Hank, by "secondary source" do you mean Killing The Truth by Harrison Livingstone?
That, and every other CT book's interviews you cite. I was thinking specifically of BEST EVIDENCE by David Lifton, since you have yet to explain how Connally's wounds were altered, and you quoted from Lifton's interview from that book, but failed to mention any of Lifton's own misgivings about the veracity of the claim. We covered all this in the past (or rather, I pointed out the issues). You ignored them entirely.
I only used the parts from his interview with Joe Hagan to demonstrate that he arrived 11:00 PM - 12:00 PM.
Entirely consistent with the autopsy ending at about midnight, then.
This is roughly consistent (there's a disagreement over who rode with who in the hearse to the hospital) with the information from Joe Hagan et. al of Gawler's funeral home in the 1967 book The Death of a President by William Manchester and the 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop. He quotes directly from Hagan numerous times.
Livingstone's interview is how many decades after the assassination? Where is the interview published, including the questions asked? This is pertinent because we know the way the question is phrased can affect the answer ("
Did you ever see one that was that big?" - Law, page 303). Why are you relying on recollections from decades after the event at all? The fact that you must do this is very revealing -- the primary source evidence doesn't support your conjectures.
The combined contemporaneous statements of Clint Hill and Roy Kellerman, the "2 AM" entry on the Mahogany Casket delivery's paperwork, and The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop leave a strong impression that autopsy procedures could have gone on as long as 2:45 AM.
We've covered all that ground. This is yet another attempt at a fringe reset, where you ignore all that went before and start the argument all over again. All your arguments were exposed as specious, gleaned from questionable recollections and held together with a thin veneer of nonsensical reasoning.
I could provide links, but you won't read them and will just dismiss them as "links". So why bother?
For just one example, I pointed out the morticians could have started their work in the absence of the final burial casket, that the delay in delivering the casket until 2AM doesn't imply the autopsy was still ongoing until then - that the morticians didn't sit around on their hands waiting for the casket delivery before they started their work. Putting the President in the casket is the final step of the morticians procedures, and the delivery time of 2AM doesn't mean they only started after that. It only means they concluded after that time. You ignored that point entirely (and are still using the casket delivery time as evidence of when the autopsy concluded). It's not. It never will be.
With sources like Jim Bishop (considered "sloppier" than Manchester)...
Considered sloppier than Manchester by conspiracists. But then, they level a lot of charges they don't prove, like the Warren Commission had an agenda to establish Oswald's guilt. Please tell me the methodology used to determine "sloppiness". Would it be taking statements out of context? Would it be ignoring stronger evidence? Would it be utilizing logical fallacies and speculation to close the gaps in their arguments? What methodology?
...who write their books as a collage narrative made of their witness statements from a few years later, news reports, Warren Commission etc., everybody knows that you can be treading on thin ice in terms of how valuable evidence can be.
Everyone but you, apparently, as you utilize these sources rather liberally.
But guess what, it's a goldmine compared to if we had nothing.
But we
DON'T have nothing. This is yet another example of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy. It's not either "Lifton and Manchester and Bishop and Livingstone (et.al.)" or nothing.
It's "Lifton and Manchester and Bishop and Livingstone (et.al.)" or the primary source evidence, the direct testimony, given under oath, by the people involved. And you ignore the primary source material repeatedly.
Imagine if we had books like that about other ancient leaders. And it's worth a charm if you have corroborating evidence, which is what this throat issue has been about.
Fringe reset attempt. Charms aren't worth much. They are mass produced in China and are usually of inferior quality these days. Ditto your 'corroborating evidence' which is typically only corroborating if you read between the lines while squinting really hard and forcing the interpretation you wish.
And it seems like you cannot provide any evidence to the contrary on these issues which would suggest these sources should be ignored. [emphasis added]
Logical fallacy -- shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to disprove your contentions. You need to prove them. You have failed to do so. Your attempts to do so have been examined when you presented them initially and shown where they fall apart.
You never responded to those posts, except to change the subject or hand-wave them away.
Historians use this as evidence because it is.
Only when better evidence isn't available. Like primary sources.
EVIDENCE, Mr. Monday-To-Friday, do you speak it?
Evidence is what I've been citing back to you. Repeatedly.
Not sure what the appellation is for. Primary sources... have you read them? The Warren Commission 26 volumes? The HSCA 12 volumes?
It appears not.
Either that, or you can't find a lot in those primary source documents to support your arguments, hence your obvious reliance on interviews
from this century with some of the witnesses.
Hank
