Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting

[MicahJava]

2.5cm= 0.9842520in

So the hole is the better part of an inch, which is why nobody takes you seriously.

 

[HSienzant]

From Skeptic Magazine: https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conspiracy-theories-who-why-and-how.pdf

"Some conspiracy theories are true, some false. How can one tell the difference? The more the conspiracy theory manifests the following characteristics, the less likely it is to be true.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence."

Reasonable men may differ, but it appears from here MicahJava pretty much nailed all ten.

Hank

Am I knowledgeable of the JFK autopsy enough if the other person's arguments just sound like creationist gibberish?

Begging the question.

Although I'm pretty dang sure Hank knows that no evidence was ever found at the autopsy that the back wound was deeper than a couple of inches.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence.

Neither the autopsists nor the HSCA Forensic Pathology panelists nor Dr. Lattimer would agree with your argument that no evidence of a transit was found at autopsy.

The back-to-throat transit was admitted to be an assumption at best, lied-about fabrication at worst.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

So the same doctors you rely on in one argument become liars fabricating a false story in the next. The back-to-throat transit was "admitted to be an assumption at best, and a lied-about fabrication at worst" by whom, when? Don't confuse conspiracy arguments for evidence.

In the same vein, Hank knows that (officially) Kennedy's brain was never properly sectioned, rendering it impossible to determine bullet path.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

The autopsists and the HSCA Forensic Pathology panelists and Dr. Lattimer had no trouble determining bullet path.

The autopsy conclusion that a single bullet "entered the back of the head and exited the top of the skull" comes from the doctor's findings that the small head wound exhibited inward beveling in the skull (indicating entrance) and a portion of the large head wound exhibited outward beveling in the skull (indicating exit). I am not arguing against either, but these two facts obviously do not exclude both beveled wounds being created by separate bullets.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7. The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

They don't include it either. The autopsists and the HSCA Forensic Pathology panelists and Dr. Lattimer specifically excluded two shots, claiming the head wounds were caused by one bullet. You're again excluding the experts' opinion to substitute your own lay opinion in its stead.

You know who expressed the possibility/certainty that Kennedy was struck in the head twice? his personal physician George Burkley. Hank likes to play this game where he pretends Burkley never said he thought Kennedy was struck in the head twice, but all I need to prove it is to directly quote his stuff.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

Asked and answered numerous times in the past. Here's just one.

No quote mining by me. You yourself posted those quotes. Those quotes don't come close to establishing your claim that "Dr. Burkley, Kennedy's personal physician who witnessed the autopsy, said several times that he either suspected or believed that more than one bullet entered the head."

Three separate times, in the quotes you kindly provided, and contrary to your claim above, Burkley referenced one bullet to the head, or specifically excluded more than one bullet to the head.

Can you count to three?

ONE (1): Burkley said: "...but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium." [not 'the bullets'].

TWO (2): Burkley said: "DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes of the possibility of there having been two." [Burkley's opinion was one shot struck the head].

THREE (3): Burkley said: "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." [If Burkley had testified, he could have eliminated two shots to the head].

So stop the nonsense about Burkley thinking otherwise.

At yeah at this point Hank just seems like a creationist maybe-charlatan trying to make a scientific-sounding case against evolution.

Reminder: I'm not the one utilizing logical fallacies, taking quotes out of context, confusing speculation with evidence, substituting my own lay opinion for that of the experts, contradicting a prior claim in arguing for my current claim, calling witnesses liars in one post and citing their testimony in the next, and more, all to keep my arguments afloat.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

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

^^

 

[HSienzant]

Murder plots in Chicago and Tampa Bay were foiled, and if the Dallas plot was foiled, Kennedy probably would have been assassinated at a later date.

PLOT : a secret plan for accomplishing a usually evil or unlawful end :

Plot in the loosest sense can mean the actions of an individual, i.e. a lone nut, as in "Oswald plotted to kill Kennedy by going to the Paine residence on Thursday night, obtaining his rifle, and bringing it to the Depository on Friday morning wrapped in a paper sack, telling Wes Frazier that the package contained curtain rods."

It doesn't necessarily imply the larger meaning I gather you're attaching to it, in the sense of grand machinations by some secret group determined to kill Kennedy anywhere in the country.

So do post the evidence of these three murder plots by conspirators in Chicago, Tampa Bay, and Dallas. Post the evidence that JFK "probably would have been assassinated at a later date" as a result of a conspiracy.

We both know you won't bother. For you, the mere allegation is sufficient to subsist as the evidence, and hence to establish the truth of the matter.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

^^

As I said, asked and answered in the past.

For instance, a few posts after what you cite, is this response:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11959986&postcount=1270

Which of course, you ignored then and ignore now.

This is just more evidence of your continual desire to do a fringe reset, ignoring all the rebuttals that came before that you could not address, and starting the argument anew, as if it's still an open issue. It's not. Nothing you cited says Burkley believed in two bullet wounds to JFK's head. In fact, he quite clearly says the exact opposite a couple of times.

Where do you see Dr. Burkley referring to believing in two head wounds to Kennedy in anything you cited?

Quote him as saying more than 'admitting to the possibility' of two head wounds -- which is not the same thing as saying he believed there were two head wounds.

And on the contrary, in the very stuff you cited, he quite specifically referenced one head wound a number of times.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence.


And even if Burkley believed in two head wounds (which he didn't), why would that matter? What matters is the opinions of the autopsy doctors that examined the body and the HSCA Forensic Panel that examined the extant autopsy materials.

Those are the people qualified as experts to speak of what wounds the President had. Not Dr. Burkley.

But whom do you ignore once more? The experts.
Whom do you cite once more? A non-expert.

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely false.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians' Guide on how to Research his Assassination by Paul Bleau

Hilarious. You cannot be serious.

What's this guy's idea of researching the assassination?

Looking at web videos!

"The JFK assassination is a bit of a hobby for this author. After reading books like Crossfire and seeing the movie JFK over a number of years, it was only a few years ago, when I came upon Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, that I began a steady diet of reading, searching the web and listening to online programs about the whodunit of the century that mainstream media and historians won’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
...
What helped me most in source selection for my reading was that there are a fair number of excellent online shows where authors come on to discuss their work and there are also excellent, specialized websites. Mainstream media does not offer this sort of opportunity."

So while Facebook and others are struggling with the idea of fake news, and and reconfiguring their algorithms toward leaning more to legitimate news sources like the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, this guy has it figured out... ignore the first-hand testimony by witnesses as printed in the 26 Warren Commission volumes of evidence, ignore what the mainstream media says, and get your views second-hand from youtube videos and conspiracy websites.

Like I said, hilarious.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Hilarious. You cannot be serious.

What's this guy's idea of researching the assassination?

Looking at web videos!

"The JFK assassination is a bit of a hobby for this author. After reading books like Crossfire and seeing the movie JFK over a number of years, it was only a few years ago, when I came upon Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, that I began a steady diet of reading, searching the web and listening to online programs about the whodunit of the century that mainstream media and historians won’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
...
What helped me most in source selection for my reading was that there are a fair number of excellent online shows where authors come on to discuss their work and there are also excellent, specialized websites. Mainstream media does not offer this sort of opportunity."

So while Facebook and others are struggling with the idea of fake news, and and reconfiguring their algorithms toward leaning more to legitimate news sources like the NY Times and Wall Street Journal, this guy has it figured it... ignore the first-hand testimony by witnesses as printed in the 26 Warren Commission volumes of evidence, ignore what the mainstream media says, and get your views second-hand from youtube videos and conspiracy websites.

Like I said, hilarious.

Hank

I don't see where he said that at all. After all, most proofs of conspiracy started in the Warren volumes.

 

[HSienzant]

I don't see where he said that at all.

Hilarious! It's all on the page YOU CITED:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-...ns-guide-on-how-to-research-his-assassination

"The JFK assassination is a bit of a hobby for this author. After reading books like Crossfire and seeing the movie JFK over a number of years, it was only a few years ago, when I came upon Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, that I began a steady diet of reading, searching the web and listening to online programs about the whodunit of the century that mainstream media and historians won’t touch with a ten-foot pole.
...
What helped me most in source selection for my reading was that there are a fair number of excellent online shows where authors come on to discuss their work and there are also excellent, specialized websites. Mainstream media does not offer this sort of opportunity."

Hint: The stuff in blue is what your cited author (Paul Bleau) wrote. Himself. About HIS sources. And you don't see where he said that at all?

He is quite upfront that he credits fellow conspiracy theorists for his viewpoints. And quite upfront that much of that comes from [youtube] videos. And that he discounts what the mainstream media says.

Didn't you READ it BEFORE you cited it?

More hilarious by the minute!

After all, most proofs of conspiracy started in the Warren volumes.

I seriously doubt you understand the meaning of the bold-faced word. There have been no proofs of a JFK conspiracy. Only allegations of same.

And that doesn't absolve your cited source from his responsibility of confirming his secondary and tertiary sources. He's just assuming his conspiracy sources are accurate and reliable. They are not shown to be so, just assumed to be so. In fact, your source pretty much admits he's basing his arguments on fellow CT arguments, citing other CT authors, and assuming they are giving it to him straight.

And it doesn't absolve you from your responsibility of establishing the source you cited was accurate and reliable.

You haven't shown anything of the kind. You've simply assumed the CT stuff you find online is accurate and reliable.

Your cited author cites and credits CT sources like:
"Two of the shows that stand out for me are Black Op Radio and JFKConversations because of the diversity and quality of their guests, the talent and knowledge of their hosts and their degree of specialization in the political murders of the sixties. Especially interesting with Black Op Radio is the archive section of over 800 shows along with the very useful show notes that link up with interesting sources. Its Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years video production for the 2013 50-year anniversary of the JFK assassination is one of the landmark sources for those interested in the topic as it brings together many of the leading authorities on the assassination who present short segments of compelling evidence of a conspiracy all focused in one of their areas of specialty. CTKA is a go-to site (soon to be upgraded I understand) with up to date developments and an archive of very well researched Probe Magazine (and other) articles as well as insightful and balanced book, documentary and film reviews. Also the yearly conferences about JFK such as COPA and Lancer are often filmed and available on the web and well worth following.

It is through these sources and others that one can get to really know serious researchers like Malcolm Blunt, Joan Mellen, David Talbot, Jim DiEugenio, Lisa Pease, Larry Hancock, John Armstrong, Jim Marrs, Gaeton Fonzi, John Newman, Fletcher Prouty, Russ Baker, Vince Palamara, Cyril Wecht, and many others and to find out about their areas of specialty before going on to reading some of their work."

Needless to say, some of the CTs he references are kooks of the first order. Jim Marrs? John Armstrong? Fletcher Prouty?

He himself admits he only started reading about the assassination recently, and mentions only conspiracy sources:
"The JFK assassination is a bit of a hobby for this author. After reading books like Crossfire and seeing the movie JFK over a number of years, it was only a few years ago, when I came upon Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, that I began a steady diet of reading, searching the web and listening to online programs about the whodunit of the century..."

He gives no indication whatsoever of having read the 26 volumes of WC evidence and testimony. In short, his opinions are wholly informed by biased sources that argue for conspiracy, and he's apparently done no independent research into the assassination whatsoever.

This is YOUR cited source.

Hank

 

[bknight]

,<snip speculation>
In the same vein, Hank knows that (officially) Kennedy's brain was never properly sectioned, rendering it impossible to determine bullet path. The autopsy conclusion that a single bullet "entered the back of the head and exited the top of the skull" comes from the doctor's findings that the small head wound exhibited inward beveling in the skull (indicating entrance) and a portion of the large head wound exhibited outward beveling in the skull (indicating exit).

Indeed this is what the autopsy indicates and is fact

I am not arguing against either, but these two facts obviously do not exclude both beveled wounds being created by separate bullets.

Your statement is correct If And Only If there are two entrance wounds to the head, of which only one was found. Therefore you have stated another logical fallacy.

You know who expressed the possibility/certainty that Kennedy was struck in the head twice? his personal physician George Burkley. Hank likes to play this game where he pretends Burkley never said he thought Kennedy was struck in the head twice, but all I need to prove it is to directly quote his stuff.

At yeah at this point Hank just seems like a creationist maybe-charlatan trying to make a scientific-sounding case against evolution.

No Burkley said he accepted the fact that only one bullet hit the head, but didn't exclude the possibility of a second, so certainty does not exist but a possibility that is not backed up by facts, just speculation

 

[bknight]

I don't see where he said that at all. After all, most proofs of conspiracy started in the Warren volumes.

There are no "proofs" of any conspiracy, and you continue to provide none. This is why no one on this thread takes you seriously.

 

[Whip]

There are no "proofs" of any conspiracy, and you continue to provide none. This is why no one on this thread takes you seriously.

be careful. I can see this being read that he is being taken seriously in the 9/11 threads.

 

[bknight]

be careful. I can see this being read that he is being taken seriously in the 9/11 threads.

I can accept constructive criticism.

No one takes him/her seriously anywhere discussions are conducted.

 

[MicahJava]

Hank, I don't know what you're even trying to do with yourself. It is literally impossible to research JFK without the Warren Commission volumes. I havean't read all of them cover-to-cover, only the parts about the shooting evidence. I don't know where you get the idea that the author is saying they neglected to read the earliest official sources.

 

[MicahJava]

be careful. I can see this being read that he is being taken seriously in the 9/11 threads.

You're going to need to be more specific, because I stand by virtually every argument about 9/11 stuff I've had, and I always provide the appropriate evidence like I do here.

 

[HSienzant]

Hank, I don't know what you're even trying to do with yourself.

Unclear what you're suggesting.

It is literally impossible to research JFK without the Warren Commission volumes.

It's impossible to research it properly without an in-depth understanding of all the testimony contained in those 15 volumes of testimony. The remaining volumes contain various documents, exhibits, and reports.

I havean't read all of them cover-to-cover, only the parts about the shooting evidence.

Then you're missing a lot.

I don't know where you get the idea that the author is saying they neglected to read the earliest official sources.

From the author you cited... he stated quite clearly his influences and sources. He admitted he came to this subject only recently, and cited conspiracy authors, web videos, and conspiracy web sites.

At no point did he mention the Warren Commission volumes of evidence. He did mention the Warren Report and the Warren Commission's conclusions, but only to denigrate them: "That article proved that the historians did very little research in the matter while basing their claims on the outdated and highly unreliable Warren Commission Report as well as a few books that backed that clearly discredited version of history
...

Chapters one and two of the guide will allow novices and historians or journalists who might someday be motivated by the self-actualization needs Maslow has theorized about to get to the point where they should no longer take the Warren Commission’s conclusions seriously and realize that the Lone Nut version of events is what is really on the fringe according to what the major investigations and their investigators have revealed.
...
The strong consensus of post-Warren Commission investigations and investigators/insiders that the Warren Commission version of events is full of holes."

I see no reference anywhere to him reading the Warren Commission 26 volumes.

Hank

 

[BStrong]

Hank, I don't know what you're even trying to do with yourself. It is literally impossible to research JFK without the Warren Commission volumes. snipped.

Coming from the poster who claimed to have burned their copy of the WC report that's pretty funny.

 

[BStrong]

You're going to need to be more specific, because I stand by virtually every argument about 9/11 stuff I've had, and I always provide the appropriate evidence speculation like I do here.

FIFY

 

[MicahJava]

The Three Failed Plots to Kill JFK: The Historians' Guide on how to Research his Assassination by Paul Bleau

Murder plots in Chicago and Tampa Bay were foiled, and if the Dallas plot was foiled, Kennedy probably would have been assassinated at a later date.

Bumping this comment because some posters here just want to fill the page with gibberish.

 

[HSienzant]

Bumping this comment because some posters here just want to fill the page with gibberish.

Choose one:

A. Thanks for that admission.

B. Asked and answered.

C. Here's the links:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12162713&postcount=3588
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12163049&postcount=3595

D. At least one poster here does want to fill the page with gibberish.

E. All of the above.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The Correct Answer is:

E. All of the above.