IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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

Closed Thread
Old 28th September 2017, 09:03 AM   #1641
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Slightly off topic but MJ is getting beat up badly in two separate threads (s)he truly must be stubborn to the nth degree.

Last edited by bknight; 28th September 2017 at 09:10 AM. Reason: Changed pronoun.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 09:49 AM   #1642
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The only aspect you've shown is that individuals' memory tends to fade/change with years/decades after the fact. But then you are too young to experience that fact.
In the new PBS documentary on the Vietnam war, the segment on Tet '68 includes footage of the summary execution of a suspected VC by General Loan.

A Vietnamese witness described watching Gen. Loan load his .45 automatic and shooting the VC in the head.

General Loan shot the VC with a Smith and Wesson .38 special revolver, not a .45. Video of the incident is available on YT for interested parties.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 09:51 AM   #1643
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 13,087
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Slightly off topic but MJ is getting beat up badly in two separate threads (s)he truly must be stubborn to the nth degree.
Black Knight syndrome.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 11:39 AM   #1644
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
And you're wrong. If they don't specifically prove it then you have no case.

The combined physical and ballistic evidence shows two bullets fires from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Period.
The autopsy report, based on measurements taken at the autopsy, is evidence. Corroborating statements from the autopsy witnesses is considered evidence. Why are you scared of acknowledging this basic fact? This is different than a Parkland hospital doctor seeing Kennedy's head from an angle that made his large wound look more occipital than parietal, the autopsy doctors peeled his scalp back, measured everything, studied his skull.

And actually, I forgot to mention that the X-rays and photographs can be used to provide evidence of the EOP wound.

1. The bruises on Kennedy's neck apparent on the photographs, consistent with a skull base fracture or a bullet traveling down the neck.

2. The cavity of air in the neck area shown on the X-rays, likewise.

3. The possible bullet fragment in the upper neck identified by Cyril Wecht.

Quote:
The autopsy is the last word on the subject.

The "repeated clarifying statements" come from interviews and depositions in the years after the autopsy, often asked my laymen, or garden variety morons. From these come the cherry-picking CT industry that pulls out quotes that seem to contradict the autopsy, and they pretend they've found a smoking gun that soon gets shot to pieces by experts.

The autopsy explained everything, and is the final legal document on the subject. The fact is that it is possible to over-explain something, which we often see when honest people are confronted by CTist (who are never honest).

You have yet to explain WHERE the second gunman fired from, WHAT caliber of bullet was used, WHY nobody saw it strike the president now why he never reacted to being SHOT IN THE HEAD, or HOW every human being in the autopsy room missed it.
You are grasping at straws. The autopsy report indicates a LOW entry wound in the head, near the EOP. All other statements from the autopsy participants and witnesses point to a lower wound.
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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 11:52 AM   #1645
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report, based on measurements taken at the autopsy, is evidence.
This is correct. Your interpretation of it, less so.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Corroborating statements from the autopsy witnesses is considered evidence.
Unfortunately not all evidence is equally reliable or useful. Statements given after the fact, have to be taken in context of how long after the fact, they are given, if they are sworn testimony, and so forth.

You should never lose sight of WHY accurate measurements are taken at the time, photographs, x-rays, etc, and WHY we do not simply ask doctors to remember.
__________________
@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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 11:55 AM   #1646
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post

You are grasping at straws. The autopsy report indicates a LOW entry wound in the head, near the EOP. All other statements from the autopsy participants and witnesses point to a lower wound.
No.
It does not.
If it did you would not need to keep stamping your foot about your personal interpretation of the word "slightly".
If it did, you would be able to use it to show us the exact location of the wound in the photographs.
If it did you could show us the wound in the xrays.
If it did, then that would have been discussed at length in the WC.
__________________
@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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 12:17 PM   #1647
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report, based on measurements taken at the autopsy, is evidence. Corroborating statements from the autopsy witnesses is considered evidence. Why are you scared of acknowledging this basic fact?
They are not equal.

The autopsy is recorded on audio with the pathologist verbally noting his observations for later when the report is written. All the tools are there, and everything is noted.

Autopsy witnesses vary in reliability from other pathologists who did not lay hands on the body, or have a clear view; doctors who are not pathologists, and are often mistaken about what they see; orderlies, Secret Service agents, and other officials who ARE NOT PATHOLOGISTS OR DOCTORS. There is a sliding scale for who you listen to and who should be ignored.

Quote:
This is different than a Parkland hospital doctor seeing Kennedy's head from an angle that made his large wound look more occipital than parietal, the autopsy doctors peeled his scalp back, measured everything, studied his skull.
The Parkland doctors were ER doctor and not pathologists.

There was a lot going on in the room. The two doctors with the BEST view of the head wound disagree about what they saw:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo&t=1825s

For normal people this FACT is a red flag about the nature of the wound, and the NATURE OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS. (hint: this is why you get a second opinion).

Quote:
And actually, I forgot to mention that the X-rays and photographs can be used to provide evidence of the EOP wound.
Photographs and x-rays you've never seen.

Quote:
1. The bruises on Kennedy's neck apparent on the photographs, consistent with a skull base fracture or a bullet traveling down the neck.
Look up rigor mortis.

Plus, you say that like you know what you're talking about, and you don't.

Quote:
2. The cavity of air in the neck area shown on the X-rays, likewise.
There are only 2 x-rays available to the public. Neither show this. CTists will see what they want to see.

Quote:
3. The possible bullet fragment in the upper neck identified by Cyril Wecht.
Doctor Conspiracy Theorist?

The majority of pathology experts agree with the autopsy findings.

Quote:
You are grasping at straws. The autopsy report indicates a LOW entry wound in the head, near the EOP. All other statements from the autopsy participants and witnesses point to a lower wound.
Nope.

First off, I'm not the one advancing a pet theory based on photographic evidence I've never seen, combining it with medical evidence I do not understand, and siting witnesses who are at best mistaken and at worst liars looking to make a buck of the soft-headed JFK conspiracy crowd.

The straws are all in your hands.

The fact is that there is an inch and a quarter margin of error in any direction that keeps the trajectory in line with the 6th floor of the TSBD . The brain sketch, the existing public x-rays, and the publicly available photographs show an entry wound fairly close to the autopsy sketch, and the damage to the skull is exclusive to the 6.5x55mm Carcano round.

1 rifle, 2 bullets.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 12:26 PM   #1648
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report, based on measurements taken at the autopsy, is evidence. Corroborating statements from the autopsy witnesses is considered evidence. Why are you scared of acknowledging this basic fact?
Dunno. Why are you scared of acknowledging the fact that human memory is fallible?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This is different than a Parkland hospital doctor seeing Kennedy's head from an angle that made his large wound look more occipital than parietal, the autopsy doctors peeled his scalp back, measured everything, studied his skull.
In which school or university did you earn your credentials as an autopsist?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And actually, I forgot to mention that the X-rays and photographs can be used to provide evidence of the EOP wound.
Really? You forgot? Like all real autopsy experts do?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. The bruises on Kennedy's neck apparent on the photographs, consistent with a skull base fracture or a bullet traveling down the neck.
But are they really? You have not seen all of them. Unless you are about to claim to be a member of the Kennedy family.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
2. The cavity of air in the neck area shown on the X-rays, likewise.
Who would have thunk. Surely there can be no air cavities in the neck. Nobody actually breathes. That is a myth propagated by "big air" in order to sell us air at inflated prices, right? One only has to look at how much compressed air they had to install in building seven, right?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
3. The possible bullet fragment in the upper neck identified by Cyril Wecht.
Not again. Have you read none of this thread and all of it's previous incarnations?

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are grasping at straws. The autopsy report indicates a LOW entry wound in the head, near the EOP.
And jebus was not nailed to the cross by hands and feet, but by ears and testicles, because you are, in fact, the greatest bigly coroner evar. Sure.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
All other statements from the autopsy participants and witnesses point to a lower wound.
Sigh.

1. You are wrong.

2. It does not matter.

3. Science demonstrates how wrong you are.

4. What is this really about? Some lone wingnut assassinates a politician. How is it even relevant to anything heading for 60 years later. You seem unable to say why exactly anyone should give a flying ****. Why is that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 01:30 PM   #1649
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Dunno. Why are you scared of acknowledging the fact that human memory is fallible?

In which school or university did you earn your credentials as an autopsist?

Really? You forgot? Like all real autopsy experts do?

But are they really? You have not seen all of them. Unless you are about to claim to be a member of the Kennedy family.

Who would have thunk. Surely there can be no air cavities in the neck. Nobody actually breathes. That is a myth propagated by "big air" in order to sell us air at inflated prices, right? One only has to look at how much compressed air they had to install in building seven, right?

Not again. Have you read none of this thread and all of it's previous incarnations?

And jebus was not nailed to the cross by hands and feet, but by ears and testicles, because you are, in fact, the greatest bigly coroner evar. Sure.

Sigh.

1. You are wrong.

2. It does not matter.

3. Science demonstrates how wrong you are.

4. What is this really about? Some lone wingnut assassinates a politician. How is it even relevant to anything heading for 60 years later. You seem unable to say why exactly anyone should give a flying ****. Why is that?
Finally something new and interesting in the thread. Perhaps a new thread to discuss in detail?
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 02:03 PM   #1650
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are grasping at straws. The autopsy report indicates a LOW entry wound in the head, near the EOP. All other statements from the autopsy participants and witnesses point to a lower wound.
You've been asked for your credentials many times before to show that your interpretation of the autopsy means anything.

Unfortunately for you, your opinion will continue to be superseded by the autopsy results.

Thanks.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 02:19 PM   #1651
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Finally something new and interesting in the thread. Perhaps a new thread to discuss in detail?
Sure, why not. 65 shooters fired 479 bullets at JFK of which only two hit. This was carried out by the reverse vampires to advance their bloodletting agenda and the vietnam war, which was in reality, a distraction faked to distract from the moon landings. When that gambit failed, the PTB waited 32 years before faking 911 to distract from the previous 1969 fake Apollo landing which was staged to distract from the staged Vietnam war which, in turn was entirely staged to distract from the fake Korean war, which means that WWII never actually happened and Hitler was a cuddly teddy bear.

Are you not entertained? Is that not a sufficient surfeit of bat crap nuttery?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 02:24 PM   #1652
Steve
Penultimate Amazing
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,833
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure, why not. 65 shooters fired 479 bullets at JFK of which only two hit. This was carried out by the reverse vampires to advance their bloodletting agenda and the vietnam war, which was in reality, a distraction faked to distract from the moon landings. When that gambit failed, the PTB waited 32 years before faking 911 to distract from the previous 1969 fake Apollo landing which was staged to distract from the staged Vietnam war which, in turn was entirely staged to distract from the fake Korean war, which means that WWII never actually happened and Hitler was a cuddly teddy bear.

Are you not entertained? Is that not a sufficient surfeit of bat crap nuttery?
Uhhh!!?? Actually I was referring to the alternate method of nailing jebus. That sounded interesting. This diatribe not so much.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 03:47 PM   #1653
tinribmancer
Hasbarian NWO Templar Cattle
 
tinribmancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: The Intergalatic Solar System!
Posts: 1,692
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Sure, why not. 65 shooters fired 479 bullets at JFK of which only two hit. This was carried out by the reverse vampires to advance their bloodletting agenda and the vietnam war, which was in reality, a distraction faked to distract from the moon landings. When that gambit failed, the PTB waited 32 years before faking 911 to distract from the previous 1969 fake Apollo landing which was staged to distract from the staged Vietnam war which, in turn was entirely staged to distract from the fake Korean war, which means that WWII never actually happened and Hitler was a cuddly teddy bear.

Are you not entertained? Is that not a sufficient surfeit of bat crap nuttery?
I am. Please, do tell us some more theories. Are you sure that the Zionists & Bigfoot aren't involved in any of this?
__________________
"Bravery Is Not A Function Of Firepower." - JC Denton

"And belief in conspiracy theories is not the function of a higher intellect." - BStrong
tinribmancer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 04:14 PM   #1654
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by tinribmancer View Post
I am. Please, do tell us some more theories. Are you sure that the Zionists & Bigfoot aren't involved in any of this?
The latest in enhancement of fifth generation newspaper copies of the Moorman photo show it's Yogi Bear on the grassy knoll, not Big Foot. It's an understandable mistake to make. Fortunately, we have crackerjack conspiracy laymen posing as expert photo analysts on the job coming up with theories as needed.

Not sure if Yogi Bear was a Zionist, however. Perhaps our current conspiracy theorist can divine that from the extant autopsy photos or tracing back Yogi Bear's family tree.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 28th September 2017 at 04:51 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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 04:48 PM   #1655
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report, based on measurements taken at the autopsy, is evidence.
When properly interpreted by experts, certainly. When laymen do it? Not so much. Guess which category you fall into? So cite the conclusions of the experts, not your own conclusions. C'mon. Give it a try. Nothing else has worked for you thus far. Try something new.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Corroborating statements from the autopsy witnesses is considered evidence. Why are you scared of acknowledging this basic fact?
I haven't seen anyone deny that statements from witnesses are evidence. However, that 'corroborating' in the above is begging the question. You're cherry-picking some recollections from 15 or 35 years after the fact and claiming those recollections 'corroborate' your interpretation. You're ignoring the other witnesses who don't 'corroborate' your interpretation, and who disagree entirely with your cherry-picked witnesses. You're also ignoring the expert conclusions of ALL the pathologists who examined JFK's body or the extant autopsy materials in reaching your own exclusive conclusions about the assassination. In fact, it's so different from anything else proposed to date you might want to consider trademarking it(tm).


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
This is different than a Parkland hospital doctor seeing Kennedy's head from an angle that made his large wound look more occipital than parietal, the autopsy doctors peeled his scalp back, measured everything, studied his skull.
Really? Measured everything? Then you should have no problem citing exactly how many centimeters the entry wound in the back of the head was above the EOP. Please remember 'slightly' is not a measurement.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
And actually, I forgot to mention that the X-rays and photographs can be used to provide evidence of the EOP wound.
And according to you, you've only been studying the JFK assassination for about two years. Yet you forget stuff. But deny / ignore that witnesses could forget and then recreate memories from whole cloth 15 or 35 years after the event, and that their recollections from decades after the event are not worth the time it took to gather them.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1. The bruises on Kennedy's neck apparent on the photographs, consistent with a skull base fracture or a bullet traveling down the neck.
Really? I mean, really? According to which pathologist(s) who studied the extant materials or which pathologists who had JFK's body in front of them? Which experts reached this conclusion?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
2. The cavity of air in the neck area shown on the X-rays, likewise.
Again, which pathologists thought this was a remnant of a head shot?


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
3. The possible bullet fragment in the upper neck identified by Cyril Wecht.
Consistent with a shot that entered the upper back and exited the throat at best, entirely illusory at worst. 'Possible bullet fragment' doesn't translate well into evidence. Except for conspiracy seekers, apparently.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You are grasping at straws.
Projection. That's all you've done since you started posted here.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
The autopsy report indicates a LOW entry wound in the head, near the EOP.
It says 'slightly above the EOP'. Please tell us how far 'slightly' is. Be precise, and don't guess and don't tell us what you think they meant. Tell us that measurement.


Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
All other statements from the autopsy participants and witnesses point to a lower wound.
Even if true (and it's not, as many witnesses recalled a massive wound in that EOP location, contrary to your favorite theory you've been advancing here), that does not eliminate the bullet exiting the top of the head as seen in Z313. The path down through and out the throat is entirely your interpretation, no one else's, and involves TWO different magic bullets and one REALLY DELAYED REACTION.

1) The delayed reaction of JFK - he is shot in the back of the head, the bullet exits his throat somewhere early in the shooting sequence (Z190 - Z224, I believe you've said)... yet somehow JFK fails to realize he's been shot in the head, only points to the exit wound in this throat and then collapses five seconds later when his head explodes.

2. You have a back wound in JFK but no bullet recovered in the body and not found on the President's stretcher or anywhere else. Why did this bullet vanish? Magic Bullet #1.

3. You conjecture a separate head shot from the right front (apparently - you've never actually specified a shooting location). Only you can see the evidence of this. It eluded all the pathologists who examined JFK's body and all the pathologists who reviewed the extant autopsy materials and found evidence of only one shot to the head, entering the back of the head and exiting the top-right side of the head. Magic Bullet #2.

You still have some work to do. Your speculations about what certain disparate pieces of evidence mean and your attempt to stitch these disparate pieces of evidence (some of them very untrustworthy) into a cohesive whole leaves a lot of unanswered questions in its wake, not to mention are contradicted at every turn by stronger evidence and expert's conclusions. These questions you have never attempted to answer, let alone acknowledge.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 04:55 PM   #1656
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
Uhhh!!?? Actually I was referring to the alternate method of nailing jebus. That sounded interesting. This diatribe not so much.
Our resident CT might have some theories about that. After all, all the eyewitness testimony is recorded in something called 'the new testament'. Since he favors eyewitness testimony recorded decades after the fact and laymen's interpretations, he might be the go-to expert layman right here in this thread to ask.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto
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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 08:53 PM   #1657
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
The funny thing is that in JFK-CT history NOBODY has ever postulated a second, secret GSW to the head. It's either a shot from the Grassy Knoll or the Dal-Tex building, and weather the shot came from the back or the front. There have been some elaborate triangulation theories that border on a circus act, but a second GSW takes the cake.

It's daft.

I get wanting this to be a conspiracy. JFK meant a lot to many people, and the idea that a dork like Oswald could take his life is hard to swallow. So if you want to pretend then you have to start with the facts:

6.5x52mm rounds fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
A 6.5 Carcano rifle is recovered from 6th floor of the TSBD
The rifle belongs to TSBD employee Lee Harvey Oswald.
LHO has fled the scene immediately after the shooting.
LHO kills DPD Officer Tippet
LHO pulls revolver on DPD Officer in Texas Theater during apprehension.

Oswald killed JFK.

What does that leave the intellectually honest CTist?

Honest CT #1: Someone put him up to it.

Who? Anti-Castro Cubans/Cuban Spies/CIA trying to frame Cuba using a Communist/FBI trying to frame Cubans/Actual Communist extremists.

We sat through Bob Baer's History Channel adventure, and as it turns out (thanks to the newly released JFK Assassination file-dump from the National Archives) the CIA leadership believed this too.

If I were going to return to the darkside and write a JFK CT book this is where I'd draw my story from.

Honest CT#2: Oswald was trying to impress someone, likely Cuba, in an attempt to defect to that country.

This one can be merged with Honest CT#1. It can be made to hold water if you view the attempt on General Walker as an initiation to show LHO was a serious contender for whatever rebel group he wanted to suck up to and join.

Honest CT#3: One other person knew Oswald's plan.

This mystery person can either have known what LHO was planning, and didn't take him seriously, or wanted him to succeed.

#3 is the most likely based on the fact that LHO visited firing ranges in the weeks before the assassination. Someone drove him to these ranges.

Unlike a 2nd gunman in Dealey Plaza, all of these CT's can be made plausible if the story is told right. Sure, you still have to prove them, or at least build a solid enough narrative so that they last a few weeks until picked apart. You won't see anyone advance any of these theories because each one requires a lot of reading, and leg-work in Dallas, and New Orleans as you track down leads (questionable or otherwise).
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 08:54 PM   #1658
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Yeah ok I'M the one obsessed with the word "slightly" in the official autopsy report, as in "2.5 centimeters and slightly above the external occipital pertuberance". In reality, the first rational common-sense presumption is that this means low in the head pretty darn close to your external occipital pertuberance. YOU lone nutters are the ones who seem as content as ever getting when the idea gets further pounded into you that your cowlick entry theory is rendered utterly untrue when you view the vast amount of evidence for the EOP wound.

Really, most rational people educated about Kennedy's shooting would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound whether or not the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with it. The EOP wound could only probably be compatible with the official evidence by most likely having a shot entering there and not causing a lot of damage to the cerebellum. Unless you want to speculate that a shot from the Sixth Floor could have somehow entered the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head, it looks like this would mean a totally separate gunshot caused the large wound on the top right-side of the head. Many have noted that the x-rays and photographs are not a satisfactory look at the full nature of Kennedy's wounds, and that is probably because witness evidence from the autopsy indicates that several films have gone missing.

There is no strong evidence that the official evidence can not be compatible with the EOP wound. So far, there is no reason to believe that anything had to be faked for this wound to exist.

Last edited by MicahJava; 28th September 2017 at 08:57 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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 09:38 PM   #1659
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
I note an absence of accurate measurement for the word “slightly”.
__________________
@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 Back to Top
Old 28th September 2017, 10:21 PM   #1660
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah ok I'M the one obsessed with the word "slightly" in the official autopsy report, as in "2.5 centimeters and slightly above the external occipital pertuberance". In reality, the first rational common-sense presumption is that this means low in the head pretty darn close to your external occipital pertuberance. YOU lone nutters are the ones who seem as content as ever getting when the idea gets further pounded into you that your cowlick entry theory is rendered utterly untrue when you view the vast amount of evidence for the EOP wound.
2.5 cm above and to the right the Occipital Protuberance (not Pertuberance) is what it says. The film evidence shows JFK's head bowed down, which is makes the wound consistent with a shot from the 6th floor. If his head was level you'd have a case, but it wasn't. The entry wound is consistent with the position of Kennedy's head at the moment of impact.

You have nothing.

Quote:
Really, most rational people educated about Kennedy's shooting would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound whether or not the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with it.
That's not education, that's indoctrination.

The X-Rays and photographs from the autopsy either support the conclusions or they don't. They are immutable evidence. Only the delusional would continue to believe something where the photographic data debunks.

Quote:
The EOP wound could only probably be compatible with the official evidence by most likely having a shot entering there and not causing a lot of damage to the cerebellum.
A bullet can't enter as low as you suggest and not damage the cerebellum, which is how we know the bullet didn't enter there.


Quote:
Unless you want to speculate that a shot from the Sixth Floor could have somehow entered the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head, it looks like this would mean a totally separate gunshot caused the large wound on the top right-side of the head.
Not even remotely possible.

The 6.5x52mm round did the damage recorded by the autopsy.

It's not that your logic fails - you've demonstrated you have no grasp of logic.

You have zero medical background and you have zero ballistics background, and you believe only CT sources which have all been proven to be flawed. This leaves you intellectually handicapped right out of the gate.

Quote:
Many have noted that the x-rays and photographs are not a satisfactory look at the full nature of Kennedy's wounds,
Just because a lot of stupid people believe something doesn't make it true. In this case what you've just said is that even though you and these "Many" have NEVER SEEN THE PHOTOGRAPHS OR X-RAYS the idea that they prove a single GSW to the head by a 6.5x52mm round means that you all will choose to ignore the factual medical evidence.

In other words you're not interested in the truth, so why are you wasting your time here. The Bigfoot/UFO crowd is more your speed.


Quote:
and that is probably because witness evidence from the autopsy indicates that several films have gone missing.
Lie.

Which photos? Which x-rays? List them.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:27 AM   #1661
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
There is no strong evidence that the official evidence can not be compatible with the EOP wound. So far, there is no reason to believe that anything had to be faked for this wound to exist.
So where did the shot come from? LOL. Why can you CTists never give a straight answer?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:38 AM   #1662
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Really, most rational people educated about Kennedy's shooting would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound whether or not the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with it.
That, I think, is the most bizarre statement I've seen so far in this thread. Taking it apart, it suggests two possible scenarios:
(a) The photographs and X-rays could be compatible with the existence of the EOP wound.
(b) The photographs and X-rays could not be compatible with the existence of the EOP wound.
Your statement is equivalent to a statement that, in either scenario (a) or scenario (b), "most rational people" would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound. Taking case (b), you are therefore claiming that "most rational people" would tend to believe in the existence of a wound whose existence was specifically refuted by the available evidence.

I can only conclude that your definition of the word "rational" is not the conventional one.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:44 AM   #1663
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
 
Tomtomkent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 8,607
Can I play Devil’s Advocate:
If the evidence to hand does not need to be faked to be compatible with an EOP wound...
And the evidence we have is compatible with the KNOWN wound, the canonical wound if you will...
And if earlier in the thread part of Micha’s stated reason for believing the damage to the brain was “impossible” from the lower entry point...

Is it not reasonable to deduce that the evidence Micha does not believe was faked, reasonably points to the canonical wounds?

Further, as we have no evidence of where this other bullet was fired from, or ended up, would it not be a more reasonable assumption that the canonical wounds better fit the evidence that Micha himself offers?
__________________
@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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:52 AM   #1664
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
It seems to me that we're getting a little into the territory of Jabba's Shroud of Turin arguments here. If we have two hypotheses, A and B, and all the evidence is compatible with both A and B except for a subset which is incompatible with B, rational people would conclude that A is the hypothesis favoured by the evidence. It's irrational to say that some of the evidence is compatible with B, therefore B is a tenable hypothesis.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 07:52 AM   #1665
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Yeah ok I'M the one obsessed with the word "slightly" in the official autopsy report, as in "2.5 centimeters and slightly above the external occipital pertuberance".
The understatement of the year. You are the only one who can't visualize the head wound entering the head in the area described in the autopsy and exiting the top right front of the skull. Causing great damage to the skull and brain. There is no evidence of any bullet exiting the throat, with the exception of the back entry wound. There is no evidence of a small wound in the right forehead area, except in the mind of the CT's. No image exists of such a wound, why do you continue to pursue this dead end?
Quote:

In reality, the first rational common-sense presumption is that this means low in the head pretty darn close to your external occipital pertuberance. YOU lone nutters are the ones who seem as content as ever getting when the idea gets further pounded into you that your cowlick entry theory is rendered utterly untrue when you view the vast amount of evidence for the EOP wound.

Really, most rational people educated about Kennedy's shooting would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound whether or not the photographs and x-rays could be compatible with it. The EOP wound could only probably be compatible with the official evidence by most likely having a shot entering there and not causing a lot of damage to the cerebellum. Unless you want to speculate that a shot from the Sixth Floor could have somehow entered the EOP and exited the top-right side of the head, it looks like this would mean a totally separate gunshot caused the large wound on the top right-side of the head. Many have noted that the x-rays and photographs are not a satisfactory look at the full nature of Kennedy's wounds, and that is probably because witness evidence from the autopsy indicates that several films have gone missing.

There is no strong evidence that the official evidence can not be compatible with the EOP wound. So far, there is no reason to believe that anything had to be faked for this wound to exist.
Finally in reality, which eludes your thinking the autopsy descriptions fit the head wound and therefore your hard headed understanding of the precise bullet entry just does not lead to a conclusion of anything other than two of the three shots fired from the TSBD hit JFK. One in the back exiting the throat, one in the back of the head and exiting the right front of the skull. If you study the Zapruder film carefully as the rest of the members contributing to this thread, you will see the massive amount of head damage caused by that round.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 09:58 AM   #1666
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
That, I think, is the most bizarre statement I've seen so far in this thread. Taking it apart, it suggests two possible scenarios:
(a) The photographs and X-rays could be compatible with the existence of the EOP wound.
(b) The photographs and X-rays could not be compatible with the existence of the EOP wound.
Your statement is equivalent to a statement that, in either scenario (a) or scenario (b), "most rational people" would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound. Taking case (b), you are therefore claiming that "most rational people" would tend to believe in the existence of a wound whose existence was specifically refuted by the available evidence.

I can only conclude that your definition of the word "rational" is not the conventional one.

Dave
My scenario: either the official X-rays and photographs are compatible with the EOP wound, or the X-rays and photographs are faked. There's just too much corroborating evidence for the EOP wound.

We already know that there's no photograph of JFK's body that specifically shows no wound in the lower occipital, and that everybody from the autopsy denies that the red spot is an entry wound. We know that, if a bullet did indeed enter the EOP, it had to avoid heavily damaging the cerebellum a la the official brain photographs, then it would be less likely to show up clearly on low-quality X-ray equipment. X-rays of the skull more clearly show missing brain as opposed to missing tissue, so it is very possible that the EOP wound could just not shine through more than a faint shadow.

So there's no way you can show here and now that the X-rays are incompatible with the EOP wound unless you track down and pay a handful of the world's greatest experts in forensic radiology and get them access to the official X-ray films. If you can't shake the belief that there was a wound in the upper cowlick area, then it must coexist with the EOP wound.

Last edited by MicahJava; 29th September 2017 at 10:14 AM.
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 10:37 AM   #1667
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My scenario: either the official X-rays and photographs are compatible with the EOP wound, or the X-rays and photographs are faked. There's just too much corroborating evidence for the EOP wound.
Wow. So you are simply going to reject the evidence we actually have it favour of crap you simply made up out of whole cloth.

I am unsure if a term has even been invented for that.

Oh, wait, Penn and teller did. They even had a program about that very topic. What was the topic name?

[quote=MicahJava;12012631]We already know that there's no photograph of JFK's body that specifically shows no wound in the lower occipital, [quote]No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
and that everybody from the autopsy denies that the red spot is an entry wound.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We know that, if a bullet did indeed enter the EOP, it had to avoid heavily damaging the cerebellum a la the official brain photographs, then it would be less likely to show up clearly on low-quality X-ray equipment.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
X-rays of the skull more clearly show missing brain as opposed to missing tissue, so it is very possible that the EOP wound could just not shine through more than a faint shadow.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So there's no way you can show here and now that the X-rays are incompatible with the EOP wound
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
unless you track down and pay a handful of the world's greatest experts in forensic radiology and get them access to the official X-ray films.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If you can't shake the belief that there was a wound in the upper cowlick area, then it must coexist with the EOP wound.
No.

If you are going to post a stream of utter bollocks that you garnered from a crank site, you could at the very least, provide a public health warning.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...

Last edited by abaddon; 29th September 2017 at 10:39 AM.
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 10:38 AM   #1668
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My scenario: either the official X-rays and photographs are compatible with the EOP wound, or the X-rays and photographs are faked. There's just too much corroborating evidence for the EOP wound.
And you then go on to cite a load of evidence that, according to your judgement, is not incompatible with your pet theory, rather than positive evidence for it. This is where you're getting into the Jabba standard of evidence. The X-rays and photographs you declare fakes wherever you don't agree with you, the lack of damage to the cerebellum you simply try to handwave away, or as in this case, to quietly forget about, and what you end up with is that when you've discarded all the evidence against your pet theory, you're left with no evidence that's incompatible with your pet theory.

As I said, you're using a different definition of "reasonable" than the dictionary one.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 10:39 AM   #1669
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My scenario: either the official X-rays and photographs are compatible with the EOP wound, or the X-rays and photographs are faked. There's just too much corroborating evidence for the EOP wound.
Wow. So you are simply going to reject the evidence we actually have it favour of crap you simply made up out of whole cloth.

I am unsure if a term has even been invented for that.

Oh, wait, Penn and teller did.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We already know that there's no photograph of JFK's body that specifically shows no wound in the lower occipital,
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
and that everybody from the autopsy denies that the red spot is an entry wound.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
We know that, if a bullet did indeed enter the EOP, it had to avoid heavily damaging the cerebellum a la the official brain photographs, then it would be less likely to show up clearly on low-quality X-ray equipment.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
X-rays of the skull more clearly show missing brain as opposed to missing tissue, so it is very possible that the EOP wound could just not shine through more than a faint shadow.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
So there's no way you can show here and now that the X-rays are incompatible with the EOP wound
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
unless you track down and pay a handful of the world's greatest experts in forensic radiology and get them access to the official X-ray films.
No.

Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
If you can't shake the belief that there was a wound in the upper cowlick area, then it must coexist with the EOP wound.
No.

If you are going to post a stream of utter bollocks that you garnered from a crank site, you could at the very least, provide a public health warning.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 11:21 AM   #1670
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
My scenario: either the official X-rays and photographs are compatible with the EOP wound, or the X-rays and photographs are faked. There's just too much corroborating evidence for the EOP wound.
You have not seen ALL of the X-rays therefore you can't say what they do or do not show. The two x-rays that are available show a massive head wound compatible with a 6.5x52mm round.

There is no independent evidence to support your claim.


Quote:
We already know that there's no photograph of JFK's body that specifically shows no wound in the lower occipital
Because per the autopsy the wound is in the to the right and above the occipital. So yay for your research skills.

Quote:
We know that, if a bullet did indeed enter the EOP, it had to avoid heavily damaging the cerebellum a la the official brain photographs, then it would be less likely to show up clearly on low-quality X-ray equipment.
...and how do "we" know that? What is your background in radiology?

Plus, please tell us what the gold-standard on x-ray equipment was in 1963.

Quote:
X-rays of the skull more clearly show missing brain as opposed to missing tissue, so it is very possible that the EOP wound could just not shine through more than a faint shadow.
What are you even trying to say?


Quote:
So there's no way you can show here and now that the X-rays are incompatible with the EOP wound unless you track down and pay a handful of the world's greatest experts in forensic radiology and get them access to the official X-ray films.
And yet here you are speaking like an authority in pathology, radiology, and forensic science. You ignore the experts who have seen the x-rays who support the truth of a single 6.5x52mm round to the head. You can't just listen to people who agree with you, you have to look at all of the facts, and they all bury Oswald as the lone shooter.

At least he didn't shoot himself in the foot.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:23 PM   #1671
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
And you then go on to cite a load of evidence that, according to your judgement, is not incompatible with your pet theory, rather than positive evidence for it. This is where you're getting into the Jabba standard of evidence. The X-rays and photographs you declare fakes wherever you don't agree with you, the lack of damage to the cerebellum you simply try to handwave away, or as in this case, to quietly forget about, and what you end up with is that when you've discarded all the evidence against your pet theory, you're left with no evidence that's incompatible with your pet theory.

As I said, you're using a different definition of "reasonable" than the dictionary one.

Dave
Dave, do you actually think that all three doctors and six other autopsy participants were all simultaneously wrong about the location of the small head wound?
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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:51 PM   #1672
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Duplicate post.
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 29th September 2017 at 06:02 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 Back to Top
Old 29th September 2017, 05:56 PM   #1673
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you actually think that all three doctors and six other autopsy participants were all simultaneously wrong about the location of the small head wound?
Name the nine and cite the testimony. Also be clear to reference how many decades after the fact they gave those statements. Tell us why we should accept your word about what they said. After all, we've seen how you counted Dr. Burkley as a witness for conspiracy, when he actually said his testimony would eliminate arguments for a second shot to the head.1

While you're at it, tell us why you discount the remaining autopsy witnesses and what they said, and how that doesn't amount to cherry-picking only the statements that agree with you. I would say it establishes that the witnesses recollections from that long after the assassination can be established to be unreliable by the wide variations in what they recall.

Hank
____________
1 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=361 (from June of 2017)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1905 (from October of 2016)

Among many other corrections to this very point - no matter how many times the truth of the matter was pointed out to you, you continued to name Burkley as a two-shots to the head witness. In fact, despite those corrections above (and many others to the same point) as recently as August of 2017 you were again naming Burkley as a two-shots to the head witness here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post11959209

You wrote in the above: "Dr. Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician who witnessed the autopsy, said several times that he either suspected or believed that more than one bullet entered the head."

This, after Burkley's specific words about that were quoted back to you NUMEROUS TIMES: "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."


Your goal appears to keep posting untruths until we simply give up trying to correct your nonsense.
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 29th September 2017 at 06:07 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 Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 02:50 AM   #1674
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 34,249
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you actually think that all three doctors and six other autopsy participants were all simultaneously wrong about the location of the small head wound?
No, I think it's just you.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 04:24 AM   #1675
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 20,071
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you actually think that all three doctors and six other autopsy participants were all simultaneously wrong about the location of the small head wound?
Do you think three doctors and six other autopsy participants can be wrong in guessing how many marbles are in a glass jug? How about when trying to recall how many marbles were in there, years afterwards?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 12:31 PM   #1676
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,733
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Dave, do you actually think that all three doctors and six other autopsy participants were all simultaneously wrong about the location of the small head wound?
Nobody would think that occurrence, just you apparently.

Last edited by bknight; 30th September 2017 at 01:34 PM.
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 Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 03:37 PM   #1677
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
No, I think it's just you.

Dave
I thought you were caught up in the discussion. Here is a model skull showing where the autopsy doctors placed the entry wound versus where the HSCA forensic pathology panel wanted the entry wound.



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 Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 03:42 PM   #1678
MicahJava
Illuminator
 
MicahJava's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by HSienzant View Post
After all, we've seen how you counted Dr. Burkley as a witness for conspiracy, when he actually said his testimony would eliminate arguments for a second shot to the head.1

While you're at it, tell us why you discount the remaining autopsy witnesses and what they said, and how that doesn't amount to cherry-picking only the statements that agree with you. I would say it establishes that the witnesses recollections from that long after the assassination can be established to be unreliable by the wide variations in what they recall.

Hank
____________
1 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=361 (from June of 2017)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...postcount=1905 (from October of 2016)

Among many other corrections to this very point - no matter how many times the truth of the matter was pointed out to you, you continued to name Burkley as a two-shots to the head witness. In fact, despite those corrections above (and many others to the same point) as recently as August of 2017 you were again naming Burkley as a two-shots to the head witness here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...9#post11959209

You wrote in the above: "Dr. Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician who witnessed the autopsy, said several times that he either suspected or believed that more than one bullet entered the head."

This, after Burkley's specific words about that were quoted back to you NUMEROUS TIMES: "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."


Your goal appears to keep posting untruths until we simply give up trying to correct your nonsense.
Why do you tell lies that are so easy to disprove? You're just taking a snippet of a quote out of context. What he was saying there was basically "If the brain had been properly sectioned, we could know whether or not more than one bullet entered Kennedy's head".

Here is the full collection of relevant material from Dr. Burkley:

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 client’s 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

Last edited by MicahJava; 30th September 2017 at 03:46 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 Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 04:10 PM   #1679
Axxman300
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 6,863
Dr. Buckley WAS NOT A PATHOLOGIST. He worked on living people. Dr. Buckley thinks there was a conspiracy and that taints his opinion - and YES, people can hide behind their profession and still be wrong.

Buckley thinks the second bullet came from the front, from Badgeman, from the Grassy Knoll.

Buckley is not qualified to make a forensic conclusion and my than I am.

The brain was not sectioned at the request of Jackie Kennedy (who was IN THE CAR), and RFK to comply with the Catholic faith. This is why the brain was interred with the body when it was moved to its final resting place.

Take it up with Bobby and Jackie.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 30th September 2017, 04:32 PM   #1680
HSienzant
Philosopher
 
HSienzant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Never Mind
Posts: 5,074
Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Why do you tell lies that are so easy to disprove?
I await it your evidence of disproof and of my lies. You haven't presented any yet. Your arguments were discussed previously. It's not evidence. It's your argument about what the evidence might mean, if one squints hard enough and looks at it through conspiracy goggles.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
You're just taking a snippet of a quote out of context.
Then quote it IN CONTEXT. Not your view of what he said, what he actually said. You're accusing me of taking his actual words out of context. I quoted his actual words. You don't prove your claim by telling us what you think Burkley meant. You prove your claim by quoting his actual words IN CONTEXT. Now, quote his actual words surrounding his claim that two shots to the head would have been eliminated. Put that in context for us.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
What he was saying there was basically "If the brain had been properly sectioned, we could know whether or not more than one bullet entered Kennedy's head".
That's your fervent wish of what he meant, but what he actually said was: "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."

Please, quote the rest of the memo and put it in context for us. All you did above was tell us what you want to believe he meant.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Here is the full collection of relevant material from Dr. Burkley:

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." [emphasis added]

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 again Burkley, when asked, referenced only ONE bullet to the head.

NOT TWO.

Don't you even read your own quotes? His "I would not care to be quoted on that" is no more important than a 'no comment' remark. You don't get to ignore his reference to one bullet to the head and pretend his declining to answer further questions is somehow evidence of two bullets to the head.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
Official memo from HSCA staffer Richard Sprauge:
You're still cutting and pasting without reading or understanding. This is at least the third time I've pointed out Sprague is misspelled above.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Illig said nothing about how many bullets Burkley thought hit JFK in the head. This is another example of you squinting really hard through those conspiracy goggles to see what you want to see.



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's opinion was there was ONE bullet that struck JFK in the head. Do you even understand what you post?



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."
Yes, this is what I quoted to you. Do tell us the rest of the quote and put it in context. You claimed I took it out of context and you would prove I was lying. So show us the rest of the context. You won't, because his words are clear. If he had testified, the conspiracy nonsense about two shots to the head would have been eliminated. Not confirmed. Not supported. Eliminated.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
1977 HSCA interview report:"...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...."
Yes, this is where Burkley is talking about what he did the night of the autopsy, and the directions he gave before the autopsy was completed. His reference to 'bullet or bullets' doesn't mean anything except Burkley at that time was unsure of what the autopsy would reveal when completed, so he naturally left open the possibility of additional shots at that time in his instructions. If he had only referenced 'the bullet' in his instructions to the autopsy surgeons, conspiracy theorists like yourself would be asking "How could he know how many bullets struck the President's head before the completion of the autopsy?" And then concluding, "He must have been part of the original conspiracy!"

I know how CT minds work.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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. [emphasis added]
He testified to House Committee staffers, didn't he? Didn't you quote from a HSCA memo of his interview? You referenced it as "1977 HSCA interview report" above. Didn't he also execute an affidavit in his own words to the HSCA? Is Hurt being less than honest here? The HSCA sought, and obtained, Burkley's testimony and YOU QUOTED A PORTION OF IT. Do you think Hurt's words should be accepted at face value? Or is he being less than honest and fudging the truth?

You accused me of lying, but it's your own sources that are lying. And your own sources prove that.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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.
Conspiracy does NOT equal two shots to the head. Please read more carefully. Where does Burkley ever say, unequivocally that there were two shots to the head? He never does. Moreover, this is simply Hurt's view of what transpired, at best.



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
Really? What's that obscure exchange? Can you quote it? And put it in context for us? What did Hurt say about this obscure exchange?



Originally Posted by MicahJava View Post
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."
Again, a "NO COMMENT" does not translate into "Two Shots to the Head!" no matter how hard you squint through your conspiracy goggles.

Where's the evidence of Burkley affirming two shots to the head? We have multiple references to one shot to the head, a couple of no comments that you try to present as somehow evidence of two shots, a reference to his belief in a conspiracy which you again try to present as somehow evidence of two shots, and his statement about the instructions he gave the autopsists before the autopsy was completed -- when he couldn't have known how many shots hit the President in the head.

From this mish-mash of references to one bullet, refusals to talk, mention of conspiracy, and his reference to his instructions before the completion of the autopsy, you somehow seem convinced that becomes evidence of Burkley's belief in two shots to the head, and you insist upon that interpretation of Burkley's words despite his clear statement to the contrary: "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."

And then you pretend I took that out of context, but never quote the remainder of the memo to provide the greater context. You claim I lied, and say you can prove it. Let's see your evidence that Burkley believed two shots struck JFK's head.

It's not anything you've presented to date.

Hank
__________________
I have never ”refused” to provide evidence. I provide evidence if requested to do so in a specific and relevant manner.

Hanks ”method” [of requesting evidence] is not going to [get me to] provide any evidence since it has a completely different purpose. To create the the illusion of me not providing evidence when requested to do so.
- Manifesto

Last edited by HSienzant; 30th September 2017 at 05:22 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 Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

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 08:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

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.