkley, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy retired, who had been the personal physician for presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

Mr. Illig stated that he had a luncheon meeting with his client, Dr. Burkley, this date to take up some tax matters. Dr. Burkley advised him that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.

Illig advised me that his client is a very quiet, unassuming person, not wanting any publicity whatsoever, but he, Illig, was calling me with his client’s consent and that his client would talk to me in Washington.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/numbered_files/box_23/180-10086-10295/html/180-10086-10295_0002a.htm

1977 HSCA interview report:

"DR. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and if it had been done, it might be able to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes of the possibility of there having been two."


https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=600#relPageId=5&tab=page

Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:

"Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated."

"...7. I directed the autopsy surgeons to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets...."

http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Autopsy/BURKLEY.TXT

Author Henry Hurt wrote in his book Reasonable Doubt of a short interview with Burkley:

"It is significant that Dr. Burkley had been with the President in Dallas, with him in the Parkland Hospital emergency room, with his body as it was flown east, and present during the autopsy. It is also significant that even though he was the only doctor present both at Parkland and at Bethesda, Dr. Burkley's testimony was never taken by the Warren Commission, nor was it taken later by the House Select Committee.

In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy.

This startling statement, after so long a silence, amplified an obscure exchange Dr. Burkley had in an oral-history interview on file at the Kennedy Library in Boston."

And also wrote in an endnote:

"When he originally telephoned the author, Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case."

http://krusch.com/books/kennedy/Reasonable_Doubt.pdf
 
MicahJava said:
Who cares about some guy's hunk of junk? I've already pointed out that this friggin thing was available in 1963, and is semi-automatic.
Click to expand...

And to be pertinent to this discussion, you just need to tie that "friggin' thing" to the Kennedy assassination. We'll await your evidence of a second sniper, and the names of the witnesses that saw this person, and the physical evidence establishing his existence.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Well, Mr. "I can see the entry wound in the Zapruder Film", the Winchester 74 was advertised as potentially lethal at 100 yards. And see this video of how rapidly it can be fired. And there was only one undeniably lethal wound in Dealey Plaza.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's not evidence that "friggin' thing" was used during the Kennedy assassination. You need to provide evidence of its use, otherwise its capabilities are a moot point. As much so as mentioning heat-seeking missiles, for instance. At least I can cite for the suspected use of missiles in the assassination.

For instance:
"Lipsey added that if you viewed JFK from the left side you couldn't notice any damage; from the right side, however, part of his head was blown away. Lipsey said he concluded a bullet exited from the front of the neck because he saw where the doctors were working and listened to their conclusions. Lipsey also mentioned that the doctors disected all of the organs in the chest region while looking for a missle."

From where else, the ARRB interviews you love to cite: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/pdf/DH_ReqListInfo.pdf

Hank
 
Axxman300 said:
I posted a link late in the other thread wherein Dr Humes discussed how the brain was removed along with just about everything else related to the autopsy. This interview was conducted by a CT-based group, and was hostile to him, and he responded to every answer to the best of his recollection.

MJ didn't bother to read either the pages where the brain being removed was discussed (spoiler: they used the bone saw like they always do), and he didn't read the entire line of questioning.

This is typical with him.

"I want answers!"

Someone posts an answer with a link.

"I want other answers, ones that I agree with."
Click to expand...

Could you repost that link?
 
MicahJava said:
This is internationalskeptics.com, dude. The former James Randi forum. I've presented my arguments, and a lot if not most people would consider them proof.

Do I gotta chop up my $40 Chinese skull to demonstrate this basic concept?

Aren't you supposed to be the guys who get some enjoyment out of arguing against stuff like this?
Click to expand...

Not on this site.

Since we're talking about GSW's, I'd suggest shooting the skull first, but I'm skeptical that it's in the best interest of the general public for you to have access to firearms. Best to seek adult supervision before any attempt to handle dangerous weapons of any type.

Can't speak for anyone else, but I'm greatly amused and entertained by people who have no idea of what they're going on about but insist on putting it in writing.
 
MicahJava said:
This is internationalskeptics.com, dude. The former James Randi forum. I've presented my arguments, and a lot if not most people would consider them proof. Do I gotta chop up my $40 Chinese skull to demonstrate this basic concept? Aren't you supposed to be the guys who get some enjoyment out of arguing against stuff like this?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a skeptics forum. But you're the wrong kind of skeptic. Do you see why? And please tell us who these people are who would consider your arguments "proof." I've seen precious little assent to your "and-now-for-my-next-trick" routine on this forum.

And please don't do any harm to your skull, whatever you think it may be worth.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The cowlick fracture on the X-rays is right beside the large defect, which has fractures emanating from it. We know from the Dr.'s statements how shattered and brittle the areas around the large defect was.
Click to expand...

That doesn't resolve the issue. You're assuming the answer you need to establish. You need to establish that the specific damaged portion of skull containing the entry wound on the back of the head detached from the scalp. My understanding is that this didn't happen all the time (look at the piece to the right front of the right ear, for an example -- we have evidence that this piece of skull was right beside the large defect, and yet it is still attached to the scalp. Why couldn't other pieces of skull remain attached to the scalp, specifically the piece you are referencing that contained the entry wound?

Don't just assume the answer you need to prove. Prove it.

We'll wait.

Hank
 
HSienzant said:
Absolutely untrue statement. To quote President Truman, "That's a load of Horse Manure".

This has been explained to you more that once. You apparently don't understand what Burkley meant when he used the word "eliminated" as quoted below.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835439&postcount=3418

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755259&postcount=2393

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905

Repetition of a disproven claim doesn't make the claim more credible. Nor does it make the poster more credible. You are following the CT playbook precisely. "Accept no corrections. Continue to post disproven arguments until your opponents give up and stop rebutting your arguments."

Hank
Click to expand...

Had I searched all the previous thread, I would have found these when MJ asked. My reply was, why did he verify the autopsy.
 
BStrong said:
...greatly amused and entertained by people who have no idea of what they're going on about but insist on putting it in writing.
Click to expand...

Um, well you won't even give me straight answers for what you believe happened with the autopsy, so... :confused:
 
HSienzant said:
That doesn't resolve the issue. You're assuming the answer you need to establish. You need to establish that the specific damaged portion of skull containing the entry wound on the back of the head detached from the scalp. My understanding is that this didn't happen all the time (look at the piece to the right front of the right ear, for an example -- we have evidence that this piece of skull was right beside the large defect, and yet it is still attached to the scalp. Why couldn't other pieces of skull remain attached to the scalp, specifically the piece you are referencing that contained the entry wound?

Don't just assume the answer you need to prove. Prove it.

We'll wait.

Hank
Click to expand...

What in tarnation? That's not what Dr. Finck said happened when he arrived. He said he could examine the hole still sitting there in the intact skull even after the brain had been removed. Not just the scalp, but the underlying skull. And you're supposed to peel back the scalp before working on the skull.
 
MicahJava said:
And for the life of me, I cannot think of a way you could enlarge the skull cavity enough without also separating the area with the depressed cowlick fracture.
HSienzant said:
There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

OKBob said:
I doubt MJ will accept your challenge, Hank, so I'll just note that there are several problems with MJ's statement relating to logic and argumentation.

First, there is the argument from personal incredulity. "I can't believe they did it (or didn't do it) this way. Therefore, they didn't (or did)."
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's the logical fallacy I was asking Micah Java to identify.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

He does this a lot, along with shifting the burden of proof and offering himself as his own best expert witness.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect. The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.
Click to expand...

So not evidence of what happened then.

Noted.
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect. The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.
Click to expand...

The official term that applies is hearsay.
 
MicahJava said:
Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect.
Click to expand...

Straw man. Nobody is arguing it was.


MicahJava said:
The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.
Click to expand...

And you quoted how that enlargement happened. Remember?

MicahJava said:
[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
Tomtomkent said:
So not evidence of what happened then.

Noted.
Click to expand...

The part where it says "no sawing of the skull was necessary" is probably wrong. Some statements by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell indicate that they may have had to cut some bone to get to the brain. Either way, the cranium was empty when Dr. Finck arrived and he could still see the wound just fine in the intact skull.

From Dr. Finck's 1969 testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw:

"...There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry."
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots.
HSienzant said:
Absolutely untrue statement. To quote President Truman, "That's a load of Horse Manure". This has been explained to you more that once. You apparently don't understand what Burkley meant when he used the word "eliminated"...
MicahJava said:
Why don't I just repost the compilation of Dr. Burkley's relevant (available) statements so new viewers can get a fresh perspective?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

And I'll point out [in bold] why your arguments here are invalid.



MicahJava said:
1967 oral history interview:

McHUGH: "I see. Do your conclusions differ at all with the Warren report of the circumstances or cause of death?"

BURKLEY: "My conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvariurm."

McHUGH: "I see. The brain and the what?"

BURKLEY: "And the skull, calvarium."

MCHUGH: "I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President's body?"

BURKLEY: "I would not care to be quoted on that."
Click to expand...

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



MicahJava said:
Official memo from HSCA staffer Richard Sprauge [sic - Sprague]: From: Richard Sprague To: File March 18, 1977

William F. Illig, an attorney from Erie, Pa., contacted me in Philadelphia this date, advising me that he represents Dr. George G. Burkley, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy retired, who had been the personal physician for presidents Kennedy and Johnson.

Mr. Illig stated that he had a luncheon meeting with his client, Dr. Burkley, this date to take up some tax matters. Dr. Burkley advised him that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.

Illig advised me that his client is a very quiet, unassuming person, not wanting any publicity whatsoever, but he, Illig, was calling me with his client’s consent and that his client would talk to me in Washington.
Click to expand...

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



MicahJava said:
1977 HSCA interview report: "DR. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and if it had been done, it might be able to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes of the possibility of there having been two."
Click to expand...

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. In fact, he said he thinks there was only one. Right?



MicahJava said:
Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA: "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated."
Click to expand...

So in Burkley's own pen, he says he would have eliminated the two-shots to the head scenario. Right?



MicahJava said:
"...7. I directed the autopsy surgeons to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets...."
Click to expand...

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



MicahJava said:
Author Henry Hurt wrote in his book Reasonable Doubt of a short interview with Burkley:

"It is significant that Dr. Burkley had been with the President in Dallas, with him in the Parkland Hospital emergency room, with his body as it was flown east, and present during the autopsy. It is also significant that even though he was the only doctor present both at Parkland and at Bethesda, Dr. Burkley's testimony was never taken by the Warren Commission, nor was it taken later by the House Select Committee.

In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy's assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
Click to expand...


So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



MicahJava said:
And [Hurt] also wrote in an endnote: "When he originally telephoned the author, Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case."
Click to expand...

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?

Most of the above is simply hearsay or merely your conspiratorial assumptions. If someone says "No Comment" (which is essentially what you've cited Burkley saying on multiple occasions) that doesn't mean he's hiding evidence of conspiracy -- that's merely your assumption. The only direct quote from Burkley is the one saying two shots to the head would be ELIMINATED if Burkley testified.

And, of course, this is just more of you doing a conspiracy reset. We've already discussed the additional quotes you offered above previously and shown that they were worthless to establish your argument.


Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
The part where it says "no sawing of the skull was necessary" is probably wrong.
Click to expand...

HILARIOUS. Finck's testimony is what you've constantly referenced. Now you're picking and choosing the parts you like. And discarding the parts you don't.



MicahJava said:
From Dr. Finck's 1969 testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw:

"...There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry."
Click to expand...

More evidence the cuts to the scalp were more than sufficient to excise the brain. Exactly as you quoted Finck saying:

MicahJava said:
[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.
Click to expand...

Tell us what you think 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' means.

Hank
 
Last edited:
I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand. I copied enough for anybody to see for themselves. But I take issue with "...The only direct quote from Burkley is the one saying two shots to the head would be ELIMINATED if Burkley testified."

I don't think that means what you think it means. The full relevant quote is "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated", with a later portion saying "...7. I directed the autopsy surgeons to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets....". Bullet OR bullets, plural. This is just another way of him saying "If the brain had been properly sectioned, that would determine if Kennedy's head had been struck by one bullet or two bullets". He is not saying he would have somehow proved a single shot to the head if he testified to the Warren Commission.
 
MicahJava said:
What in tarnation? That's not what Dr. Finck said happened when he arrived. He said he could examine the hole still sitting there in the intact skull even after the brain had been removed. Not just the scalp, but the underlying skull. And you're supposed to peel back the scalp before working on the skull.
Click to expand...

Finck said he was informed all that was necessary to remove the brain was to extend the lacerations in the scalp, because the skull was extensively fragmented.

You quoted Finck saying he was told that.

And again, there is evidence that the skull adheres to the scalp because of the flap of skull photographed in front of the right ear. If the scalp wounds were extended as necessary, why couldn't the brain be removed without sawing away the entry wound?

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
What in tarnation? That's not what Dr. Finck said happened when he arrived. He said he could examine the hole still sitting there in the intact skull even after the brain had been removed. Not just the scalp, but the underlying skull. And you're supposed to peel back the scalp before working on the skull.
Click to expand...

Finck said he was informed all that was necessary to remove the brain was to extend the lacerations in the scalp, because the skull was extensively fragmented.

You quoted Finck saying he was told that.
MicahJava said:
[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.
Click to expand...

All along you've insisting otherwise:
MicahJava said:
The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain.
Click to expand...


And again, there is evidence that the skull adheres to the scalp because of the flap of skull photographed in front of the right ear. If the scalp wounds were extended as necessary, why couldn't the brain be removed without sawing away or removing the evidence of the entry wound?

I pointed this out to you in the prior thread - that only the scalp needed to be cut to remove the brain:

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11807717&postcount=3124

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
More evidence the cuts to the scalp were more than sufficient to excise the brain. Exactly as you quoted Finck saying:
Click to expand...



Tell us what you think 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' means.

Hank
Click to expand...

To reflect the scalp to expose the underlying bone, allowing a portion of the skull to be separated in order to remove the brain. A modified version of the standard procedure of removing the brain. Why, what do you think happened?

This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."

"THE WOUNDS

The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

The opening of the large head wound, in the right fronto-parieto-occipital region, is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE."
 
MicahJava said:
I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand. I copied enough for anybody to see for themselves. But I take issue with "...The only direct quote from Burkley is the one saying two shots to the head would be ELIMINATED if Burkley testified."

I don't think that means what you think it means. The full relevant quote is "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated", with a later portion saying "...7. I directed the autopsy surgeons to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets....". Bullet OR bullets, plural. This is just another way of him saying "If the brain had been properly sectioned, that would determine if Kennedy's head had been struck by one bullet or two bullets". He is not saying he would have somehow proved a single shot to the head if he testified to the Warren Commission.
Click to expand...

So still no evidence of two shots to the head in Burkley's statement, contrary to your original claim. All you have is your tortured interpretation of what Burkley must have meant - contrary to the clear meaning of his own words.

Do you remember claiming this:
MicahJava said:
Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
This is just another way of [Burkley's] saying "If the brain had been properly sectioned, that would determine if Kennedy's head had been struck by one bullet or two bullets". He is not saying he would have somehow proved a single shot to the head if he testified to the Warren Commission.
Click to expand...

You're being illogical here, MJ. In your posting #391, you quote Pierre Finck's unambiguous statement that a single wound to the occipital portion of JFK's skull showed interior-table cratering or beveling, which led him to conclude that there was an entrance wound there. He mentioned no other entrance wound in the skull. So why do you suggest (via a loose reading of Burkley's remarks) that sectioning the brain might have revealed a second bullet wound to the head? How could that possibility exist, given the expert-sworn conclusion about a single entrance wound in the skull?

MJ, consider carefully this particular point because it shows precisely the CT strategy that you need to eliminate unless you wish to remain in woo land: the strategy of imagining some additional procedure that would have laid all questions to rest ("If I ran the zoo") and that would either have confirmed or overturned the vast consilience of evidence and the experts' sworn conclusions.

And since you already doubt the veracity of the autopsy report and the sworn testimony of the autopsists, what would change your opinion if they had also sectioned the brain and come to the same conclusion?

And bear in mind that Admiral Burkley was no expert in this area. He was a personal physician, not a forensic pathologist or anthropologist.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Tell us what you think 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' means.
MicahJava said:
To reflect the scalp to expose the underlying bone, allowing a portion of the skull to be separated in order to remove the brain. A modified version of the standard procedure of removing the brain. Why, what do you think happened?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Finck already told you. The lacerations in the scalp merely had to be extended to remove the brain, according to Humes. You quoted Finck saying that.
MicahJava said:
[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.
Click to expand...


And you didn't respond to my point about what Finck's words 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' mean.



MicahJava said:
This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity...."
Click to expand...

Tell us what you think the bolded words means.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand.
Click to expand...

Sorry, your arguments about what might have happened don't hold water. In fact, they leak like a sieve. You quoted nothing of substance to confirm your claim that Burkley stated many times he believed in or suspected two shots to the head.

It's all wishful thinking on your part.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration ....
Click to expand...

MicahJava said:
This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."
Click to expand...

So according to Boswell and Finck, the "red spot" you reference was a laceration, and according to Finck, that laceration corresponded to the entry wound on the skull underneath.

Doesn't that make the red spot the entry wound on the scalp - the one visible on the back of the head autopsy photos?

Hank
 
Last edited:
OKBob said:
You're being illogical here, MJ. In your posting #391, you quote Pierre Finck's unambiguous statement that a single wound to the occipital portion of JFK's skull showed interior-table cratering or beveling, which led him to conclude that there was an entrance wound there. He mentioned no other entrance wound in the skull. So why do you suggest (via a loose reading of Burkley's remarks) that sectioning the brain might have revealed a second bullet wound to the head? How could that possibility exist, given the expert-sworn conclusion about a single entrance wound in the skull?

MJ, consider carefully this particular point because it shows precisely the CT strategy that you need to eliminate unless you wish to remain in woo land: the strategy of imagining some additional procedure that would have laid all questions to rest ("If I ran the zoo") and that would either have confirmed or overturned the vast consilience of evidence and the experts' sworn conclusions.

And since you already doubt the veracity of the autopsy report and the sworn testimony of the autopsists, what would change your opinion if they had also sectioned the brain and come to the same conclusion?

And bear in mind that Admiral Burkley was no expert in this area. He was a personal physician, not a forensic pathologist or anthropologist.
Click to expand...

Tangential wounds do not have easily recognizable entrances or exits. The large head wound could be tangential. But focusing on the large head wound right now would be a distraction, because it is clear that everybody understands the problems with the original low EOP location for the small head wound. And also, once one has judged all available evidence from the autopsy, including witness statements, one must honestly ask if Finck is really saying everything he knew. Remember in the previous thread we went over the evidence that the doctors knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy as opposed to the next morning (daylight) after the autopsy had completed.
 
MicahJava said:
Tangential wounds do not have easily recognizable entrances or exits.
Click to expand...

Nobody but you is talking about a tangential wound. Total red herring.


MicahJava said:
The large head wound could be tangential.
Click to expand...

Except that contradicts your claim that you agree with the autopsy findings.


MicahJava said:
But focusing on the large head wound right now would be a distraction, because it is clear that everybody understands the problems with the original low EOP location for the small head wound.
Click to expand...

Apparently, everybody but you, because you're the only one still pushing that location.


MicahJava said:
And also, once one has judged all available evidence from the autopsy, including witness statements, one must honestly ask if Finck is really saying everything he knew.
Click to expand...

So now your best witness is being less than honest?

HILARIOUS!


MicahJava said:
Remember in the previous thread we went over the evidence that the doctors knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy as opposed to the next morning (daylight) after the autopsy had completed.
Click to expand...

I remember you making some assertions about that, but I don't recall you citing any evidence to that end. Another rather obvious attempt at a conspiracy reset by you.

Now after finding the statements of Finck, Boswell, and Humes don't agree with your theory you've been pushing for the last month or two, you appear ready to toss all three autopsy doctors under the proverbial bus, and are now apparently going to claim they were either withholding evidence that would prove your case or were too inadequate to find the evidence that would prove your case.

Hank

PS: You ignored the points OKBob made entirely.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Finck already told you. The lacerations in the scalp merely had to be extended to remove the brain, according to Humes. You quoted Finck saying that.

And you didn't respond to my point about what Finck's words 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' mean.

Tell us what you think the bolded words means.

Hank
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure your idea violates basic laws of volume and space, and is generally an unprofessional way to go about things. The human scalp doesn't stretch like that. But if you don't believe me, go to the longer testimonies by Humes, Boswell, and Finck through the years. Search for words like "scalp", "reflect", "skull", "brain". They describe in plain English how they reflected the scalp to get to the skull to get to the brain. It was simply a modified version of a normal brain removal procedure like this:

FosDjAb.jpg


Give Kennedy's brain some room to breath, man.

#LetTheBrainBreath

HSienzant said:
So according to Boswell and Finck, the "red spot" you reference was a laceration, and according to Finck, that laceration corresponded to the entry wound on the skull underneath.

Doesn't that make the red spot the entry wound on the scalp - the one visible on the back of the head autopsy photos?

Hank
Click to expand...

What kind of switcheroo is this? Finck always denied the cowlick entry theory, in both it's interpretations of the X-rays and the photographs.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom