Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[bknight]

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.

And indeed that is exactly what the autopsy indicated with one skull piece received from Dallas had a semicircular external beveling. This is classic MJ posting evidence for what the autopsy reported and then saying this information is "tainted". The trajectory of the bullet with JFK's head tilt precisely fits a trajectory from the sixth floor of the TSBD, no issue here except in your mind.

 

[bknight]

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?

What part of the autopsy report are you reading challenged. On page 4 of the report https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

The 15 x 6mm scalp wound that you yourself have mentioned and reporting a corresponding wound to the skull with inward beveling. You continue to post contradictory statements and you have the audacity to call anyone having "confusing" posts or attempting to "confuse" others.

 

[MicahJava]

What part of the autopsy report are you reading challenged. On page 4 of the report https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-09.pdf

The 15 x 6mm scalp wound that you yourself have mentioned and reporting a corresponding wound to the skull with inward beveling. You continue to post contradictory statements and you have the audacity to call anyone having "confusing" posts or attempting to "confuse" others.

That's the autopsy report, not the death certificate.

 

[MicahJava]

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

Hank

If you do not want to read John Stringer's testimony, here is a summary by Doug Horne in the book Murder In Dealey Plaza (read/download for free here):

Sorry if I missed a word or two

 

[MicahJava]

And indeed that is exactly what the autopsy indicated with one skull piece received from Dallas had a semicircular external beveling. This is classic MJ posting evidence for what the autopsy reported and then saying this information is "tainted". The trajectory of the bullet with JFK's head tilt precisely fits a trajectory from the sixth floor of the TSBD, no issue here except in your mind.

bknight, the HSCA's Sniper's Nest trajectory assumes that their interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are true. Do you think a five-inch skull cavity is all you need to properly remove a brain? No? Well that just about debunks the HSCA's interpretation.

 

[MicahJava]

Let's review a list of witnesses that provide evidence that Humes, Boswell, and Finck lied about how early they discovered that Kennedy's tracheotomy incision was created over a bullet wound (I may have missed a couple, idk):

1. George Barnum, personal written account 11/29/1963

2. Dr. Malcolm Perry (Parkland Hospital) initially remembered that he made contact with Humes on late Friday night 11/22/1963, and only conceded that it could have been 11/23/1963 morning. He was not asked to specify if it could have been as late as 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM as Dr. Humes has indicated. He also specified that he had two separate phone calls with Dr. Humes, first one was discussing the throat wound, second one discussing other matters. Dr. Humes has always said that he recalls one phone call with Dr. Perry, not two. WC 3/25/1964, WC 3/30/1964, HSCA 1/11/1978

3. Dr. Burkley has twice flubbed while being interviewed and said something that indicates they knew about the original tiny throat during the autopsy. In his HSCA interview, he actually changed his mind in the middle of being interviewed and went back to saying they never knew about it. Baltimore Sun 11/25/1966, HSCA 8/17/1977

4. The CBS memo from 1/10/1967 reporting that Dr. Humes personally knew Jim Snyder (of CBS) and told him that he took an X-ray at the autopsy of a probe going from Kennedy's back wound, curving, then emerging from the throat wound.

5. Joe Hagan, The Death of a President by William Manchester (1967)

6. Tom Robinson, HSCA 1/12/1977, ARRB 6/21/1996

7. John Stringer, HSCA 8/17/1977, ARRB 7/16/1996

8. Richard Lipsey, HSCA 1/18/1978

9. John Ebersole, HSCA 3/10/1978, David Mantik 12/2/1992 (says that Ebersole told him the same thing in "previous conversations")

10. Robert Knudsen (White House photographer), HSCA 8/11/1978

11. Dr. Paul Peters (Parkland Hospital), Ben Bradlee interview 5/1/1981

Half-witness: Dr. Robert Karnei, told Harrison Livingstone on 8/27/1991 that he thought the throat wound was discovered by the doctors "around midnight", but contradicted himself when he denied knowing about the original throat wound during the autopsy to HSCA 8/23/1977, ARRB 3/10/1997

Note: Some have argued that Dr. Burkley (White House physician) almost certainly would have learned about the wound at Parkland Hospital.

Note 2: Some have argued that the autopsy participants should have been informed about the throat wound from media reports being broadcast on the radio starting with Dr. Perry's news conference.

 

[MicahJava]

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.

Your comment is already answered by the one you were responding to. It's not very significant that the death certificate doesn't mention a bullet wound in the throat. It could have an innocent explanation, but I tend to think it was a "we'll figure out this thing later" mentality.

 

[bknight]

That's the autopsy report, not the death certificate.

They didn't perform the autopsy, just what they knew from the time the body was in the hospital and they were attempting to life saving methods. And they never attempted to find any head wounds. So why would the death certificate not mentioning a small entry hole be suspicious?
What they did indicate on it was that JFK dies as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the head and back, by a high powered rifle. Again nothing suspicious here either.

 

[bknight]

Let's review a list of witnesses that provide evidence that Humes, Boswell, and Finck lied about how early they discovered that Kennedy's tracheotomy incision was created over a bullet wound (I may have missed a couple, idk):

1. George Barnum, personal written account 11/29/1963

2. Dr. Malcolm Perry (Parkland Hospital) initially remembered that he made contact with Humes on late Friday night 11/22/1963, and only conceded that it could have been 11/23/1963 morning. He was not asked to specify if it could have been as late as 10:30 AM - 11:00 AM as Dr. Humes has indicated. He also specified that he had two separate phone calls with Dr. Humes, first one was discussing the throat wound, second one discussing other matters. Dr. Humes has always said that he recalls one phone call with Dr. Perry, not two. WC 3/25/1964, WC 3/30/1964, HSCA 1/11/1978

3. Dr. Burkley has twice flubbed while being interviewed and said something that indicates they knew about the original tiny throat during the autopsy. In his HSCA interview, he actually changed his mind in the middle of being interviewed and went back to saying they never knew about it. Baltimore Sun 11/25/1966, HSCA 8/17/1977

4. The CBS memo from 1/10/1967 reporting that Dr. Humes personally knew Jim Snyder (of CBS) and told him that he took an X-ray at the autopsy of a probe going from Kennedy's back wound, curving, then emerging from the throat wound.

5. Joe Hagan, The Death of a President by William Manchester (1967)

6. Tom Robinson, HSCA 1/12/1977, ARRB 6/21/1996

7. John Stringer, HSCA 8/17/1977, ARRB 7/16/1996

8. Richard Lipsey, HSCA 1/18/1978

9. John Ebersole, HSCA 3/10/1978, David Mantik 12/2/1992 (says that Ebersole told him the same thing in "previous conversations")

10. Robert Knudsen (White House photographer), HSCA 8/11/1978

11. Dr. Paul Peters (Parkland Hospital), Ben Bradlee interview 5/1/1981

Half-witness: Dr. Robert Karnei, told Harrison Livingstone on 8/27/1991 that he thought the throat wound was discovered by the doctors "around midnight", but contradicted himself when he denied knowing about the original throat wound during the autopsy to HSCA 8/23/1977, ARRB 3/10/1997

Note: Some have argued that Dr. Burkley (White House physician) almost certainly would have learned about the wound at Parkland Hospital.

Note 2: Some have argued that the autopsy participants should have throat wound during the autopsy because Dr. Perry had quickly told the media about it in a press conference, and that fact was being broadcast on radio and television.

Bolded statement makes no sense.
As for your witnesses most of the testimony is dated 33 years after the event and as we all have told you memory of an event however important or traumatic is not the best evidence to use.

 

[bknight]

Your comment is already answered by the one you were responding to. It's not very significant that the death certificate doesn't mention a bullet wound in the throat. It could have an innocent explanation, but I tend to think it was a "we'll figure out this thing later" mentality.

The throat wound was not a cause of death and no need to include it in the death certificate.

 

[MicahJava]

They didn't perform the autopsy, just what they knew from the time the body was in the hospital and they were attempting to life saving methods. And they never attempted to find any head wounds. So why would the death certificate not mentioning a small entry hole be suspicious?
What they did indicate on it was that JFK dies as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the head and back, by a high powered rifle. Again nothing suspicious here either.

I think you're confused about... everything.

 

[HSienzant]

Deleted Duplicate Post

 

[MicahJava]

Bolded statement makes no sense.
As for your witnesses most of the testimony is dated 33 years after the event and as we all have told you memory of an event however important or traumatic is not the best evidence to use.

Fixed.

And apparently you enjoy straight-up lying about something that anybody who can read higher up on the page knows you're wrong about.

 

[HSienzant]

If you do not want to read John Stringer's testimony, here is a summary by Doug Horne in the book Murder In Dealey Plaza (read/download for free here):
[SNIP HORNE'S UNPROVEN ASSERTIONS]

Sorry if I missed a word or two

Are you serious? I read his testimony and quoted it. I provided a link to the exact source.

You pretend otherwise.

The only one NOT reading the testimony and only citing a conspiracy source (Doug Horne? Really?) is YOU.

Bottom line: You have no clue what evidence is. Quoting what Horne wrote isn't evidence. Quoting what Stringer said is evidence. You have cited an assertion by Horne, but it is readily apparent you did nothing -- NOTHING -- to verify it. You simply accepted him at his word.

Here's my post, not only QUOTING STRINGER'S TESTIMONY, but also CITING THE SOURCE, which you pretend I never read. There's a word for someone who repeatedly tells untruths. I understand I'm forbidden from using that word here.

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.

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

 

[bknight]

I think you're confused about... everything.

Not confused about the event and how it occurred as you are one shooter, three shots one miss two hits one to the back and one to the head. All the hits have precise trajectories to the sixth floor of the TSBD. No evidence whatsoever of multiple shooters.
So what's your problem?

 

[MicahJava]

I read his testimony and quoted it. I provided a link to the exact source. You pretend otherwise.

The only one NOT reading the testimony and only citing a conspiracy source (Doug Horne? Really?) is YOU.


Here's my post, QUOTING STRINGER.



Bottom line: You have no clue what evidence is. Quoting what Horne wrote isn't evidence. Quoting what Stringer said is evidence. You have cited an assertion by Horne, but it is readily apparent you did nothing -- NOTHING -- to verify it. You simply accepted him at his word.

Hank

Wowa. Like I said, I may have missed a word earlier. My point still stands. One of the biggest anomalies in the autopsy evidence and everybody should know about it.

 

[MicahJava]

The throat wound was not a cause of death and no need to include it in the death certificate.

First decent point you've made in your whole entire JREF career.

The Death Certificate cannot be used as evidence that the Dr.'s were ignorant about the throat wound until a later Saturday phone call.

 

[bknight]

First decent point you've made in your whole entire JREF career.

The Death Certificate cannot be used as evidence that the Dr.'s were ignorant about the throat wound until a later Saturday phone call.

No, the isn't correct as this is not JREF, but ISF, however there have many more decent points that you have ignored and run away from.

 

[HSienzant]

bknight, the HSCA's Sniper's Nest trajectory assumes that their interpretation of the open-cranium photographs are true. Do you think a five-inch skull cavity is all you need to properly remove a brain? No? Well that just about debunks the HSCA's interpretation.

Asked and answered over a dozen -- no exaggeration -- times.

You have ignored every attempt to set the record straight and merely reiterate your own faulty interpretation of the testimony.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Your comment is already answered by the one you were responding to. It's not very significant that the death certificate doesn't mention a bullet wound in the throat. It could have an innocent explanation, but I tend to think it was a "we'll figure out this thing later" mentality.

Sorry, nobody cares what you think.

Wait, what? It's not significant that the death certificate from 11/23/63 doesn't mention the throat wound, but it is significant that a hearsay account purportedly executed 11/29/63 does mention it?

The fact of the matter is you have a hearsay account that purportedly sources Burkley, and an official death certificate signed by Burkley that contradict each other.

And of course you credit the hearsay account and discredit the official historical document.

You're a conspiracy theorist, of course you do that.

Hank