RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
So where did the shot come from? LOL. Why can you CTists never give a straight answer?
Cont: JFK Conspiracy Theories V: Five for Fighting
- Thread starter bknight
- Start date
- Status
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
That, I think, is the most bizarre statement I've seen so far in this thread. Taking it apart, it suggests two possible scenarios:
(a) The photographs and X-rays could be compatible with the existence of the EOP wound.
(b) The photographs and X-rays could not be compatible with the existence of the EOP wound.
Your statement is equivalent to a statement that, in either scenario (a) or scenario (b), "most rational people" would tend to believe in the existence of the EOP wound. Taking case (b), you are therefore claiming that "most rational people" would tend to believe in the existence of a wound whose existence was specifically refuted by the available evidence.
I can only conclude that your definition of the word "rational" is not the conventional one.
Dave
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Can I play Devil’s Advocate:
If the evidence to hand does not need to be faked to be compatible with an EOP wound...
And the evidence we have is compatible with the KNOWN wound, the canonical wound if you will...
And if earlier in the thread part of Micha’s stated reason for believing the damage to the brain was “impossible” from the lower entry point...
Is it not reasonable to deduce that the evidence Micha does not believe was faked, reasonably points to the canonical wounds?
Further, as we have no evidence of where this other bullet was fired from, or ended up, would it not be a more reasonable assumption that the canonical wounds better fit the evidence that Micha himself offers?
If the evidence to hand does not need to be faked to be compatible with an EOP wound...
And the evidence we have is compatible with the KNOWN wound, the canonical wound if you will...
And if earlier in the thread part of Micha’s stated reason for believing the damage to the brain was “impossible” from the lower entry point...
Is it not reasonable to deduce that the evidence Micha does not believe was faked, reasonably points to the canonical wounds?
Further, as we have no evidence of where this other bullet was fired from, or ended up, would it not be a more reasonable assumption that the canonical wounds better fit the evidence that Micha himself offers?
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
It seems to me that we're getting a little into the territory of Jabba's Shroud of Turin arguments here. If we have two hypotheses, A and B, and all the evidence is compatible with both A and B except for a subset which is incompatible with B, rational people would conclude that A is the hypothesis favoured by the evidence. It's irrational to say that some of the evidence is compatible with B, therefore B is a tenable hypothesis.
Dave
Dave
bknight
Master Poster
The understatement of the year. You are the only one who can't visualize the head wound entering the head in the area described in the autopsy and exiting the top right front of the skull. Causing great damage to the skull and brain. There is no evidence of any bullet exiting the throat, with the exception of the back entry wound. There is no evidence of a small wound in the right forehead area, except in the mind of the CT's. No image exists of such a wound, why do you continue to pursue this dead end?
Finally in reality, which eludes your thinking the autopsy descriptions fit the head wound and therefore your hard headed understanding of the precise bullet entry just does not lead to a conclusion of anything other than two of the three shots fired from the TSBD hit JFK. One in the back exiting the throat, one in the back of the head and exiting the right front of the skull. If you study the Zapruder film carefully as the rest of the members contributing to this thread, you will see the massive amount of head damage caused by that round.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
My scenario: either the official X-rays and photographs are compatible with the EOP wound, or the X-rays and photographs are faked. There's just too much corroborating evidence for the EOP wound.
We already know that there's no photograph of JFK's body that specifically shows no wound in the lower occipital, and that everybody from the autopsy denies that the red spot is an entry wound. We know that, if a bullet did indeed enter the EOP, it had to avoid heavily damaging the cerebellum a la the official brain photographs, then it would be less likely to show up clearly on low-quality X-ray equipment. X-rays of the skull more clearly show missing brain as opposed to missing tissue, so it is very possible that the EOP wound could just not shine through more than a faint shadow.
So there's no way you can show here and now that the X-rays are incompatible with the EOP wound unless you track down and pay a handful of the world's greatest experts in forensic radiology and get them access to the official X-ray films. If you can't shake the belief that there was a wound in the upper cowlick area, then it must coexist with the EOP wound.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wow. So you are simply going to reject the evidence we actually have it favour of crap you simply made up out of whole cloth.
I am unsure if a term has even been invented for that.
Oh, wait, Penn and teller did. They even had a program about that very topic. What was the topic name?
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
And you then go on to cite a load of evidence that, according to your judgement, is not incompatible with your pet theory, rather than positive evidence for it. This is where you're getting into the Jabba standard of evidence. The X-rays and photographs you declare fakes wherever you don't agree with you, the lack of damage to the cerebellum you simply try to handwave away, or as in this case, to quietly forget about, and what you end up with is that when you've discarded all the evidence against your pet theory, you're left with no evidence that's incompatible with your pet theory.
As I said, you're using a different definition of "reasonable" than the dictionary one.
Dave
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wow. So you are simply going to reject the evidence we actually have it favour of crap you simply made up out of whole cloth.
I am unsure if a term has even been invented for that.
Oh, wait, Penn and teller did.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
If you are going to post a stream of utter bollocks that you garnered from a crank site, you could at the very least, provide a public health warning.
Axxman300
Philosopher
You have not seen ALL of the X-rays therefore you can't say what they do or do not show. The two x-rays that are available show a massive head wound compatible with a 6.5x52mm round.
There is no independent evidence to support your claim.
Because per the autopsy the wound is in the to the right and above the occipital. So yay for your research skills.
...and how do "we" know that? What is your background in radiology?
Plus, please tell us what the gold-standard on x-ray equipment was in 1963.
What are you even trying to say?
And yet here you are speaking like an authority in pathology, radiology, and forensic science. You ignore the experts who have seen the x-rays who support the truth of a single 6.5x52mm round to the head. You can't just listen to people who agree with you, you have to look at all of the facts, and they all bury Oswald as the lone shooter.
At least he didn't shoot himself in the foot.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Dave, do you actually think that all three doctors and six other autopsy participants were all simultaneously wrong about the location of the small head wound?
HSienzant
Philosopher
Duplicate post.
Last edited:
HSienzant
Philosopher
Name the nine and cite the testimony. Also be clear to reference how many decades after the fact they gave those statements. Tell us why we should accept your word about what they said. After all, we've seen how you counted Dr. Burkley as a witness for conspiracy, when he actually said his testimony would eliminate arguments for a second shot to the head.1
While you're at it, tell us why you discount the remaining autopsy witnesses and what they said, and how that doesn't amount to cherry-picking only the statements that agree with you. I would say it establishes that the witnesses recollections from that long after the assassination can be established to be unreliable by the wide variations in what they recall.
Hank
____________
1 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11876356&postcount=361 (from June of 2017)
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11561311&postcount=1905 (from October of 2016)
Among many other corrections to this very point - no matter how many times the truth of the matter was pointed out to you, you continued to name Burkley as a two-shots to the head witness. In fact, despite those corrections above (and many others to the same point) as recently as August of 2017 you were again naming Burkley as a two-shots to the head witness here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11959209#post11959209
You wrote in the above: "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."
This, after Burkley's specific words about that were quoted back to you NUMEROUS TIMES: "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."
Your goal appears to keep posting untruths until we simply give up trying to correct your nonsense.
Last edited:
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
Do you think three doctors and six other autopsy participants can be wrong in guessing how many marbles are in a glass jug? How about when trying to recall how many marbles were in there, years afterwards?
bknight
Master Poster
Nobody would think that occurrence, just you apparently.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I thought you were caught up in the discussion. Here is a model skull showing where the autopsy doctors placed the entry wound versus where the HSCA forensic pathology panel wanted the entry wound.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Why do you tell lies that are so easy to disprove? You're just taking a snippet of a quote out of context. What he was saying there was basically "If the brain had been properly sectioned, we could know whether or not more than one bullet entered Kennedy's head".
Here is the full collection of relevant material from Dr. Burkley:
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
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
Dr. Buckley WAS NOT A PATHOLOGIST. He worked on living people. Dr. Buckley thinks there was a conspiracy and that taints his opinion - and YES, people can hide behind their profession and still be wrong.
Buckley thinks the second bullet came from the front, from Badgeman, from the Grassy Knoll.
Buckley is not qualified to make a forensic conclusion and my than I am.
The brain was not sectioned at the request of Jackie Kennedy (who was IN THE CAR), and RFK to comply with the Catholic faith. This is why the brain was interred with the body when it was moved to its final resting place.
Take it up with Bobby and Jackie.
Buckley thinks the second bullet came from the front, from Badgeman, from the Grassy Knoll.
Buckley is not qualified to make a forensic conclusion and my than I am.
The brain was not sectioned at the request of Jackie Kennedy (who was IN THE CAR), and RFK to comply with the Catholic faith. This is why the brain was interred with the body when it was moved to its final resting place.
Take it up with Bobby and Jackie.
HSienzant
Philosopher
I await it your evidence of disproof and of my lies. You haven't presented any yet. Your arguments were discussed previously. It's not evidence. It's your argument about what the evidence might mean, if one squints hard enough and looks at it through conspiracy goggles.
Then quote it IN CONTEXT. Not your view of what he said, what he actually said. You're accusing me of taking his actual words out of context. I quoted his actual words. You don't prove your claim by telling us what you think Burkley meant. You prove your claim by quoting his actual words IN CONTEXT. Now, quote his actual words surrounding his claim that two shots to the head would have been eliminated. Put that in context for us.
That's your fervent wish of what he meant, but what he actually said was: "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."
Please, quote the rest of the memo and put it in context for us. All you did above was tell us what you want to believe he meant.
So again Burkley, when asked, referenced only ONE bullet to the head.
NOT TWO.
Don't you even read your own quotes? His "I would not care to be quoted on that" is no more important than a 'no comment' remark. You don't get to ignore his reference to one bullet to the head and pretend his declining to answer further questions is somehow evidence of two bullets to the head.
You're still cutting and pasting without reading or understanding. This is at least the third time I've pointed out Sprague is misspelled above.
Illig said nothing about how many bullets Burkley thought hit JFK in the head. This is another example of you squinting really hard through those conspiracy goggles to see what you want to see.
So Burkley's opinion was there was ONE bullet that struck JFK in the head. Do you even understand what you post?
Yes, this is what I quoted to you. Do tell us the rest of the quote and put it in context. You claimed I took it out of context and you would prove I was lying. So show us the rest of the context. You won't, because his words are clear. If he had testified, the conspiracy nonsense about two shots to the head would have been eliminated. Not confirmed. Not supported. Eliminated.
Yes, this is where Burkley is talking about what he did the night of the autopsy, and the directions he gave before the autopsy was completed. His reference to 'bullet or bullets' doesn't mean anything except Burkley at that time was unsure of what the autopsy would reveal when completed, so he naturally left open the possibility of additional shots at that time in his instructions. If he had only referenced 'the bullet' in his instructions to the autopsy surgeons, conspiracy theorists like yourself would be asking "How could he know how many bullets struck the President's head before the completion of the autopsy?" And then concluding, "He must have been part of the original conspiracy!"
I know how CT minds work.
He testified to House Committee staffers, didn't he? Didn't you quote from a HSCA memo of his interview? You referenced it as "1977 HSCA interview report" above. Didn't he also execute an affidavit in his own words to the HSCA? Is Hurt being less than honest here? The HSCA sought, and obtained, Burkley's testimony and YOU QUOTED A PORTION OF IT. Do you think Hurt's words should be accepted at face value? Or is he being less than honest and fudging the truth?
You accused me of lying, but it's your own sources that are lying. And your own sources prove that.
Conspiracy does NOT equal two shots to the head. Please read more carefully. Where does Burkley ever say, unequivocally that there were two shots to the head? He never does. Moreover, this is simply Hurt's view of what transpired, at best.
Really? What's that obscure exchange? Can you quote it? And put it in context for us? What did Hurt say about this obscure exchange?
Again, a "NO COMMENT" does not translate into "Two Shots to the Head!" no matter how hard you squint through your conspiracy goggles.
Where's the evidence of Burkley affirming two shots to the head? We have multiple references to one shot to the head, a couple of no comments that you try to present as somehow evidence of two shots, a reference to his belief in a conspiracy which you again try to present as somehow evidence of two shots, and his statement about the instructions he gave the autopsists before the autopsy was completed -- when he couldn't have known how many shots hit the President in the head.
From this mish-mash of references to one bullet, refusals to talk, mention of conspiracy, and his reference to his instructions before the completion of the autopsy, you somehow seem convinced that becomes evidence of Burkley's belief in two shots to the head, and you insist upon that interpretation of Burkley's words despite his clear statement to the contrary: "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."
And then you pretend I took that out of context, but never quote the remainder of the memo to provide the greater context. You claim I lied, and say you can prove it. Let's see your evidence that Burkley believed two shots struck JFK's head.
It's not anything you've presented to date.
Hank
Last edited:
- Status