Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[BStrong]

I think you're the one who is either confused or trying to confuse others.

You're confused enough as it is.

Anyone else involved in the assassination where you'd wish to simultaneously question their veracity and cite them as a source?

 

[turingtest]

I said that I DON'T think the X-rays or photographs are faked. They can be compatible with the EOP wound, if not prove it. If the X-rays or photographs were ever proven to be incompatible with the EOP wound, only then I would then think that they are faked.

Dear lord. Look, wherever the wound was, it was compatible with the expert and informed conclusion of the doctors at the autopsy that it was consistent with one bullet from LHO's position. When you decide that the EOP location isn't compatible with that conclusion, you're simply substituting your inexpert and uninformed opinion for theirs without ever having done any more than assert it (over and over and over, as if the repetition will somehow lend it weight). Then, to top it off, you make your assertion an unfalsifiable one by proclaiming that any X-ray or photographic evidence that would prove it wrong must be faked.

This one note you're singing is just...boring.

 

[HSienzant]

So there is both evidence for a shot before Z190 and no witness evidence of a shot before Z190-224.

Ok.........





Not an answer, merely another deflection by you. Try answering the question asked, which dealt with the argument you raised:

Reminder, it dealt with the size of the wound on the back of JFK's head:


And by the way, I thought you argued for the small bullet wound in JFK's head being made at Z190-224?

Now you're referencing the angle at Z313? How come? I thought you argued that was a tangential shot. Can't keep your own arguments straight?

I think you're the one who is either confused or trying to confuse others.

Not an adequate response. It's just another deflection by you.

We all see what you're doing here.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Dear lord. Look, wherever the wound was, it was compatible with the expert and informed conclusion of the doctors at the autopsy that it was consistent with one bullet from LHO's position. When you decide that the EOP location isn't compatible with that conclusion, you're simply substituting your inexpert and uninformed opinion for theirs without ever having done any more than assert it (over and over and over, as if the repetition will somehow lend it weight). Then, to top it off, you make your assertion an unfalsifiable one by proclaiming that any X-ray or photographic evidence that would prove it wrong must be faked.

This one note you're singing is just...boring.

Turingtest, you can't just pretend that the autopsy conclusion of one gunshot to the head is itself evidence of a higher entry wound.

Let's assume that the doctors truly believed that. The small head wound had internal beveling, and the large head wound had external beveling. It may have been a logical conclusion at the time. As the Rydberg drawings show, that trajectory would not be so questionable if Kennedy's head was leaning over at a degree not shown in the Zapruder film.

 

[MicahJava]

Cameras use negatives. The photo print paper is a positive print from the negative and is not in the camera at the time.

John Stringer's ARRB deposition has the whole story.

 

[MicahJava]

Oh my God, that was already asked and answered.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

Do the words "fringe reset" ring a bell?

Hank

That was not even a response. Barnum's diary says that Dr. Burkley personally told him that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was an exit wound. It doesn't matter if it's worded in a confusing way, we know that's what it says. You also incorrectly claimed that the Barnum diary said he was told this before the autopsy.

 

[HSienzant]

That was not even a response. Barnum's diary says that Dr. Burkley personally told him that the autopsy concluded the throat wound was an exit wound.

You asked me for my response ("Tell me what's your explanation for the Barnum diary").

I pointed out I had already provided it months ago, and your bringing it up again was simply a fringe reset.

Here it is again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11933225&postcount=1010

That's still all true.

That it was an exit wound is not in dispute. Your claim that it's an exit wound from a head shot that happened five seconds BEFORE we see JFK's head damage in the Zapruder film is what's in dispute. Your claim that Barnum's diary says that Burkley personally told Barnum anything is likewise untrue.

Here's the entry as you posted it: "We then proceeded to take the casket into the hospital in an orderly fashion. [Dr. Burkley, said, regarding the shots that hit JFK that] "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat".

Who added the parenthetical phrase, MicahJava? Clearly, it's an addition to the actual words in the diary.

It doesn't matter if it's worded in a confusing way, we know that's what it says. You also incorrectly claimed that the Barnum diary said he was told this before the autopsy.

Barnum's report is dated 11/29/63. That's a week after the autopsy. His source for some of this could be anyone and anything.

You yourself noted it was garbled and incoherent in places (quoting you): "But then Barnum had to throw in "The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out". "This shot not coming out"? That sounds like a garbled reference to the original theory on the back wound, a short shot with the bullet squeezing out of it's own entry wound. Could this be a garbled reference to the mythical EOP-throat connection as attested by Lipsey? Nobody can know. Despite the incoherence, this is some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound earlier than claimed."

Moreover, while you credit (based on Barnum's diary) Burkley knowing about the exit wound in the throat during the autopsy, Burkley's own report of 11/22/63 mentions none of that (David Lifton, whom you cite as your source, pointed this out in the same page as your quote). Lifton wrote, in a footnote: "Barnum's account also raises this question: Why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound."

It's curious you don't share any of that with us so we can better make up our own mind about what happened.

All of his claims are hearsay, and some of it (like the shot hitting JFK behind the right ear and not coming out) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy whatsoever. It's not a big leap to say that his other claims (also hearsay) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy either.

But I get it. You're like a drowning man clutching at whatever might keep him afloat. You've got your 33-year after the fact recollection from Stringer, and you've got this week after the autopsy hearsay from Barnum.

What you don't have is any valid evidence.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

That it was an exit wound is not in dispute. Your claim that it's an exit wound from a head shot that happened five seconds BEFORE we see JFK's head damage is what's in dispute.




Barnum's report is dated 11/29/63. That's a week after the autopsy. His source for some of this could be anyone and anything.

You yourself noted it was garbled and incoherent in places (quoting you): "But then Barnum had to throw in "The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out". "This shot not coming out"? That sounds like a garbled reference to the original theory on the back wound, a short shot with the bullet squeezing out of it's own entry wound. Could this be a garbled reference to the mythical EOP-throat connection as attested by Lipsey? Nobody can know. Despite the incoherence, this is some of the most credible evidence that the autopsy doctors knew about the throat wound earlier than claimed."

All of his claims are hearsay, and some of it (like the shot hitting JFK behind the right ear and not coming out) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy whatsoever. It's not a big leap to say that his other claims (also hearsay) don't reflect the findings of the autopsy either.

But I get it. You're like a drowning man clutching at whatever might keep him afloat. You've got your 33-year after the fact recollection from Stringer, and you've got this week after the autopsy hearsay from Barnum.

What you don't have is any valid evidence.

Hank

You are literally making things up. Here is the part in BEST EVIDENCE with George Barnum's 11/29/1963 personal journal entry:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."

Now that I have actually obtained a physical copy of David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE, I now know that autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins is yet another person who remembered hearing about the bullet wound int he throat during the actual autopsy.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, serious question: do you really think John Stringer was mistaken when he examined the official autopsy photographs and said that they aren't on the kind of film stock he always used throughout his entire career as an autopsy photographer?

Again, this does not mean that photographs have been altered in any way besides destroying the ones that would provide clear up some mysteries.

 

[HSienzant]

You are literally making things up. Here is the part in BEST EVIDENCE with George Barnum's 11/29/1963 personal journal entry:

In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwhiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."

Now that I have actually obtained a physical copy of David Lifton's BEST EVIDENCE, I now know that autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins is yet another person who remembered hearing about the bullet wound int he throat during the actual autopsy.

Now that you have a physical copy of BEST EVIDENCE, turn to page 671 and tell us what it says in the first footnote. As I pointed out above (in my edited post), Lifton himself questions the contradiction in Burkley supposedly mentioning this informally over coffee and sandwiches yet failing to put this in his official report.

How do you resolve that conflict? You ignore it, and don't mention it here.

Hilarious.

And how did Burkley know which shots struck the President? That's another unresolved conflict. It appears some of what Barnum put into Burkley's mouth must have come from other sources.

Here's Burkley's own account from 11/27/63 -- five days after he supposedly shot the breeze with Barnum.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0062b.htm
"As we were about to make this turn, something happened forward but we were not exactly sure what had happened, however, we did realize that something was wrong."

Nothing about seeing the President hit with the first and third shots. No details whatsoever. Burkley himself admits he had no clue what had transpired. So how did Burkley relate those details to Barnum on the night of the assassination when he didn't know them even five days later?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Now that you have a physical copy of BEST EVIDENCE, turn to page 671 and tell us what it says in the first footnote. As I pointed out above (in my edited post), Lifton himself questions the contradiction in Burkley supposedly mentioning this informally over coffee and sandwiches yet failing to put this in his official report.

How do you resolve that conflict? You ignore it, and don't mention it here.

Hilarious.

Hank

What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, serious question: do you really think John Stringer was mistaken when he examined the official autopsy photographs and said that they aren't on the kind of film stock he always used throughout his entire career as an autopsy photographer?

Again, this does not mean that photographs have been altered in any way besides destroying the ones that would provide clear up some mysteries.

Hilarious. You owe me about 40 answers to some of my serious questions. You simply ignore any tough questions.

I won't do that. I will ask how his recollection from 33 years after the event can be trusted.

Did Stringer always use the same kind of film stock -- always?

Wouldn't his job, wherever he was stationed or worked, provide the film?

Wouldn't the cameras - and therefore the film - be different from location to location?

Here's what Stringer actually testified to at one point (page 39):

[13] Q: In the area of 1963, did you ever use a
[14] medium-format camera at autopsies?
[15] A: No. At that time, we were in the process
[16] of changing from a four-by-five to 35 millimeter.
[17] And we were - the commanding officer wouldn't let
[18] us purchase any more four-by-five film, because we
[19] were in the midst of buying the 35 millimeter
[20] cameras and the films.

So we know Stringer used at least two different types of film stock according to his own testimony during his career.

And on page 134, he clearly said he used one type when he actually used another. And he corrected himself.

[10] Q: Under sub A on Exhibit 78, it refers to
[11] Ektachrome E3 film. Does that help refresh your
[12] recollection as the type of film -
[13] A: Yes, it does.
[14] Q: - that was used?
[15] A: Yes.
[16] Q: Earlier, if I recall correctly, you had
[17] said that you understood that it was Kodachrome.
[18] A: Yeah.
[19] Q: It was Ektachrome E3?
[20] A: I would say it was Ektachrome, yes.
[21] Q: And does Ektachrome E3 create color

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stringer.htm

So why do you mention anything Stringer said as if it's solid? It's 33 years after the event, and he thought he used one type, when it was actually another, and he mentioned they were in the process of switching cameras and film types at the time of the assassination.

So why are you insisting Stringer's claim (which you never cited or quoted, by the way) is evidence of anything?

Where can I see that quote by Stringer?

Hank

 

[BStrong]

What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.

That must have been a hell of a wound for a Dr, to discover it over a telephone connection.

 

[MicahJava]

What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.

Oh wait, you mean the 11/23/1963 Death Certificate?

Some important things to note:

1. There is already some question if Dr. Burkley failed to inform the autopsy doctors about the nature of the original throat wound he arguably may have seen or been told about from the Parkland doctors.

2. The December 6 1963 version of the Death Certificate signed by Theron Ward also fails to mention a throat wound. It just says Kennedy "came to his death as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the back of the head."

3. The 11/23/1963 death certificate fails to specifically mention the small head wound.

4. There is evidence that the explanation behind the throat wound was considered malleable at least a few days after the autopsy. The official autopsy report is the second or third draft, those drafts and the notes being burned. How many reports from credible news sources that the autopsy allegedly found that the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot?

 

[HSienzant]

What "official medical report" by Burkley are you referring to?

Tell us what the first footnote on page 671 of BEST EVIDENCE says.

I thought you had a copy.

The throat wound was most likely discovered shortly after midnight via telephone to Dr. Perry, so that technically would be November 23.

That's clearly not what Lifton thinks. Please review page 671 again.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Oh wait, you mean the 11/23/1963 Death Certificate?

Some important things to note:

1. There is already some question if Dr. Burkley failed to inform the autopsy doctors about the nature of the original throat wound he arguably may have seen or been told about from the Parkland doctors.

2. The December 6 1963 version of the Death Certificate signed by Theron Ward also fails to mention a throat wound. It just says Kennedy "came to his death as a result of two gunshot wounds (1) near the center of the body and just above the right shoulder, and (2) 1 inch to the right center of the back of the head."

3. The 11/23/1963 death certificate fails to specifically mention the small head wound.

4. There is evidence that the explanation behind the throat wound was considered malleable at least a few days after the autopsy. The official autopsy report is the second or third draft, those drafts and the notes being burned. How many reports from credible news sources that the autopsy allegedly found that the throat wound was a fragment from the head shot?

Lifton references a 11/22/63 medical report by Burkley that he says contradicts Barnum's account.

But the death certificate of 11/23/63 executed by Burkley also fails to note this transiting bullet wound Barnum supposedly heard about from Burkley.

It mentions no throat bullet wound at all.

It says the President was struck twice, once in the head and once in the upper back about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

Almost like, on the day after the assassination, Burkley still didn't know there was a wound in the front of the throat.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=587#relPageId=2&tab=page

So how could he know at about midnight just after the autopsy?

Ergo, Barnum's account isn't solely from Burkley. And it's still hearsay in any case.

But I get it. You're like a drowning man clutching at whatever might keep him afloat. You've got your 33-year after the fact recollection from Stringer, and you've got this week after the autopsy hearsay from Barnum. What you don't have is any valid evidence.

And it turns out you don't even have Stringer's recollection anymore. A reading of his ARRB testimony (which you referenced but never provided the precise quote) contradicts what you were claiming Stringer said -- that he only used one type of film for all autopsies he photographed.

He himself references a change in camera & film that was taking place about the time of the assassination.

Hank

 

[Tomtomkent]

We interrupt this thread with breaking news: photographs that have been developed are copies, and not original film!
Next up: lack of damage to cerebellum discredits theory about bullet entering EOP and travelling downwards.
Later in the show: shocking revelations about pontiff headwear. Startling tales of ursine sylvanian lavatory discovery.

 

[HSienzant]

We interrupt this thread with breaking news: photographs that have been developed are copies, and not original film!
Next up: lack of damage to cerebellum discredits theory about bullet entering EOP and travelling downwards.
Later in the show: shocking revelations about pontiff headwear. Startling tales of ursine sylvanian lavatory discovery.

 

[HSienzant]

Let me correct one thing: "original autopsy films" probably does not mean the photographs at the National Archives today. We know from the ARRB testimony of John Stringer that at the very least the brain photographs are copies of the original. The originals are missing.

Quote where he says that. Link to his testimony and provide the page number as well.

We'll wait.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I see little point of questioning if John Stringer, even as an old man, could remember the types of film stock he used throughout his entire career. He said the photographs are copies because they aren't made with the film he always used. So not only are some autopsy photographs missing from the official collection, but some of the versions in evidence today are apparently just copies.

Quote where he said that. Provide the link, and the specific page number as well.

Hank