ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , JFK assassination , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 9th June 2017, 01:13 PM   #361
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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...postcount=3418

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2393

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 01:16 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:17 PM   #362
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Argument from what's your suggestion to the contrary?
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.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:20 PM   #363
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
According to whom? You?

Hank
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:22 PM   #364
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:23 PM   #365
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
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.
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 by MicahJava; 9th June 2017 at 01:24 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:27 PM   #366
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Argument from what's your suggestion to the contrary?
Bzzt. That's a fail. You don't get points for putting your response in the form of a question, either. This is not JeopardyTM.

Hank.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:34 PM   #367
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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%3Aanimania

"It's just that it seems obvious to me that an honest depiction of Connallyís size, when coupled with an honest projection from the wound in his armpit back through Kennedyís wounds, would point back to the Dal-Tex Building, and not the sniperís 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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:37 PM   #368
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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...postcount=3418

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2393

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...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
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/20160317...ny/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 clientís consent and that his client would talk to me in Washington.


https://www.history-matters.com/arch...0295_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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:39 PM   #369
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:47 PM   #370
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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/archi...eqListInfo.pdf

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:48 PM   #371
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 400
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
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."
Could you repost that link?
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:48 PM   #372
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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?
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.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:52 PM   #373
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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?
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 by OKBob; 9th June 2017 at 01:56 PM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:53 PM   #374
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Could you repost that link?
https://www.history-matters.com/arch...es_2-13-96.pdf

In plain text: https://web.archive.org/web/20170609...ony/humesa.htm
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:55 PM   #375
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:55 PM   #376
bknight
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 400
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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...postcount=3418

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=2393

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...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
Had I searched all the previous thread, I would have found these when MJ asked. My reply was, why did he verify the autopsy.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:56 PM   #377
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by BStrong View Post
...greatly amused and entertained by people who have no idea of what they're going on about but insist on putting it in writing.
Um, well you won't even give me straight answers for what you believe happened with the autopsy, so...
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 01:58 PM   #378
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Okay, if you think the entry hole was in the cowlick 4 inches above the EOP, how did they remove the brain without separating that part of the skull?
Asked and answered. Ironically enough, by you.

Right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=357

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:05 PM   #379
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:07 PM   #380
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
There's a name for this logical fallacy, MicahJava. Do you recall what it is?

Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
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)."
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 02:21 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:08 PM   #381
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Asked and answered. Ironically enough, by you.

Right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=357

Hank
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.

Last edited by MicahJava; 9th June 2017 at 02:12 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:17 PM   #382
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,219
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
So not evidence of what happened then.

Noted.
__________________
@tomhodden

Never look up an E-book because this signature line told you. Especially not Dead Lament (ASIN: B00JEN1MWY). Or A Little Trouble (ASIN: B00GQFZZQW).
Tomtomkent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:20 PM   #383
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,492
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
The official term that applies is hearsay.
__________________
"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper, U.S.M.C.

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:23 PM   #384
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Straw man. Nobody is arguing it was.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.
And you quoted how that enlargement happened. Remember?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
[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.
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 03:18 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:25 PM   #385
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by Tomtomkent View Post
So not evidence of what happened then.

Noted.
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 by MicahJava; 9th June 2017 at 02:27 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:52 PM   #386
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots.
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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"...
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why don't I just repost the compilation of Dr. Burkley's relevant (available) statements so new viewers can get a fresh perspective?
And I'll point out [in bold] why your arguments here are invalid.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. In fact, he said he thinks there was only one. Right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
So in Burkley's own pen, he says he would have eliminated the two-shots to the head scenario. Right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
"...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...."
So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Author Henry Hurt wrote in his book Reasonable Doubt of a short interview with Burkley:

"[color="Sienna"]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.
So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 03:05 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 02:59 PM   #387
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The part where it says "no sawing of the skull was necessary" is probably wrong.
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.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
More evidence the cuts to the scalp were more than sufficient to excise the brain. Exactly as you quoted Finck saying:

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
[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.
Tell us what you think 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' means.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 03:02 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 03:07 PM   #388
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 03:09 PM   #389
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 04:12 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 03:10 PM   #390
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
[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.
All along you've insisting otherwise:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain.

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...postcount=3124

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 03:16 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 03:17 PM   #391
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
More evidence the cuts to the scalp were more than sufficient to excise the brain. Exactly as you quoted Finck saying:


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

Hank
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 03:21 PM   #392
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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:
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots. [emphasis added]
Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 04:25 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 04:00 PM   #393
OKBob
Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 129
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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 by OKBob; 9th June 2017 at 05:37 PM.
OKBob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 04:05 PM   #394
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
Tell us what you think 'prolong the lacerations of the scalp' means.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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?
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.
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
[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.

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



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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...."
Tell us what you think the bolded words means.

Hank
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 04:31 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 04:08 PM   #395
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Removed duplicate posting
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 04:15 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 04:11 PM   #396
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand.
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 04:14 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 04:20 PM   #397
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration ....
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
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
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 04:33 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 07:04 PM   #398
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
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.
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 07:12 PM   #399
HSienzant
Illuminator
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 3,324
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Tangential wounds do not have easily recognizable entrances or exits.
Nobody but you is talking about a tangential wound. Total red herring.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The large head wound could be tangential.
Except that contradicts your claim that you agree with the autopsy findings.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Apparently, everybody but you, because you're the only one still pushing that location.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
So now your best witness is being less than honest?

HILARIOUS!


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"Looks like we're really in nut country now, Toto."

Last edited by HSienzant; 9th June 2017 at 07:23 PM.
HSienzant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th June 2017, 07:15 PM   #400
MicahJava
Master Poster
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 2,244
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
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:



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

#LetTheBrainBreath

Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
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
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 by MicahJava; 9th June 2017 at 07:18 PM.
MicahJava is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.