Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[BStrong]

The problem is that it is not apparent that the pathologists lied. None of the evidence supports this allegation. ALL of the evidence supports a single GSW to the upper back that exited through the throat: Ballistics, forensic, and fiber evidence is conclusive.

Worse, nothing you have posted suggests anything out of line at any point from the time the body arrived at Bethesda until the time it left. You ignore the huge cadre of Kennedy staffers present the entire time this all went down who never let the body out of their sight, people loyal to JFK and RFK - who was also there .

At the time of the autopsy Oswald was in custody of the Dallas Police, there was no reason to lie about a throat wound because at any time he could have confessed to the detectives, there was no way to predict, or stop this from happening.

None of your theories work in the real world.

I'm waiting to see if mj will cite Paul Krassner's article from The Realist detailing LBJ's "alteration" of the throat entry wound prior to being sworn in as POTUS..

 

[MicahJava]

What is apparent to the CTist doesn't hold much water IRL.

You're been at this on this site for over two years with nothing other than a poor reputation to show for it.

Your (more accurately your recounting of some other CTists jive) throat entry wound fails on the facts - the wound is variously described as 3mm to 5mm.

The one and only 5mm cartridge and rifle was not available until 1969:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5mm_Remington_Rimfire_Magnum

Whatever your next flight of fancy may be, do yourself some good and don't buy CTist nonsense hook line and sinker w/o looking into actual facts before relying on it. It might save you some embarrassment.

The throat wound does not have to be an entry for the official story to seriously be in question. A very low-velocity bullet or a fragment exiting there would be equally detrimental to the official story.

Your assertion that a 3-5 mm entrance wound could only created by a round that is literally 5mm in diameter makes me wonder if your head is screwed on correctly.

 

[MicahJava]

I'm waiting to see if mj will cite Paul Krassner's article from The Realist detailing LBJ's "alteration" of the throat entry wound prior to being sworn in as POTUS..

I'm quite sure the LBJ thing is a joke, but David Lifton told me that he and Robert Groden interviewed Dr. Perry of Parkland hospital in the early 80's, who rejected the appearance of the throat wound as the tracheotomy he performed, which purportedly left the original small bullet wound still visible. I guess I will wait for his new book Final Charade for that audio tape to be released. Otherwise it doesn't seem to catch my attention that much.

 

[MicahJava]

The problem is that it is not apparent that the pathologists lied. None of the evidence supports this allegation. ALL of the evidence supports a single GSW to the upper back that exited through the throat: Ballistics, forensic, and fiber evidence is conclusive.

Worse, nothing you have posted suggests anything out of line at any point from the time the body arrived at Bethesda until the time it left. You ignore the huge cadre of Kennedy staffers present the entire time this all went down who never let the body out of their sight, people loyal to JFK and RFK - who was also there .

At the time of the autopsy Oswald was in custody of the Dallas Police, there was no reason to lie about a throat wound because at any time he could have confessed to the detectives, there was no way to predict, or stop this from happening.

None of your theories work in the real world.

You are in denial. And in fact there is even direct evidence from Dr. Boswell himself that he was complicit in a lie, because he seems to have trouble getting his story straight.

He was quoted in the 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article "Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report" by Richard H. Levine saying "The pathologists who had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas."; "'The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy,' Dr. Boswell said, 'because of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas... We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, transversed the neck and exited anteriorly.'"

Then, while being interviewed by the HSCA on 8/17/1977, he basically got the "early throat wound discovery" story completely switched. He started the interview saying that they knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy, but then changing his mind in the middle of speaking to Purdy and went back to saying they were ignorant of the throat wound while working on Kennedy.

Then, to the ARRB on 2/26/1996, he stated that towards the end of the autopsy they concluded the throat wound was an exit for the back shot, but still tried saying that they had no reports from Dallas about the original wound at this time.

 

[HSienzant]

You couldn't start to wonder if that story was BS even if it became apparent that Kennedy's autopsy pathologists lied about what they knew about the bullet wound in his throat?

And we're back to the logical fallacy of Begging the Question:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

Description of Begging the Question
Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
Claim C (the conclusion) is true.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim.

Above you assume the pathologists lied to support your claim that the autopsy took until after 2pm. Elsewhere you've assumed the autopsy took until after 2pm to support your claim that the pathologists lied.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm waiting to see if mj will cite Paul Krassner's article from The Realist detailing LBJ's "alteration" of the throat entry wound prior to being sworn in as POTUS..

I've linked to that in the past. Either he's never read the link or even he thinks it's beyond the pale. I thought it was hilarious parody of the conspiracy mindset the first time I read it.

The parody might be lost on some, alas.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The throat wound does not have to be an entry for the official story to seriously be in question. A very low-velocity bullet or a fragment exiting there would be equally detrimental to the official story.

Well, yeah. The problem you have is you have no evidence of a "very low-velocity bullet or a fragment exiting there" [in the throat].

So ultimately, well, no.

Your assertion that a 3-5 mm entrance wound could only created by a round that is literally 5mm in diameter makes me wonder if your head is screwed on correctly.

What do you think happened? Give us your theory, complete with shooter locations, the types of weapons, the damage each shot caused, and the evidence for it.

Or continue pretending some minor discrepancies in documentation and recollections adds up to a massive conspiracy.

It doesn't.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I'm quite sure the LBJ thing is a joke

As I about many of your allegations. Both read as a parody of real conspiracy arguments in many cases.

...but David Lifton told me that he and Robert Groden interviewed Dr. Perry of Parkland hospital in the early 80's, who rejected the appearance of the throat wound as the tracheotomy he performed, which purportedly left the original small bullet wound still visible.

When did Lifton tell you that, and what evidence did he produce to convince you of that? Since you've only gotten involved in the JFK assassination in the past few years (according to your own posts), it had to be recently. And you say below you're still waiting to see the evidence, so you're just accepting Lifton's recollection of what transpired 25 years ago, and posting it here as if it's meaningful.

I guess I will wait for his new book Final Charade for that audio tape to be released. Otherwise it doesn't seem to catch my attention that much.

Does Lifton deal with Governor Connally's wounds being altered in the new book?

I asked him in 1992 or 1993 after a talk he gave at a convention in Dallas how he explained Connally's wounds pointing to the rear if all the shooters were in front of the limousine, as he alleged in BEST EVIDENCE.

He said he would explain all that in his next book. A quarter of a century later, I'm not holding my breath.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

The throat wound does not have to be an entry for the official story to seriously be in question. A very low-velocity bullet or a fragment exiting there would be equally detrimental to the official story.

Your assertion that a 3-5 mm entrance wound could only created by a round that is literally 5mm in diameter makes me wonder if your head is screwed on correctly.

I'll let the bolded stand for what it is.

Someone that has no idea what they're talking about but feels they have a cogent argument,

 

[Axxman300]

I'm quite sure the LBJ thing is a joke, but David Lifton told me that he and Robert Groden interviewed Dr. Perry of Parkland hospital in the early 80's, who rejected the appearance of the throat wound as the tracheotomy he performed, which purportedly left the original small bullet wound still visible. I guess I will wait for his new book Final Charade for that audio tape to be released. Otherwise it doesn't seem to catch my attention that much.

And here you go quoting Lifton again. Lifton thinks ALL of the shots came from the front, so all of his observations are skewed to that end.

Fact: The Pathologists at Bethesda thought the neck wound was made by the ER doctors at Parland.

Fact: The ER doctors at Parkland never saw the back wound.

Both medical teams were under unprecedented pressure. Mistakes were made because everyone involved was a human being.

I'll post a link to the two Parkland Doctors again for those who enjoy history:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo&t=2205s

In this video you see that two men, both professionals, disagree with what they saw, and where the bullets came from. Neither man examined the body after time of death was cause, and both have opinions not supported by the autopsy.

 

[Axxman300]

The throat wound does not have to be an entry for the official story to seriously be in question.

Actually it does.

A very low-velocity bullet or a fragment exiting there would be equally detrimental to the official story.

What is a "very-low velocity bullet"?

Also, what kind of subsonic round fired at the necessary range would have enough kinetic energy to exit the skull?

Your assertion that a 3-5 mm entrance wound could only created by a round that is literally 5mm in diameter makes me wonder if your head is screwed on correctly

So list all the bullets that could do this. We'd love to see it.

 

[Axxman300]

You are in denial.

I used to be. I used to think there was a conspiracy behind JFK's murder, and that there was a second gunman in Dealey Plaza. Then I got an intellectual colonic, and now work from a fact-based point of view.

And in fact there is even direct evidence from Dr. Boswell himself that he was complicit in a lie, because he seems to have trouble getting his story straight.

Not at all. In fact the stuff you posted proves it.

He was quoted in the 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article "Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report" by Richard H. Levine saying "The pathologists who had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas."; "'The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy,' Dr. Boswell said, 'because of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas... We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, transversed the neck and exited anteriorly.'"

Which is all true.

Then, while being interviewed by the HSCA on 8/17/1977, he basically got the "early throat wound discovery" story completely switched. He started the interview saying that they knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy, but then changing his mind in the middle of speaking to Purdy and went back to saying they were ignorant of the throat wound while working on Kennedy.

So he gets the sequence of events messed up, and then corrects himself in the same interview to set the record straight...and this is strange how?

Then, to the ARRB on 2/26/1996, he stated that towards the end of the autopsy they concluded the throat wound was an exit for the back shot, but still tried saying that they had no reports from Dallas about the original wound at this time.

19 years later, 33 years after the fact? I would be more suspicious if his memory was clear.

Unlike you, Dr. Boswell had a life. JFK was maybe 10 hours of his life, one of hundreds or thousands of bodies he worked on in 33 years.

They took notes, x-rayed the body from head to toe, and took 52 photographs at every step of the autopsy. What the doctor said in 1996, 1977, or 1966 doesn't matter. All that matters is what they signed off on for the final autopsy report.

The confusion over the throat wound by the pathologists has never been a secret, not one of them has ever denied it happened.

This NYTimes interview with Boswell covers this obvious fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/20/us/doctors-affirm-kennedy-autopsy-report.html?pagewanted=all

Gist:

Dr. Humes said, "We found a gaping wound in the front of the neck where the tracheostomy had been performed, and if Dr. Crenshaw was correct, the only possible explanation is that the neck wound was intentionally enlarged while the body was en route from Dallas, and the insinuation of this scenario does not deserve a response." Lack of Communication

Dr. Humes said confusion about the exit wound would have been avoided had he and his colleague telephoned the Dallas doctors immediately, rather than on the morning after the autopsy, as they did. "If we made a mistake, it was in not calling Dallas before we started the autopsy," he said. "Our information from Parkland Hospital in Dallas before we started the autopsy was zero."


You're just spinning your wheels on this one.

 

[HSienzant]

You are in denial. And in fact there is even direct evidence from Dr. Boswell himself that he was complicit in a lie, because he seems to have trouble getting his story straight.

So a failure to tell the same story from post to post establishes you are complicit in a lie? Is that your argument? We've documented numerous examples of you changing your argument and arguing both sides of the same coin from one post to the next.

Or did Boswell simply suffer from a failure of memory?

He was quoted in the 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article "Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report" by Richard H. Levine saying "The pathologists who had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas."; "'The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy,' Dr. Boswell said, 'because of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas... We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, transversed the neck and exited anteriorly.'"

So you're relying on hearsay here.

Then, while being interviewed by the HSCA on 8/17/1977, he basically got the "early throat wound discovery" story completely switched. He started the interview saying that they knew the tracheotomy was a bullet wound during the autopsy, but then changing his mind in the middle of speaking to Purdy and went back to saying they were ignorant of the throat wound while working on Kennedy.

And this means he was lying?

Then, to the ARRB on 2/26/1996, he stated that towards the end of the autopsy they concluded the throat wound was an exit for the back shot, but still tried saying that they had no reports from Dallas about the original wound at this time.

So we have a difference in his memory between 1977 and 1996 and this is evidence of lying?

No, it's evidence he's human.

And I thought you didn't rely on recollections from 15 or 33 years after the event to make your case? You're doing it here.

Again.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, I didn't really go for ARRB stuff at all. Joe Hagan, John Van Hoesen, and Tom Robinson were interviewed much before that, even before the HSCA as with Jim Bishop's 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot.

And when you're not citing recollections from 15 or 33 years after the fact, you're citing hearsay. Case in point - see immediately above.

And you quote HSCA and ARRB recollections, from 15 and 33 years after the fact respectively, all the time as part of your 'evidence'.

That document says "11 AM" after describing events that provably took place after that time, like the delivery of the casket at 2 AM.

Yeah, so? I already noted there's plenty of other examples of the document not being in strict chronological order. You're presuming what you need to prove.

Also I don't think you see the significance in the detail where the Gawler's team were told to "stand by until the autopsy was completed".

They arrived at maybe 10:30 and had to wait around. That's what all the contemporaneous documentation says. The FBI noted it. So did Gawler's.

I didn't say the doctors were enacting a cover-up on the same day. Why would they discuss the throat wound as a bullet hole and probe it in front of several autopsy witnesses?

And you're back to assuming what you must prove. You consistently invoke the same logical fallacies over and over again.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The men of Gawler’s Sons were discreet and ethical.

But not immune to human error and faulty recollection, right?

Being ethical or discreet has nothing to do with having a flawless memory.

Nobody does.

But you think hearsay from a book is somehow evidence because the author describes them as "discreet and ethical"?

Explain how your mind works, because I'm not seeing your argument as anything more than BS to prolong the conversation.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Tom Robinson, Joe Hagan and John Van Hoesen have described witnessing the body being forensically examined, not just being assisted by Dr. Humes.

How many decades after the fact did they describe this?

Quote their sworn testimony in this regard.

Let's not forget there are different Gawler's documents that say the morticians started work after the autopsy completed and that they started work on the body before midnight.

Which means the autopsy finished before midnight.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you can't handle facts and evidence, you could always choose to not participate in this specific thread instead of hoping my account is disabled.

How would you know if anyone here can handle facts and evidence?

You've presented precious little of either.

Mostly logical fallacies, assumptions, hearsay and recollections from decades after the event, patched together with spit, baling wire, and some duct tape.

But very little in the way of evidence, factual content, or reasonable conclusions.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

How many decades after the fact did they describe this?

Quote their sworn testimony in this regard.

Let's not forget there are different Gawler's documents that say the morticians started work after the autopsy completed and that they started work on the body before midnight.

Which means the autopsy finished before midnight.

Hank

Are you referring to the funeral arrangements document that notes the "11 P.M." reference AFTER it mentions the casket delivery, which was at 2 AM? I think we're done here. As far as I'm concerned, I believe the autopsy ended at 2:30 AM, not 11 PM. 11 PM is probably a lie.

 

[MicahJava]

They arrived at maybe 10:30 and had to wait around. That's what all the contemporaneous documentation says. The FBI noted it. So did Gawler's.

Lie.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Are you referring to the funeral arrangements document that notes the "11 P.M." reference AFTER it mentions the casket delivery, which was at 2 AM? I think we're done here. As far as I'm concerned, I believe the autopsy ended at 2:30 AM, not 11 PM. 11 PM is probably a lie.

Because documents written after the events, can ONLY list them in chronological order?