Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[Axxman300]

Something I forgot to add: Dr. George Burkley should be considered a EOP witness because he signed the autopsy face sheet diagram and was most likely the inspiration behind the passage in William Machester's book "...The last bullet has torn through John Kennedy’s cerebellum, the lower part of his brain".

Burkley was not a pathologist. He was supervising the autopsy, not performing it, meaning he was handing the the two pathologists tools and staying out of the way.

 

[bknight]

Burkley was not a pathologist. He was supervising the autopsy, not performing it, meaning he was handing the the two pathologists tools and staying out of the way.

And while most likely getting several "Are we done yet" from the SS between the autopsy room and RFK, and Jackie.

 

[HSienzant]

Burkley was not a pathologist. He was supervising the autopsy, not performing it, meaning he was handing the the two pathologists tools and staying out of the way.

Dr. Burkley was an internist and cardiologist, per the site where he is buried.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ggburkle.htm

Why is that important? Because Dr. Lattimer's qualifications to study the JFK assassination are often denigrated by Conspiracy Theorists. Lattimer served in WWII as a battlefield surgeon on the European continent, so he was very familiar with bullet wounds. After the war, Dr. Lattimer became intrigued by the Lincoln and JFK assassinations, and conducted several experiments using animal tissue or gelatin and bones to attempt to replicate the so-called 'magic bullet'. He was the first non-government medical professional to examine the autopsy photographs and radiographs of JFK. He wrote the book "KENNEDY AND LINCOLN" which was a study of both assassinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Lattimer

Based on his background, and knowledge, and special interest in the JFK assassination, he is much more qualified to opine on the assassination of JFK than Burkley.

So who do conspiracy theorists cite? You know the answer, it's Dr. Burkley.
Who do they denigrate? Dr. Lattimer.

Here's one such derogatory reference to Lattimer.
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Bibliography/Kelin_bibliography.html
Factors in the Death of President Kennedy, by John K. Lattimer
1966. This oft-cited article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Warren apologists love it; it's a urologist's opinion upholding the Warren Commission findings...

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

NO. Your rants are simply rants, bereft of any evidence.

So you're saying that you think the official autopsy report is incorrect? And the statements from the autopsy participants who unquestionably verified the specific detail of the EOP wound location are not providing evidence are not evidence?

Your idea of evidence is the questionable interpretations of twelve or so purported "experts"?

How many of your cowlick entry experts have researched the complexities of the same X-ray and photography equipment used at the autopsy?

How many of your cowlick entry experts supported the ridiculous idea that the open-cranium photographs depict an entry and exit on the margins of a skull cavity only 5 inches wide after the brain had already been removed?

How many of them do we know were actually trained whatsoever in x-ray interpretation for gunshot wounds?

Do you have any photographic study that provides evidence that the "red spot" on the back-of-head photographs is indeed 4-5 inches above the EOP and not only ~2 inches above the EOP?

 

[MicahJava]

Burkley was not a pathologist. He was supervising the autopsy, not performing it, meaning he was handing the the two pathologists tools and staying out of the way.

Like the presence of the military at the autopsy, Burkley's influence may have been downplayed in subsequent Dr.'s testimonies for political purposes.

Either way, Burkley witnessed the autopsy very closely.

 

[MicahJava]

Dr. Burkley was an internist and cardiologist, per the site where he is buried.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/ggburkle.htm

Why is that important? Because Dr. Lattimer's qualifications to study the JFK assassination are often denigrated by Conspiracy Theorists. Lattimer served in WWII as a battlefield surgeon on the European continent, so he was very familiar with bullet wounds. After the war, Dr. Lattimer became intrigued by the Lincoln and JFK assassinations, and conducted several experiments using animal tissue or gelatin and bones to attempt to replicate the so-called 'magic bullet'. He was the first non-government medical professional to examine the autopsy photographs and radiographs of JFK. He wrote the book "KENNEDY AND LINCOLN" which was a study of both assassinations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_K._Lattimer

Based on his background, and knowledge, and special interest in the JFK assassination, he is much more qualified to opine on the assassination of JFK than Burkley.

So who do conspiracy theorists cite? You know the answer, it's Dr. Burkley.
Who do they denigrate? Dr. Lattimer.

Here's one such derogatory reference to Lattimer.
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Bibliography/Kelin_bibliography.html
Factors in the Death of President Kennedy, by John K. Lattimer
1966. This oft-cited article was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and the Warren apologists love it; it's a urologist's opinion upholding the Warren Commission findings...

Hank

Dr. Lattimer actually evidence for conspiracy, including:

A. Concluding that the dense particles in the lower neck area on the JFK X-rays are bullet fragments.

B. Concluding that the dark cavity of air in the lower neck area is consistent with a bullet track.

The Clark Panel concluded the same couple of doozies.

I still believe that Lattimer was incompetent to analyze the complexities of the JFK skull X-rays. After all, he claimed that the X-ray's black void spot on the right forehead mean that area was blasted out, while really it can only mean that a pocket of air between the tissues occurred there.

 

[Tomtomkent]

So you're saying that you think the official autopsy report is incorrect?

No.
We're saying nothing in the autopsy suggests a bullet entered on the EOP, travelled through the base of the skull, and exited the throat.

We are saying the autopsy does not suggest, or conclude, a second bullet hit the head.

The autopsy is quite clear on both these points.

When you suggest the autopsy agrees with you, it suggests you have not read, or understood, the autopsy.

 

[MicahJava]

Still waiting for MicahJava to actually cite some evidence for these previous assertions of his:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12059989&postcount=2426

and we might as well add another more recent one that he likewise ignored entirely:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12060464&postcount=2449

Hank

I can take or leave the concept of CE399 or the official fragments being used in the actual shooting. I mean, what am I supposed to think when a good couple of autopsy witnesses and even the 50-year-old memory of one Secret Service agent who said they saw fragments other that the ones in evidence. Some people like Dennis David have never given a clue that their stories weren't sincere, and he said he personally typed a receipt for four large bullet fragments .

On the other hand, I have a hard time believing that the official fragments could be planted if one of them was found to have a particle of human skin attached to it. So maybe those could be a candidate for a shot entering the top-right side of the head and creating the large head wound. Human skin found on bullets is rare except in the cases of tangential wounds.

I also don't see why CE399 couldn't be a good candidate for creating the common conspiracy interpretation of a shallow back wound.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. Lattimer actually evidence for conspiracy, including:

A. Concluding that the dense particles in the lower neck area on the JFK X-rays are bullet fragments.

B. Concluding that the dark cavity of air in the lower neck area is consistent with a bullet track.

The Clark Panel concluded the same couple of doozies.

I still believe that Lattimer was incompetent to analyze the complexities of the JFK skull X-rays. After all, he claimed that the X-ray's black void spot on the right forehead mean that area was blasted out, while really it can only mean that a pocket of air between the tissues occurred there.

So... you agree with his statements that you think support your claims, but he is incompetent when his conclusions disagree with your theory?

Boy. Isn't that handy for you, that his competence happens to fall along such clear lines.

 

[MicahJava]

No.
We're saying nothing in the autopsy suggests a bullet entered on the EOP, travelled through the base of the skull, and exited the throat.

We are saying the autopsy does not suggest, or conclude, a second bullet hit the head.

The autopsy is quite clear on both these points.

When you suggest the autopsy agrees with you, it suggests you have not read, or understood, the autopsy.

If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility: The small head wound had inward beveling, the large head wound had outward, so they had a place for the EOP shot to go. Let's pretend for a moment that the doctors didn't know full well that Kennedy's throat wound was originally a bullet hole on the night of the autopsy; they didn't have any place for a back entrance wound to go besides speculating that a bullet barely penetrated the back and naturally squeezed it's way out. When they discovered the throat wound, allegedly without having investigated it at all as the possibility of a bullet wound, they had a place for the back shot to exit. Two gunshots, perfectly clean with the three-shot scinareo.

 

[MicahJava]

And while most likely getting several "Are we done yet" from the SS between the autopsy room and RFK, and Jackie.

Dr. Humes continued being present with the body as it was having the Mortician's reconstruction done through the early morning hours. One of the Gawler's Funeral Home people arrived to the autopsy at 11:30 PM, and he described that soon after that one of the three Dr.'s contacted Parkland Hospital and learned about the original throat wound.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you refuse to accept the possibility that the three main autopsy doctors are lying about a few things, then there is also the "accidental misinterpretation" possibility.

Great.
One unproven assertion can be replaced by another unproven assertion?

Let's be clear: Simply stating these possibilities exist, does not offer any credence, nor does it make them better fits for the evidence.

 

[MicahJava]

Great.
One unproven assertion can be replaced by another unproven assertion?

Let's be clear: Simply stating these possibilities exist, does not offer any credence, nor does it make them better fits for the evidence.

Where did the EOP bullet go? There are explanations without anything being faked.

 

[bknight]

MJ, do you know what 7.62 x 52 mm means? What would be the minimum entry hole size?

Is this a small hole?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Dr. Humes continued being present with the body as it was having the Mortician's reconstruction done through the early morning hours.

Which does not mean he was there to, in a position to, or able to, better inspect the evidence, or make more thorough records, than the autopsy.

We certainly have no evidence that his opinions are in any way better informed than the autopsy records.

And, to be honest, this falls at the usual CT hurdle: Had his testimony been more accurate, and his memories more reliable than the records, why would they bother with all those pathologists in the room at all, to do the actual pathological inspection of the body?

You seem to want to make the evidence that supports your theory a priority.

In reality, you should be basing your theory on the context of evidence, and you should certainly understand why others will remind you that some evidence is purely, and simply, trumped.

You won't overturn the autopsy because of outside observers and outlaying memories. There is a reason records are made and kept. There is a reason some evidence is given preference and it should have nothing to do with if it helps the conclusion you seem determined to reach.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Where did the EOP bullet go? There are explanations without anything being faked.

Yes.
"MicahJava is failing to understand where the entry wound is", is one very good explanation that requires nothing to be faked.

By contrast, you have to claim that the autopsy itself was faked "and the three main surgeons are lying about a few things". By your own bench mark, your theory is failing.

On the other hand, a slightly higher entry wound will fit the known photographs, the known xrays, the WC testimony, the ballistics, and common sense.

A bullet enters higher than you keep supposing. The trauma destroys much of the brain, but explains you oft repeated point about the cerebellum being in tact. The trauma causes the massive exit wound, as well as the bevelling.

That a few outlaying sources offered potential other explanations, is not suspect. Why? Because other possibilities are supposed to be considered. But guess what? They are probably wrong, because the totality of evidence is better explained by the WC, with no need to claim anything was faked, or lies, or whatever.

 

[MicahJava]

Dr. Lattimer actually evidence for conspiracy, including:

A. Concluding that the dense particles in the lower neck area on the JFK X-rays are bullet fragments.

B. Concluding that the dark cavity of air in the lower neck area is consistent with a bullet track.

The Clark Panel concluded the same couple of doozies.

I still believe that Lattimer was incompetent to analyze the complexities of the JFK skull X-rays. After all, he claimed that the X-ray's black void spot on the right forehead mean that area was blasted out, while really it can only mean that a pocket of air between the tissues occurred there.

part 2:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16%3Anewviewsonthesamescene

From this it’s clear that Lattimer believed Olivier’s use of the “lower” impact point was the cause of his failure to exactly replicate Kennedy’s wounds. Since Lattimer also claimed he knew “the exact location of the wound of entrance,” one might rightly assume that Lattimer went to his grave convinced that the higher entrance in the cowlick first proposed by the Clark Panel was the authentic entrance location on Kennedy’s skull. But one would be wrong. On August 14, 2006, researcher/writer John Canal, who is convinced that the autopsists were correct about the “low” entrance wound, informed this writer that Lattimer had officially changed his opinion about the entrance. Canal posted two e-mails from Lattimer on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup. These reflected that Lattimer had indeed changed his opinion. On March 24, 2004, Lattimer wrote Canal: “It does seem to me that you and your colleagues have made great progress in investigating these points, and the curved track in the brain is not only reasonable but is probably demonstrable.” On April 27, 2004, Lattimer wrote Canal: “I do not think that the correction about the exact point of entry into Kennedy's head would merit any action from a government official, but (we) would benefit from an article correcting the whole matter, which you could refer to in the literature.”

The man who once claimed he’d “duplicated” Kennedy’s head wound while firing at the “high” entrance location had thereby acknowledged his tests were irrelevant, as he’d been firing at the wrong entrance location.

 

[MicahJava]

TomTomKent, can you make a case for the cowlick entry wound theory?

 

[MicahJava]

So... the diagram that is not to scale, was not the face sheet, shows the bullet hole level to the top of the ears, and was only used as an aide to memory, not a basis of diagnosis, was the inspiration behind a passage about the brain not shown in the diagram?

And on this basis, and not sworn testimony relating, in context, you decide that he is a witness who agrees with your theory?

Can it even be considered hearsay, if a drawing inspires something not shown in the drawing?

Tomtomkent, the autopsy face sheet diagram is translated as meaning a lower head wound. A human EOP is roughly level with the top of your ears, depending on how your head is tilted.

 

[MicahJava]

And William Manchester's conclusion was...

...The book is also the source of a Gawler's funeral home employee that told Manchester that the autopsy doctors contacted Parkland hospital and discovered the throat wound at around midnight.

I wouldn't go sourcing William Manchester's book as evidence for the single-assassin theory.