Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
HSienzant, for yourself and others to get a full context of what Burkley said, here is a compilation of relevant quotes I posted earlier:
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
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
Last edited:
Elagabalus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2013
- Messages
- 7,051
You've done this one to death, let's move on. Why did LHO kill Tippit?
Last edited:
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Where did the bullets come from?
bknight
Master Poster
This is true over longer distances as gravity starts effecting a missile's path, but it does not change the reality of the bullet that killed JFK.
bknight
Master Poster
How do you know what those doctors believed at the time (not 10 years later)of the autopsy?
This is several times? One quote doesn't make several. You will have to cite more comments to make several.
This has been presented to you ad nauseam, you just fail to accept the facts.
You continue to post purely speculative thoughts concerning various parts of the autopsy and the doctors thoughts. When a person says he would not comment on a questions does not mean he agrees/not agrees with that question, again you speculate on the meaning.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry, MJ doesn't believe that windage, bullet drop and coriolis are taught to anybody, ever. Certainly not in the USMC. Nor does MJ realise that for the range of the JFK shot, these are small compensations.
In the case of JFK, coriolis is negligible, bullet drop struggles to reach an inch at target, and windage was negligible at the time. Couple to that the simple fact that the target was heading away and it becomes a simple shot to make. LHO had three attempts.
HSienzant
Philosopher
We saw all these earlier. You still have nothing.
So nothing you can quote about Burkley thinking two shots hit the head. You are *presuming* what you need to prove.
So only a hearsay report once removed of what Sprague was told - not by Burkley - but by another person (Illig) who is at best presumably accurately reporting what Burkley told him, and then Sprague is persumably accurately reporting what Illig said.
Note what Illig doesn't say Burkley said. He doesn't say two or more people took part in the shooting. He only claims Burkley has information "indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated" in the assassination. This information could be nothing more than someone encouraging Oswald. It doesn't mean two shots to the head, and it doesn't mean two or more shooters. Once more, you are *presuming* what you need to prove.
Again, Burkley thinks there was one bullet that struck the head, but only concedes the possibility of there being two (because the brain wasn't sectioned). Not anything definite. Once more, you are *presuming* what you need to prove.
An affidavit signed by Burkley, the sole first-person statement by Burkley you cite. In it, he states two shots to the brain would have been *eliminated* if he had testified. Please look up the meaning of the word *eliminated*. It does not mean what you appear to think it means. This calls into question the other statements attributed to Burkley via hearsay, and shows why hearsay statements generally aren't admissible in court.
Here, and above, Burkley clams to having supervised the autopsy and taking possession of the brain. Thus, if there is any fault with the autopsy surgeons doing an incomplete autopsy, or failing to section the brain, this would be Burkley's responsibility, would it not?
The third paragraph quoted directly above references your first citation, back to the interview of Burkley by McHugh, does it not? We already saw Burkley said nothing you can build into evidence (declining to answer a question doesn't mean he would answer it in the way you want him to).
Burkley's beliefs are not pertinent here. They do not rise to the level of evidence. Once more, you are *presuming* what you need to prove. Burkley did state: "I saw President Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital and during the autopsy at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. There was no difference in the nature of the wounds I saw at Parkland Hospital and those I observed at the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital", which pretty much destroys any claims of body alteration.
All of this from Hurt is just another second-hand hearsay report. Burkley did NOT mention two bullets to the head anywhere to Henry Hurt. All he did was decline to discuss the assassination with Hurt after reportedly saying he believed in a conspiracy. You are *presuming* Burkley would have said something to your liking had he talked more, and you are presuming he declined to talk because he had something to hide. Maybe he was just tired of having words put into his mouth by conspiracy theorists. Exactly what you're trying to do in your post here.
You don't get a free fringe reset whenever you wish. We discussed Burkley's statements in detail months ago. You don't get to wait three or six months to bring it up anew and pretend your arguments have substance.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11528666&postcount=1815
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11560835&postcount=1886
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11564425&postcount=1936
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11565205&postcount=1948
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755259&postcount=2393
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11755292&postcount=2397
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11756263&postcount=2413
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11756882&postcount=2421
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11835439&postcount=3418
Hank
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
The wound to the brain is all cavitation:
https://www.hornady.com/team-hornady/ballistic-calculators/ballistic-resources/terminal-ballistics
The key part being:
In essence, a bullet going through soft tissue has the same effect as dropping a stone into a pail of water - if the stone (bullet) enters the water slowly, the water (tissue) displacement is so gradual that is has little effect on the surrounding molecules. If the stone (bullet) enters the water (tissue) with a lot of momentum, however, the surrounding molecules have to act a lot more quickly and violently, resulting in a splash (temporary cavity). Temporary cavitation is important because it can be a tremendous wounding mechanism.
Both permanent and temporary cavities are greatly affected by a bullet’s design, sectional density, and velocity at the time of impact.
The Carcano round was 160 grains, the rifle barrel had a 1:8 twist ratio, and when each round struck they were still accelerating.
At 300 feet, the range of the final head shot, the trajectory of the 6.5x52mm round is a straight line.
What you see with the head wound is a big, fast bullet striking at 2,700 feet per second passing easily through bone, and encountering the soft, spongy tissue of the brain, and blasting through the other side of the skull.
This is exactly what to expect from this kind of round as is the the first one passing through Kennedy's body, and causing the extensive damage to Connally via the over stabilization of the Carcano round.
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2001
- Messages
- 21,821
OK, you are going to have to help me out. How can the bullet still be accelerating? What is the force that is propelling it?
Rifling will keep it from slowing as quickly, but you are claiming acceleration. What is the force in the forward direction? a=F/m, so you need force.
HSienzant
Philosopher
The bullet had both downward and forward components -- gravity would be pulling it down and therefore providing the acceleration. Although for the short time it was in the air, it wouldn't be a significant addition to the speed of the bullet as it exited the muzzle and might even not exceed the speed lost to air resistance.
Hank
Last edited:
The bullet is going to start slowing down as soon as it leaves the barrel. I went into detail earlier in this (or another JFK) thread. It will not slow down much at 88 yards since it only takes about .2 seconds to reach the target. The change in elevation is not going to matter much either.
ETA; I can't get the JBM online ballistics calculator to function while at work; but if I remember correctly the Carcano's velocity is about 2200 fps at the muzzle slowing to about 2000 fps at 100 yards due to air friction. If it takes about .2 seconds to reach the target this gives us an acceleration of 1000 feet per second squared. The acceleration due to gravity will be meaningless at short range.
Last edited:
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
They could be right or wrong, and those that came along behind them could be right or wrong, and the hobbyists trying to play pin-the-headwound in 2017 w/o any training or experience in the subject matter are more likely to be wrong than anyone else.
To be accurate, you regurgitate someone other CTist's opinion, graphics and animated gifs etc.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
WTF?
Why is acceleration forced to be in only one direction? Is vector math so beyond your grasp?
Axxman300
Philosopher
Thanks for the clarification.
The book on the 6.5x52mm is 2,700 fps. It was 160 grains.
http://www.brownells.com/ammunition...ampaign=itwine&utm_medium=affiliate&source=ir
These days it's a $1.34 per round, and a box of 20 is $26.79, which is twice what Oswald paid for his gun by in 1963.
I'm seeing a lot of lusting after the new 6.5 Creedmore in gun magazines, so maybe with more guys shooting 6.5 the performance of the round will become better known.
Axxman300
Philosopher
I'm obviously wrong here.
What I should have said is that it struck JFK with full force, which at that short range would have had the energy of around 2,150 ft-lb.
I'm not a doctor, but it sounds like bad news for guy who gets nailed by one of these things.
Now you're going back to Burkley? We've covered this, and you persuaded no one the last time you dragged him into the discussion. He wasn't a forensic pathologist, and, as you note, he witnessed but did not perform the autopsy. What he "suspected" or "believed" has no evidentiary value. None.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
The 6.5 Creedmore (6.5 CM for short) is a modified version of the .30 TCU cartridge.
It's a little shorter in case length (48.5mm) than the Cacano (52mm) and is rimlass as opposed to the Carcano, and the 6.5 CM can theoretically be chambered in any semi or full auto platform that is chambered in 7.62 NATO.
6.5 is very well known in the benchrest and extended range (over 1000 yds/meters) precision shooting circles.
My next long range rig will be a rebarrel of my .30-378 to a 6.5 - 378 chamber
- Status