Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hank
Click to expand...

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

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

2. No oak tree obscuring their vision.

3. Thirty feet up instead of the sixth floor

4. Targets two feet square.

5. Stationary targets as opposed to a moving target.

6. Had advantage of shimmed scope for accuracy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hank
Click to expand...

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

1967 oral history interview:

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

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

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

BURKLEY: "And the skull, calvarium."

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

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

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

Official memo from HSCA staffer Richard Sprauge:

From: Richard Sprague To: File March 18, 1977

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

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

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

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

1977 HSCA interview report:

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


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

Burkley's affidavit to the HSCA:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And also wrote in an endnote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is typical with him.

"I want answers!"

Someone posts an answer with a link.

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

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

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

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

Not on this site.

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

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

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

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

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

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

We'll wait.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hank
Click to expand...

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

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

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

We'll wait.

Hank
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

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

Hank
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom