Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

Asked and answered. Ironically enough, by you.

Right here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876344&postcount=357

Hank

Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect. The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect. The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.

So not evidence of what happened then.

Noted.

 

[BStrong]

Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect. The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.

The official term that applies is hearsay.

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. Finck is relaying the jist of what the other doctors told him happened before he arrived. The entire brain could not have been removed out of that 5-inch defect.

Straw man. Nobody is arguing it was.

The skull cavity Dr. Finck saw was much enlarged.

And you quoted how that enlargement happened. Remember?

[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

So not evidence of what happened then.

Noted.

The part where it says "no sawing of the skull was necessary" is probably wrong. Some statements by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell indicate that they may have had to cut some bone to get to the brain. Either way, the cranium was empty when Dr. Finck arrived and he could still see the wound just fine in the intact skull.

From Dr. Finck's 1969 testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw:

"...There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry."

 

[HSienzant]

Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots.

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"...

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

And I'll point out [in bold] why your arguments here are invalid.

1967 oral history interview:

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

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

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

BURKLEY: "And the skull, calvarium."

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

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

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?

Official memo from HSCA staffer Richard Sprauge [sic - Sprague]: From: Richard Sprague To: File March 18, 1977

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

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

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

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?

1977 HSCA interview report: "DR. BURKLEY said the doctors didn't section the brain and if it had been done, it might be able to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes of the possibility of there having been two."

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. In fact, he said he thinks there was only one. Right?

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

So in Burkley's own pen, he says he would have eliminated the two-shots to the head scenario. Right?

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

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?

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.

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?

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

So Burkley said nothing above that establishes two shots to the head. Right?

Most of the above is simply hearsay or merely your conspiratorial assumptions. If someone says "No Comment" (which is essentially what you've cited Burkley saying on multiple occasions) that doesn't mean he's hiding evidence of conspiracy -- that's merely your assumption. The only direct quote from Burkley is the one saying two shots to the head would be ELIMINATED if Burkley testified.

And, of course, this is just more of you doing a conspiracy reset. We've already discussed the additional quotes you offered above previously and shown that they were worthless to establish your argument.


Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The part where it says "no sawing of the skull was necessary" is probably wrong.

HILARIOUS. Finck's testimony is what you've constantly referenced. Now you're picking and choosing the parts you like. And discarding the parts you don't.

From Dr. Finck's 1969 testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw:

"...There were no removals of the wound of entry in the back of the neck, no removal of the wound of entry in the back of the head prior to my arrival, and I made a positive identification of both wounds of entry."

More evidence the cuts to the scalp were more than sufficient to excise the brain. Exactly as you quoted Finck saying:

[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

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

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand. I copied enough for anybody to see for themselves. But I take issue with "...The only direct quote from Burkley is the one saying two shots to the head would be ELIMINATED if Burkley testified."

I don't think that means what you think it means. The full relevant quote is "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated", with a later portion saying "...7. I directed the autopsy surgeons to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets....". Bullet OR bullets, plural. This is just another way of him saying "If the brain had been properly sectioned, that would determine if Kennedy's head had been struck by one bullet or two bullets". He is not saying he would have somehow proved a single shot to the head if he testified to the Warren Commission.

 

[HSienzant]

What in tarnation? That's not what Dr. Finck said happened when he arrived. He said he could examine the hole still sitting there in the intact skull even after the brain had been removed. Not just the scalp, but the underlying skull. And you're supposed to peel back the scalp before working on the skull.

Finck said he was informed all that was necessary to remove the brain was to extend the lacerations in the scalp, because the skull was extensively fragmented.

You quoted Finck saying he was told that.

And again, there is evidence that the skull adheres to the scalp because of the flap of skull photographed in front of the right ear. If the scalp wounds were extended as necessary, why couldn't the brain be removed without sawing away the entry wound?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What in tarnation? That's not what Dr. Finck said happened when he arrived. He said he could examine the hole still sitting there in the intact skull even after the brain had been removed. Not just the scalp, but the underlying skull. And you're supposed to peel back the scalp before working on the skull.

Finck said he was informed all that was necessary to remove the brain was to extend the lacerations in the scalp, because the skull was extensively fragmented.

You quoted Finck saying he was told that.

[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

All along you've insisting otherwise:

The part of the skull some here think is the entry crater would have been chipped off in the process of removing the brain.

And again, there is evidence that the skull adheres to the scalp because of the flap of skull photographed in front of the right ear. If the scalp wounds were extended as necessary, why couldn't the brain be removed without sawing away or removing the evidence of the entry wound?

I pointed this out to you in the prior thread - that only the scalp needed to be cut to remove the brain:

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11807717&postcount=3124

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

More evidence the cuts to the scalp were more than sufficient to excise the brain. Exactly as you quoted Finck saying:

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

Hank

To reflect the scalp to expose the underlying bone, allowing a portion of the skull to be separated in order to remove the brain. A modified version of the standard procedure of removing the brain. Why, what do you think happened?

This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."

"THE WOUNDS

The scalp of the vertex is lacerated. There is an open comminuted fracture of the cranial vault, many portions of which are missing.

The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

The opening of the large head wound, in the right fronto-parieto-occipital region, is 130 millimeters ( mm ) in diameter.

I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosectors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of ENTRANCE."

 

[HSienzant]

I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand. I copied enough for anybody to see for themselves. But I take issue with "...The only direct quote from Burkley is the one saying two shots to the head would be ELIMINATED if Burkley testified."

I don't think that means what you think it means. The full relevant quote is "Had the Warren Commission deemed to call me, I would have stated why I retained the brain and the possibility of two bullets having wounded President John F. Kennedy's brain would have been eliminated", with a later portion saying "...7. I directed the autopsy surgeons to do a complete autopsy and take the time necessary for completion. I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets....". Bullet OR bullets, plural. This is just another way of him saying "If the brain had been properly sectioned, that would determine if Kennedy's head had been struck by one bullet or two bullets". He is not saying he would have somehow proved a single shot to the head if he testified to the Warren Commission.

So still no evidence of two shots to the head in Burkley's statement, contrary to your original claim. All you have is your tortured interpretation of what Burkley must have meant - contrary to the clear meaning of his own words.

Do you remember claiming this:

Kennedy's personal physician Dr. Burkley expressed many times that he either believed or suspected that there were two head shots. [emphasis added]

Hank

 

[OKBob]

This is just another way of [Burkley's] saying "If the brain had been properly sectioned, that would determine if Kennedy's head had been struck by one bullet or two bullets". He is not saying he would have somehow proved a single shot to the head if he testified to the Warren Commission.

You're being illogical here, MJ. In your posting #391, you quote Pierre Finck's unambiguous statement that a single wound to the occipital portion of JFK's skull showed interior-table cratering or beveling, which led him to conclude that there was an entrance wound there. He mentioned no other entrance wound in the skull. So why do you suggest (via a loose reading of Burkley's remarks) that sectioning the brain might have revealed a second bullet wound to the head? How could that possibility exist, given the expert-sworn conclusion about a single entrance wound in the skull?

MJ, consider carefully this particular point because it shows precisely the CT strategy that you need to eliminate unless you wish to remain in woo land: the strategy of imagining some additional procedure that would have laid all questions to rest ("If I ran the zoo") and that would either have confirmed or overturned the vast consilience of evidence and the experts' sworn conclusions.

And since you already doubt the veracity of the autopsy report and the sworn testimony of the autopsists, what would change your opinion if they had also sectioned the brain and come to the same conclusion?

And bear in mind that Admiral Burkley was no expert in this area. He was a personal physician, not a forensic pathologist or anthropologist.

 

[HSienzant]

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

To reflect the scalp to expose the underlying bone, allowing a portion of the skull to be separated in order to remove the brain. A modified version of the standard procedure of removing the brain. Why, what do you think happened?

Finck already told you. The lacerations in the scalp merely had to be extended to remove the brain, according to Humes. You quoted Finck saying that.

[quoting Finck]:The autopsy had been in progress for thirty minutes when I arrived. Cdr Humes told me that he only had to prolong the lacerations of the scalp before removing the brain. No sawing of the skull was necessary.

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

This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity...."

Tell us what you think the bolded words means.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Removed duplicate posting

 

[HSienzant]

I will not argue against your more sanitized interpretations of Burkley's words which have probably already been sanitized beforehand.

Sorry, your arguments about what might have happened don't hold water. In fact, they leak like a sieve. You quoted nothing of substance to confirm your claim that Burkley stated many times he believed in or suspected two shots to the head.

It's all wishful thinking on your part.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Boswell told the HSCA and the ARRB that the red spot was a laceration ....

This is Dr. Finck's earliest recorded description of exactly what happened, in his 1/25/1965-2/1/1965 reports of Kennedy's autopsy to Gen. Blumberg:

"I examined the wounds. The scalp of the back of the head showed a small laceration, 15 X 6 mm. Corresponding to this lesion, I found a through-and-through wound of the occipital bone, with a crater visible from the inside of the cranial cavity. This bone wound showed no crater when viewed from outside the skull. On the basis of this pattern of the occipital bone perforation, I stated that the wound in the back of the head was an entrance."

So according to Boswell and Finck, the "red spot" you reference was a laceration, and according to Finck, that laceration corresponded to the entry wound on the skull underneath.

Doesn't that make the red spot the entry wound on the scalp - the one visible on the back of the head autopsy photos?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

You're being illogical here, MJ. In your posting #391, you quote Pierre Finck's unambiguous statement that a single wound to the occipital portion of JFK's skull showed interior-table cratering or beveling, which led him to conclude that there was an entrance wound there. He mentioned no other entrance wound in the skull. So why do you suggest (via a loose reading of Burkley's remarks) that sectioning the brain might have revealed a second bullet wound to the head? How could that possibility exist, given the expert-sworn conclusion about a single entrance wound in the skull?

MJ, consider carefully this particular point because it shows precisely the CT strategy that you need to eliminate unless you wish to remain in woo land: the strategy of imagining some additional procedure that would have laid all questions to rest ("If I ran the zoo") and that would either have confirmed or overturned the vast consilience of evidence and the experts' sworn conclusions.

And since you already doubt the veracity of the autopsy report and the sworn testimony of the autopsists, what would change your opinion if they had also sectioned the brain and come to the same conclusion?

And bear in mind that Admiral Burkley was no expert in this area. He was a personal physician, not a forensic pathologist or anthropologist.

Tangential wounds do not have easily recognizable entrances or exits. The large head wound could be tangential. But focusing on the large head wound right now would be a distraction, because it is clear that everybody understands the problems with the original low EOP location for the small head wound. And also, once one has judged all available evidence from the autopsy, including witness statements, one must honestly ask if Finck is really saying everything he knew. Remember in the previous thread we went over the evidence that the doctors knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy as opposed to the next morning (daylight) after the autopsy had completed.

 

[HSienzant]

Tangential wounds do not have easily recognizable entrances or exits.

Nobody but you is talking about a tangential wound. Total red herring.

The large head wound could be tangential.

Except that contradicts your claim that you agree with the autopsy findings.

But focusing on the large head wound right now would be a distraction, because it is clear that everybody understands the problems with the original low EOP location for the small head wound.

Apparently, everybody but you, because you're the only one still pushing that location.

And also, once one has judged all available evidence from the autopsy, including witness statements, one must honestly ask if Finck is really saying everything he knew.

So now your best witness is being less than honest?

HILARIOUS!

Remember in the previous thread we went over the evidence that the doctors knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy as opposed to the next morning (daylight) after the autopsy had completed.

I remember you making some assertions about that, but I don't recall you citing any evidence to that end. Another rather obvious attempt at a conspiracy reset by you.

Now after finding the statements of Finck, Boswell, and Humes don't agree with your theory you've been pushing for the last month or two, you appear ready to toss all three autopsy doctors under the proverbial bus, and are now apparently going to claim they were either withholding evidence that would prove your case or were too inadequate to find the evidence that would prove your case.

Hank

PS: You ignored the points OKBob made entirely.

 

[MicahJava]

Finck already told you. The lacerations in the scalp merely had to be extended to remove the brain, according to Humes. You quoted Finck saying that.

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

Tell us what you think the bolded words means.

Hank

I'm pretty sure your idea violates basic laws of volume and space, and is generally an unprofessional way to go about things. The human scalp doesn't stretch like that. But if you don't believe me, go to the longer testimonies by Humes, Boswell, and Finck through the years. Search for words like "scalp", "reflect", "skull", "brain". They describe in plain English how they reflected the scalp to get to the skull to get to the brain. It was simply a modified version of a normal brain removal procedure like this:

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

#LetTheBrainBreath

So according to Boswell and Finck, the "red spot" you reference was a laceration, and according to Finck, that laceration corresponded to the entry wound on the skull underneath.

Doesn't that make the red spot the entry wound on the scalp - the one visible on the back of the head autopsy photos?

Hank

What kind of switcheroo is this? Finck always denied the cowlick entry theory, in both it's interpretations of the X-rays and the photographs.