Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

Status
Not open for further replies.
MicahJava said:
I said that I DON'T think the X-rays or photographs are faked. They can be compatible with the EOP wound, if not prove it. If the X-rays or photographs were ever proven to be incompatible with the EOP wound, only then I would then think that they are faked.
Click to expand...

Dear lord. Look, wherever the wound was, it was compatible with the expert and informed conclusion of the doctors at the autopsy that it was consistent with one bullet from LHO's position. When you decide that the EOP location isn't compatible with that conclusion, you're simply substituting your inexpert and uninformed opinion for theirs without ever having done any more than assert it (over and over and over, as if the repetition will somehow lend it weight). Then, to top it off, you make your assertion an unfalsifiable one by proclaiming that any X-ray or photographic evidence that would prove it wrong must be faked.

This one note you're singing is just...boring.
 
HSienzant said:
So there is both evidence for a shot before Z190 and no witness evidence of a shot before Z190-224.

Ok.........





Not an answer, merely another deflection by you. Try answering the question asked, which dealt with the argument you raised:

Reminder, it dealt with the size of the wound on the back of JFK's head:


And by the way, I thought you argued for the small bullet wound in JFK's head being made at Z190-224?

Now you're referencing the angle at Z313? How come? I thought you argued that was a tangential shot. Can't keep your own arguments straight?

MicahJava said:
I think you're the one who is either confused or trying to confuse others.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Not an adequate response. It's just another deflection by you.

We all see what you're doing here.

Hank
 
turingtest said:
Dear lord. Look, wherever the wound was, it was compatible with the expert and informed conclusion of the doctors at the autopsy that it was consistent with one bullet from LHO's position. When you decide that the EOP location isn't compatible with that conclusion, you're simply substituting your inexpert and uninformed opinion for theirs without ever having done any more than assert it (over and over and over, as if the repetition will somehow lend it weight). Then, to top it off, you make your assertion an unfalsifiable one by proclaiming that any X-ray or photographic evidence that would prove it wrong must be faked.

This one note you're singing is just...boring.
Click to expand...

Turingtest, you can't just pretend that the autopsy conclusion of one gunshot to the head is itself evidence of a higher entry wound.

Let's assume that the doctors truly believed that. The small head wound had internal beveling, and the large head wound had external beveling. It may have been a logical conclusion at the time. As the Rydberg drawings show, that trajectory would not be so questionable if Kennedy's head was leaning over at a degree not shown in the Zapruder film.
 
HSienzant said:
Oh my God, that was already asked and answered.

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

Do the words "fringe reset" ring a bell?

Hank
Click to expand...

That was not even a response. Barnum's diary says that Dr. Burkley personally told him that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was an exit wound. It doesn't matter if it's worded in a confusing way, we know that's what it says. You also incorrectly claimed that the Barnum diary said he was told this before the autopsy.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
That was not even a response. Barnum's diary says that Dr. Burkley personally told him that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was an exit wound.
Click to expand...

You asked me for my response ("Tell me what's your explanation for the Barnum diary").

I pointed out I had already provided it months ago, and your bringing it up again was simply a fringe reset.

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

That's still all true.

That it was an exit wound is not in dispute. Your claim that it's an exit wound from a head shot that happened five seconds BEFORE we see JFK's head damage in the Zapruder film is what's in dispute. Your claim that Barnum's diary says that Burkley personally told Barnum anything is likewise untrue.

Here's the entry as you posted it: "We then proceeded to take the casket into the hospital in an orderly fashion. [Dr. Burkley, said, regarding the shots that hit JFK that] "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat".

Who added the parenthetical phrase, MicahJava? Clearly, it's an addition to the actual words in the diary.


MicahJava said:
It doesn't matter if it's worded in a confusing way, we know that's what it says. You also incorrectly claimed that the Barnum diary said he was told this before the autopsy.
Click to expand...

Barnum's report is dated 11/29/63. That's a week after the autopsy. His source for some of this could be anyone and anything.

You yourself noted it was garbled and incoherent in places (quoting you): "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."

Moreover, while you credit (based on Barnum's diary) Burkley knowing about the exit wound in the throat during the autopsy, Burkley's own report of 11/22/63 mentions none of that (David Lifton, whom you cite as your source, pointed this out in the same page as your quote). Lifton wrote, in a footnote: "Barnum's account also raises this question: Why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound."

It's curious you don't share any of that with us so we can better make up our own mind about what happened.

All of his claims are hearsay, and some of it (like the shot hitting JFK behind the right ear and not coming out) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy whatsoever. It's not a big leap to say that his other claims (also hearsay) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy either.

But I get it. You're like a drowning man clutching at whatever might keep him afloat. You've got your 33-year after the fact recollection from Stringer, and you've got this week after the autopsy hearsay from Barnum.

What you don't have is any valid evidence.

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
That it was an exit wound is not in dispute. Your claim that it's an exit wound from a head shot that happened five seconds BEFORE we see JFK's head damage is what's in dispute.




Barnum's report is dated 11/29/63. That's a week after the autopsy. His source for some of this could be anyone and anything.

You yourself noted it was garbled and incoherent in places (quoting you): "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."

All of his claims are hearsay, and some of it (like the shot hitting JFK behind the right ear and not coming out) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy whatsoever. It's not a big leap to say that his other claims (also hearsay) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy either.

But I get it. You're like a drowning man clutching at whatever might keep him afloat. You've got your 33-year after the fact recollection from Stringer, and you've got this week after the autopsy hearsay from Barnum.

What you don't have is any valid evidence.

Hank
Click to expand...

You are literally making things up. Here is the part in BEST EVIDENCE with George Barnum's 11/29/1963 personal journal entry:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."

Now that I have actually obtained a physical copy of David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE, I now know that autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins is yet another person who remembered hearing about the bullet wound int he throat during the actual autopsy.
 
Last edited:
Hank, serious question: do you really think John Stringer was mistaken when he examined the official autopsy photographs and said that they aren't on the kind of film stock he always used throughout his entire career as an autopsy photographer?

Again, this does not mean that photographs have been altered in any way besides destroying the ones that would provide clear up some mysteries.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
You are literally making things up. Here is the part in BEST EVIDENCE with George Barnum's 11/29/1963 personal journal entry:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."

Now that I have actually obtained a physical copy of David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE, I now know that autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins is yet another person who remembered hearing about the bullet wound int he throat during the actual autopsy.
Click to expand...

Now that you have a physical copy of BEST EVIDENCE, turn to page 671 and tell us what it says in the first footnote. As I pointed out above (in my edited post), Lifton himself questions the contradiction in Burkley supposedly mentioning this informally over coffee and sandwiches yet failing to put this in his official report.

How do you resolve that conflict? You ignore it, and don't mention it here.

Hilarious.

And how did Burkley know which shots struck the President? That's another unresolved conflict. It appears some of what Barnum put into Burkley's mouth must have come from other sources.

Here's Burkley's own account from 11/27/63 -- five days after he supposedly shot the breeze with Barnum.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062b.htm
"As we were about to make this turn, something happened forward but we were not exactly sure what had happened, however, we did realize that something was wrong."

Nothing about seeing the President hit with the first and third shots. No details whatsoever. Burkley himself admits he had no clue what had transpired. So how did Burkley relate those details to Barnum on the night of the assassination when he didn't know them even five days later?

Hank
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Now that you have a physical copy of BEST EVIDENCE, turn to page 671 and tell us what it says in the first footnote. As I pointed out above (in my edited post), Lifton himself questions the contradiction in Burkley supposedly mentioning this informally over coffee and sandwiches yet failing to put this in his official report.

How do you resolve that conflict? You ignore it, and don't mention it here.

Hilarious.

Hank
Click to expand...

What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Hank, serious question: do you really think John Stringer was mistaken when he examined the official autopsy photographs and said that they aren't on the kind of film stock he always used throughout his entire career as an autopsy photographer?

Again, this does not mean that photographs have been altered in any way besides destroying the ones that would provide clear up some mysteries.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. You owe me about 40 answers to some of my serious questions. You simply ignore any tough questions.

I won't do that. I will ask how his recollection from 33 years after the event can be trusted.

Did Stringer always use the same kind of film stock -- always?

Wouldn't his job, wherever he was stationed or worked, provide the film?

Wouldn't the cameras - and therefore the film - be different from location to location?

Here's what Stringer actually testified to at one point (page 39):

[13] Q: In the area of 1963, did you ever use a
[14] medium-format camera at autopsies?
[15] A: No. At that time, we were in the process
[16] of changing from a four-by-five to 35 millimeter.
[17] And we were - the commanding officer wouldn't let
[18] us purchase any more four-by-five film, because we
[19] were in the midst of buying the 35 millimeter
[20] cameras and the films.

So we know Stringer used at least two different types of film stock according to his own testimony during his career.

And on page 134, he clearly said he used one type when he actually used another. And he corrected himself.

[10] Q: Under sub A on Exhibit 78, it refers to
[11] Ektachrome E3 film. Does that help refresh your
[12] recollection as the type of film -
[13] A: Yes, it does.
[14] Q: - that was used?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: Earlier, if I recall correctly, you had
[17] said that you understood that it was Kodachrome.
[18] A: Yeah.
[19] Q: It was Ektachrome E3?
[20] A: I would say it was Ektachrome, yes.
[21] Q: And does Ektachrome E3 create color

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

So why do you mention anything Stringer said as if it's solid? It's 33 years after the event, and he thought he used one type, when it was actually another, and he mentioned they were in the process of switching cameras and film types at the time of the assassination.

So why are you insisting Stringer's claim (which you never cited or quoted, by the way) is evidence of anything?

Where can I see that quote by Stringer?

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.
Click to expand...

That must have been a hell of a wound for a Dr, to discover it over a telephone connection.
 
MicahJava said:
What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.
Click to expand...

Oh wait, you mean the 11/23/1963 Death Certificate?

Some important things to note:

1. There is already some question if Dr. Burkley failed to inform the autopsy doctors about the nature of the original throat wound he arguably may have seen or been told about from the Parkland doctors.

2. The December 6 1963 version of the Death Certificate signed by Theron Ward also fails to mention a throat wound. It just says Kennedy "came to his death as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the back of the head."

3. The 11/23/1963 death certificate fails to specifically mention the small head wound.

4. There is evidence that the explanation behind the throat wound was considered malleable at least a few days after the autopsy. The official autopsy report is the second or third draft, those drafts and the notes being burned. How many reports from credible news sources that the autopsy allegedly found that the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot?
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Tell us what the first footnote on page 671 of BEST EVIDENCE says.

I thought you had a copy.


MicahJava said:
The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.
Click to expand...

That's clearly not what Lifton thinks. Please review page 671 again.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Oh wait, you mean the 11/23/1963 Death Certificate?

Some important things to note:

1. There is already some question if Dr. Burkley failed to inform the autopsy doctors about the nature of the original throat wound he arguably may have seen or been told about from the Parkland doctors.

2. The December 6 1963 version of the Death Certificate signed by Theron Ward also fails to mention a throat wound. It just says Kennedy "came to his death as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the back of the head."

3. The 11/23/1963 death certificate fails to specifically mention the small head wound.

4. There is evidence that the explanation behind the throat wound was considered malleable at least a few days after the autopsy. The official autopsy report is the second or third draft, those drafts and the notes being burned. How many reports from credible news sources that the autopsy allegedly found that the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot?
Click to expand...

Lifton references a 11/22/63 medical report by Burkley that he says contradicts Barnum's account.

But the death certificate of 11/23/63 executed by Burkley also fails to note this transiting bullet wound Barnum supposedly heard about from Burkley.

It mentions no throat bullet wound at all.

It says the President was struck twice, once in the head and once in the upper back about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

Almost like, on the day after the assassination, Burkley still didn't know there was a wound in the front of the throat.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587#relPageId=2&tab=page

So how could he know at about midnight just after the autopsy?

Ergo, Barnum's account isn't solely from Burkley. And it's still hearsay in any case.

HSienzant said:
But I get it. You're like a drowning man clutching at whatever might keep him afloat. You've got your 33-year after the fact recollection from Stringer, and you've got this week after the autopsy hearsay from Barnum. What you don't have is any valid evidence.
Click to expand...
And it turns out you don't even have Stringer's recollection anymore. A reading of his ARRB testimony (which you referenced but never provided the precise quote) contradicts what you were claiming Stringer said -- that he only used one type of film for all autopsies he photographed.

He himself references a change in camera & film that was taking place about the time of the assassination.

Hank
 
Last edited:
We interrupt this thread with breaking news: photographs that have been developed are copies, and not original film!
Next up: lack of damage to cerebellum discredits theory about bullet entering EOP and travelling downwards.
Later in the show: shocking revelations about pontiff headwear. Startling tales of ursine sylvanian lavatory discovery.
 
Tomtomkent said:
We interrupt this thread with breaking news: photographs that have been developed are copies, and not original film!
Next up: lack of damage to cerebellum discredits theory about bullet entering EOP and travelling downwards.
Later in the show: shocking revelations about pontiff headwear. Startling tales of ursine sylvanian lavatory discovery.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
MicahJava said:
Let me correct one thing: "original autopsy films" probably does not mean the photographs at the National Archives today. We know from the ARRB testimony of John Stringer that at the very least the brain photographs are copies of the original. The originals are missing.
Click to expand...

Quote where he says that. Link to his testimony and provide the page number as well.

We'll wait.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
I see little point of questioning if John Stringer, even as an old man, could remember the types of film stock he used throughout his entire career. He said the photographs are copies because they aren't made with the film he always used. So not only are some autopsy photographs missing from the official collection, but some of the versions in evidence today are apparently just copies.
Click to expand...

Quote where he said that. Provide the link, and the specific page number as well.

Hank
 
MicahJava said:
Turingtest, you can't just pretend that the autopsy conclusion of one gunshot to the head is itself evidence of a higher entry wound.

Let's assume that the doctors truly believed that. The small head wound had internal beveling, and the large head wound had external beveling. It may have been a logical conclusion at the time. As the Rydberg drawings show, that trajectory would not be so questionable if Kennedy's head was leaning over at a degree not shown in the Zapruder film.
Click to expand...

And indeed that is exactly what the autopsy indicated with one skull piece received from Dallas had a semicircular external beveling. This is classic MJ posting evidence for what the autopsy reported and then saying this information is "tainted". The trajectory of the bullet with JFK's head tilt precisely fits a trajectory from the sixth floor of the TSBD, no issue here except in your mind.
 
MicahJava said:
Oh wait, you mean the 11/23/1963 Death Certificate?

Some important things to note:

1. There is already some question if Dr. Burkley failed to inform the autopsy doctors about the nature of the original throat wound he arguably may have seen or been told about from the Parkland doctors.

2. The December 6 1963 version of the Death Certificate signed by Theron Ward also fails to mention a throat wound. It just says Kennedy "came to his death as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the back of the head."

3. The 11/23/1963 death certificate fails to specifically mention the small head wound.

4. There is evidence that the explanation behind the throat wound was considered malleable at least a few days after the autopsy. The official autopsy report is the second or third draft, those drafts and the notes being burned. How many reports from credible news sources that the autopsy allegedly found that the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot?
Click to expand...

What part of the autopsy report are you reading challenged. On page 4 of the report https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

The 15 x 6mm scalp wound that you yourself have mentioned and reporting a corresponding wound to the skull with inward beveling. You continue to post contradictory statements and you have the audacity to call anyone having "confusing" posts or attempting to "confuse" others.
 
bknight said:
What part of the autopsy report are you reading challenged. On page 4 of the report https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

The 15 x 6mm scalp wound that you yourself have mentioned and reporting a corresponding wound to the skull with inward beveling. You continue to post contradictory statements and you have the audacity to call anyone having "confusing" posts or attempting to "confuse" others.
Click to expand...

That's the autopsy report, not the death certificate.
 
HSienzant said:
Quote where he said that. Provide the link, and the specific page number as well.

Hank
Click to expand...

If you do not want to read John Stringer's testimony, here is a summary by Doug Horne in the book Murder In Dealey Plaza (read/download for free here):

egGjEOe.png


Sorry if I missed a word or two :p
 
bknight said:
And indeed that is exactly what the autopsy indicated with one skull piece received from Dallas had a semicircular external beveling. This is classic MJ posting evidence for what the autopsy reported and then saying this information is "tainted". The trajectory of the bullet with JFK's head tilt precisely fits a trajectory from the sixth floor of the TSBD, no issue here except in your mind.
Click to expand...

bknight, the HSCA's Sniper's Nest trajectory assumes that their interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are true. Do you think a five-inch skull cavity is all you need to properly remove a brain? No? Well that just about debunks the HSCA's interpretation.
 
Let's review a list of witnesses that provide evidence that Humes, Boswell, and Finck lied about how early they discovered that Kennedy's tracheotomy incision was created over a bullet wound (I may have missed a couple, idk):

1. George Barnum, personal written account 11/29/1963

2. Dr. Malcolm Perry (Parkland Hospital) initially remembered that he made contact with Humes on late Friday night 11/22/1963, and only conceded that it could have been 11/23/1963 morning. He was not asked to specify if it could have been as late as 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM as Dr. Humes has indicated. He also specified that he had two separate phone calls with Dr. Humes, first one was discussing the throat wound, second one discussing other matters. Dr. Humes has always said that he recalls one phone call with Dr. Perry, not two. WC 3/25/1964, WC 3/30/1964, HSCA 1/11/1978

3. Dr. Burkley has twice flubbed while being interviewed and said something that indicates they knew about the original tiny throat during the autopsy. In his HSCA interview, he actually changed his mind in the middle of being interviewed and went back to saying they never knew about it. Baltimore Sun 11/25/1966, HSCA 8/17/1977

4. The CBS memo from 1/10/1967 reporting that Dr. Humes personally knew Jim Snyder (of CBS) and told him that he took an X-ray at the autopsy of a probe going from Kennedy's back wound, curving, then emerging from the throat wound.

5. Joe Hagan, The Death of a President by William Manchester (1967)

6. Tom Robinson, HSCA 1/12/1977, ARRB 6/21/1996

7. John Stringer, HSCA 8/17/1977, ARRB 7/16/1996

8. Richard Lipsey, HSCA 1/18/1978

9. John Ebersole, HSCA 3/10/1978, David Mantik 12/2/1992 (says that Ebersole told him the same thing in "previous conversations")

10. Robert Knudsen (White House photographer), HSCA 8/11/1978

11. Dr. Paul Peters (Parkland Hospital), Ben Bradlee interview 5/1/1981

Half-witness: Dr. Robert Karnei, told Harrison Livingstone on 8/27/1991 that he thought the throat wound was discovered by the doctors "around midnight", but contradicted himself when he denied knowing about the original throat wound during the autopsy to HSCA 8/23/1977, ARRB 3/10/1997

Note: Some have argued that Dr. Burkley (White House physician) almost certainly would have learned about the wound at Parkland Hospital.

Note 2: Some have argued that the autopsy participants should have been informed about the throat wound from media reports being broadcast on the radio starting with Dr. Perry's news conference.
 
Last edited:
HSienzant said:
Lifton references a 11/22/63 medical report by Burkley that he says contradicts Barnum's account.

But the death certificate of 11/23/63 executed by Burkley also fails to note this transiting bullet wound Barnum supposedly heard about from Burkley.

It mentions no throat bullet wound at all.

It says the President was struck twice, once in the head and once in the upper back about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

Almost like, on the day after the assassination, Burkley still didn't know there was a wound in the front of the throat.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587#relPageId=2&tab=page

So how could he know at about midnight just after the autopsy?

Ergo, Barnum's account isn't solely from Burkley. And it's still hearsay in any case.
Click to expand...

Your comment is already answered by the one you were responding to. It's not very significant that the death certificate doesn't mention a bullet wound in the throat. It could have an innocent explanation, but I tend to think it was a "we'll figure out this thing later" mentality.
 
MicahJava said:
That's the autopsy report, not the death certificate.
Click to expand...

They didn't perform the autopsy, just what they knew from the time the body was in the hospital and they were attempting to life saving methods. And they never attempted to find any head wounds. So why would the death certificate not mentioning a small entry hole be suspicious?
What they did indicate on it was that JFK dies as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the head and back, by a high powered rifle. Again nothing suspicious here either.
 
MicahJava said:
Let's review a list of witnesses that provide evidence that Humes, Boswell, and Finck lied about how early they discovered that Kennedy's tracheotomy incision was created over a bullet wound (I may have missed a couple, idk):

1. George Barnum, personal written account 11/29/1963

2. Dr. Malcolm Perry (Parkland Hospital) initially remembered that he made contact with Humes on late Friday night 11/22/1963, and only conceded that it could have been 11/23/1963 morning. He was not asked to specify if it could have been as late as 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM as Dr. Humes has indicated. He also specified that he had two separate phone calls with Dr. Humes, first one was discussing the throat wound, second one discussing other matters. Dr. Humes has always said that he recalls one phone call with Dr. Perry, not two. WC 3/25/1964, WC 3/30/1964, HSCA 1/11/1978

3. Dr. Burkley has twice flubbed while being interviewed and said something that indicates they knew about the original tiny throat during the autopsy. In his HSCA interview, he actually changed his mind in the middle of being interviewed and went back to saying they never knew about it. Baltimore Sun 11/25/1966, HSCA 8/17/1977

4. The CBS memo from 1/10/1967 reporting that Dr. Humes personally knew Jim Snyder (of CBS) and told him that he took an X-ray at the autopsy of a probe going from Kennedy's back wound, curving, then emerging from the throat wound.

5. Joe Hagan, The Death of a President by William Manchester (1967)

6. Tom Robinson, HSCA 1/12/1977, ARRB 6/21/1996

7. John Stringer, HSCA 8/17/1977, ARRB 7/16/1996

8. Richard Lipsey, HSCA 1/18/1978

9. John Ebersole, HSCA 3/10/1978, David Mantik 12/2/1992 (says that Ebersole told him the same thing in "previous conversations")

10. Robert Knudsen (White House photographer), HSCA 8/11/1978

11. Dr. Paul Peters (Parkland Hospital), Ben Bradlee interview 5/1/1981

Half-witness: Dr. Robert Karnei, told Harrison Livingstone on 8/27/1991 that he thought the throat wound was discovered by the doctors "around midnight", but contradicted himself when he denied knowing about the original throat wound during the autopsy to HSCA 8/23/1977, ARRB 3/10/1997

Note: Some have argued that Dr. Burkley (White House physician) almost certainly would have learned about the wound at Parkland Hospital.

Note 2: Some have argued that the autopsy participants should have throat wound during the autopsy because Dr. Perry had quickly told the media about it in a press conference, and that fact was being broadcast on radio and television.
Click to expand...

Bolded statement makes no sense.
As for your witnesses most of the testimony is dated 33 years after the event and as we all have told you memory of an event however important or traumatic is not the best evidence to use.
 
MicahJava said:
Your comment is already answered by the one you were responding to. It's not very significant that the death certificate doesn't mention a bullet wound in the throat. It could have an innocent explanation, but I tend to think it was a "we'll figure out this thing later" mentality.
Click to expand...

The throat wound was not a cause of death and no need to include it in the death certificate.
 
bknight said:
They didn't perform the autopsy, just what they knew from the time the body was in the hospital and they were attempting to life saving methods. And they never attempted to find any head wounds. So why would the death certificate not mentioning a small entry hole be suspicious?
What they did indicate on it was that JFK dies as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the head and back, by a high powered rifle. Again nothing suspicious here either.
Click to expand...

I think you're confused about... everything.
 
bknight said:
Bolded statement makes no sense.
As for your witnesses most of the testimony is dated 33 years after the event and as we all have told you memory of an event however important or traumatic is not the best evidence to use.
Click to expand...

Fixed.

And apparently you enjoy straight-up lying about something that anybody who can read higher up on the page knows you're wrong about.
 
MicahJava said:
If you do not want to read John Stringer's testimony, here is a summary by Doug Horne in the book Murder In Dealey Plaza (read/download for free here):
[SNIP HORNE'S UNPROVEN ASSERTIONS]

Sorry if I missed a word or two :p
Click to expand...

Are you serious? I read his testimony and quoted it. I provided a link to the exact source.

You pretend otherwise.

The only one NOT reading the testimony and only citing a conspiracy source (Doug Horne? Really?) is YOU.

Bottom line: You have no clue what evidence is. Quoting what Horne wrote isn't evidence. Quoting what Stringer said is evidence. You have cited an assertion by Horne, but it is readily apparent you did nothing -- NOTHING -- to verify it. You simply accepted him at his word.

Here's my post, not only QUOTING STRINGER'S TESTIMONY, but also CITING THE SOURCE, which you pretend I never read. There's a word for someone who repeatedly tells untruths. I understand I'm forbidden from using that word here.

HSienzant said:
Hilarious. You owe me about 40 answers to some of my serious questions. You simply ignore any tough questions.

I won't do that. I will ask how his recollection from 33 years after the event can be trusted.

Did Stringer always use the same kind of film stock -- always?

Wouldn't his job, wherever he was stationed or worked, provide the film?

Wouldn't the cameras - and therefore the film - be different from location to location?

Here's what Stringer actually testified to at one point (page 39):
[13] Q: In the area of 1963, did you ever use a
[14] medium-format camera at autopsies?
[15] A: No. At that time, we were in the process
[16] of changing from a four-by-five to 35 millimeter.
[17] And we were - the commanding officer wouldn't let
[18] us purchase any more four-by-five film, because we
[19] were in the midst of buying the 35 millimeter
[20] cameras and the films.

So we know Stringer used at least two different types of film stock according to his own testimony during his career.

And on page 134, he clearly said he used one type when he actually used another. And he corrected himself.
[10] Q: Under sub A on Exhibit 78, it refers to
[11] Ektachrome E3 film. Does that help refresh your
[12] recollection as the type of film -
[13] A: Yes, it does.
[14] Q: - that was used?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: Earlier, if I recall correctly, you had
[17] said that you understood that it was Kodachrome.
[18] A: Yeah.
[19] Q: It was Ektachrome E3?
[20] A: I would say it was Ektachrome, yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stringer.htm
So why do you mention anything Stringer said as if it's solid? It's 33 years after the event, and he thought he used one type, when it was actually another, and he mentioned they were in the process of switching cameras and film types at the time of the assassination.

So why are you insisting Stringer's claim (which you never cited or quoted, by the way) is evidence of anything?

Where can I see that quote by Stringer?
Click to expand...


Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
I think you're confused about... everything.
Click to expand...

Not confused about the event and how it occurred as you are one shooter, three shots one miss two hits one to the back and one to the head. All the hits have precise trajectories to the sixth floor of the TSBD. No evidence whatsoever of multiple shooters.
So what's your problem?
 
HSienzant said:
I read his testimony and quoted it. I provided a link to the exact source. You pretend otherwise.

The only one NOT reading the testimony and only citing a conspiracy source (Doug Horne? Really?) is YOU.


Here's my post, QUOTING STRINGER.



Bottom line: You have no clue what evidence is. Quoting what Horne wrote isn't evidence. Quoting what Stringer said is evidence. You have cited an assertion by Horne, but it is readily apparent you did nothing -- NOTHING -- to verify it. You simply accepted him at his word.

Hank
Click to expand...

Wowa. Like I said, I may have missed a word earlier. My point still stands. One of the biggest anomalies in the autopsy evidence and everybody should know about it.
 
bknight said:
The throat wound was not a cause of death and no need to include it in the death certificate.
Click to expand...

First decent point you've made in your whole entire JREF career.

The Death Certificate cannot be used as evidence that the Dr.'s were ignorant about the throat wound until a later Saturday phone call.
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
First decent point you've made in your whole entire JREF career.

The Death Certificate cannot be used as evidence that the Dr.'s were ignorant about the throat wound until a later Saturday phone call.
Click to expand...

No, the isn't correct as this is not JREF, but ISF, however there have many more decent points that you have ignored and run away from.
 
MicahJava said:
bknight, the HSCA's Sniper's Nest trajectory assumes that their interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are true. Do you think a five-inch skull cavity is all you need to properly remove a brain? No? Well that just about debunks the HSCA's interpretation.
Click to expand...

Asked and answered over a dozen -- no exaggeration -- times.

You have ignored every attempt to set the record straight and merely reiterate your own faulty interpretation of the testimony.

Hank
 
Last edited:
MicahJava said:
Your comment is already answered by the one you were responding to. It's not very significant that the death certificate doesn't mention a bullet wound in the throat. It could have an innocent explanation, but I tend to think it was a "we'll figure out this thing later" mentality.
Click to expand...

Sorry, nobody cares what you think.

Wait, what? It's not significant that the death certificate from 11/23/63 doesn't mention the throat wound, but it is significant that a hearsay account purportedly executed 11/29/63 does mention it?

The fact of the matter is you have a hearsay account that purportedly sources Burkley, and an official death certificate signed by Burkley that contradict each other.

And of course you credit the hearsay account and discredit the official historical document.

You're a conspiracy theorist, of course you do that.

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom