Burkley Says He "Supervised" the Autopsy

[John McAdams]

http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17

This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.

In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/2/2016 1:44 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17
>
> This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
> the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
> the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.
>
> In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
> responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.
>

How's that work? Do you have solid proof that Burkley dressed up in an
Army General's uniform and told Humes to not dissect the back wound?
Why didn't he tell them to not remove the brain? Maybe an intact brain
would show the wound path from front to back. Can't have that, can we?
Youse guys sure do run a sloppy cover-up.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[David Von Pein]

But I'm sure that CTers will be quick to point out this comment made by
Dr. Burkley:

"By virtue of the completeness of the examination, the postmortem took
considerable time because there was a desire not to miss anything for
future reference."

[John McAdams]

On 3 Jun 2016 00:06:40 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Yea, and I'm sure they will claim it shows a conspiracy.

What it does show is ignorance about what a forensic autopsy should
be, and a huge dose of self-justification.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

This of course is completely inappropriate. If the victim were John Doe,
Jane Doe would have been given no choice of where the autopsy would take
place nor what steps would be taken during the autopsy. A medico-legal
autopsy is an important procedure which if botched could jeopardize the
prosecution of the suspect. I would bet many of the errors would have been
brought up in court by the defense to try to get the autopsy thrown out.
That would have been problematic for the prosecution since cause of death
must be legally established for there to be a homicide prosecution. I
don't have the legal expertise to know what the chances of that happening
would have been.

[Ace Kefford]

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

What about the speculation that Burkley had also had had a bit too much to
drink. Was that just rumors and b.s.? Or is there anything to it?

[claviger]

Rear Admiral George Burkley, M.D., MC, USN: did indeed supervise the JFK
autopsy. Commander James J. Humes, MC, USN: was the Chief autopsy
pathologist conducting the autopsy.

Admiral Burkley outranked Humes any way you look at it and represented a
double braid status that night. The family expected Burkley to follow
their wishes and speed up the autopsy every way possible due to Jackie's
mental and physical exhaustion.

[mainframetech]

If he were part of the conspiracy, as I think he was, it seems
possible.

Chris

[mainframetech]

In the case of JFK, Jackie had little choice in the hospital where the
autopsy would be performed. It should have been Parkland and done by Earl
Rose, the Medical Examiner for Dallas. But the theft of the body made the
only choice Jackie had to be a military hospital, either Walter Reed or
Bethesda. It was critical that they have the ability to order whatever
was wanted, and Burkley took care of some of that.


Chris

[mainframetech]

As a proud CT, I found that while the comment by Burkley was
suggestive, I felt his being assigned as physician to LBJ more suggestive
of Burkley's aid to the conspiracy.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Slander, not just BS.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/3/2016 12:23 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17
>>
>> This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
>> the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
>> the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.
>>
>> In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
>> responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.
>>
>> .John
>> -----------------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> This of course is completely inappropriate. If the victim were John Doe,
> Jane Doe would have been given no choice of where the autopsy would take
> place nor what steps would be taken during the autopsy. A medico-legal
> autopsy is an important procedure which if botched could jeopardize the
> prosecution of the suspect. I would bet many of the errors would have been
> brought up in court by the defense to try to get the autopsy thrown out.

It was thrown out. It was burned in the fireplace.

> That would have been problematic for the prosecution since cause of death
> must be legally established for there to be a homicide prosecution. I
> don't have the legal expertise to know what the chances of that happening
> would have been.
>

The original statement is wrong. Burkley was not the Army General who
prevented a complete autopsy. You are not allowed to know his name.

[Anthony Marsh]

I'm not sure what you are trying to criticize, but thanks for playing. The
original statement was a LIE. Burkley did not tell them to stop dissecting
the back wound. He did tell them to not disclose the Addison's Disease.
I'll go out on a limb here and you can call me a kook if you want to, but
I do not think that Addison's Disease was the cause of death. Lattimer
did. I suggested a conspiracy theory that Burkley supplying all that
cortisone was the cause of death, but we can't prove the dosage.

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Garbage.

[claviger]

Where did you read this kind of speculation?

[Bud]

Don`t forget the Kennedys, who Burkley was doing the bidding of.

[mainframetech]

I think LBJ expected the same from him.

Chris

[bigdog]

My, how your little conspiracy keeps growing. And to think it included
JFK's personal physician. Whodda thunk it?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

This was, frankly, all the fault of the Kennedy people. Burkley,
O'Donnell, O'Brien, RFK and even Jackie. They were the ones insisting on
all of this. It's another piece of evidence, for me, of the absence of a
conspiracy. In order for the conspirators to pull this off - hijack the
body - they'd have to have the cooperation of JFK's closest people,
including his brother and wife. That's absurd. Do the conspiracy people
really want to make that argument?

Scratch that last line; yeah they do. Their hallucinations are unlimited.

Just came across this anecdote from Bugliosi:

On the flight back to Washington:

"A dispute over how and where to take the body broke out. Admiral Burkley
advised Captain Taz Shepard, the president's naval aide, to make
arrangements with Bethesda Naval Hospital...General [Godfrey] McHugh
[JFK's top military aide] ordered an ambulance, but was informed it was
illegal in the District of Columbia to move a dead body by ambulance
without a coroner's permit. McHugh didn't give a damn. "Just do it," he
snapped. "And don't worry about the law. I'll pay the fine."

I guess we need to add McHugh to the list of conspirators.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2016 1:08 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:23:10 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17
>>>
>>> This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
>>> the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
>>> the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.
>>>
>>> In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
>>> responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.
>>>
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> This of course is completely inappropriate. If the victim were John Doe,
>> Jane Doe would have been given no choice of where the autopsy would take
>> place nor what steps would be taken during the autopsy. A medico-legal
>> autopsy is an important procedure which if botched could jeopardize the
>> prosecution of the suspect. I would bet many of the errors would have been
>> brought up in court by the defense to try to get the autopsy thrown out.
>> That would have been problematic for the prosecution since cause of death
>> must be legally established for there to be a homicide prosecution. I
>> don't have the legal expertise to know what the chances of that happening
>> would have been.
>
>
>
>
> In the case of JFK, Jackie had little choice in the hospital where the
> autopsy would be performed. It should have been Parkland and done by Earl

She was asked to make the choice and SHE chose Bethesda because Jack had
been in the Navy.
She did not tell them to steal the body from Parkland. LBJ did. He
wouldn't leave Jackie behind and Jackie wouldn't leave Jack.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2016 1:08 AM, mainframetech wrote:

Let's see how your mind works, or doesn't.
If someone wants to be part of a conspiracy, he has to get drunk first?
I think you are over-generalizing from Nixon.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Yes, and the Kennedy mafia joined up with the LBJ mafia to do in JFK. And
cover it up. And keep it quiet all of these years. He also said that it
was possible that Jackie went along with them switching JFK into another
casket on AF-1.

He's got everybody except John-John and Caroline. Although it's still
early, I guess.

Hey, but don't you dare question the honesty of a serious doctor like
Livingston.

I mean, at some point you just have to laugh.

[mainframetech]

The family went along with what the SS were doing. Going Back to Washington, DC with the stolen body was at a time when Jackie was in shock and was just going along and letting them take care of things. The limo went too, being as how it was a crime scene.

> Scratch that last line; yeah they do. Their hallucinations are unlimited.
>
> Just came across this anecdote from Bugliosi:
>
> On the flight back to Washington:
>
> "A dispute over how and where to take the body broke out. Admiral Burkley
> advised Captain Taz Shepard, the president's naval aide, to make
> arrangements with Bethesda Naval Hospital...General [Godfrey] McHugh
> [JFK's top military aide] ordered an ambulance, but was informed it was
> illegal in the District of Columbia to move a dead body by ambulance
> without a coroner's permit. McHugh didn't give a damn. "Just do it," he
> snapped. "And don't worry about the law. I'll pay the fine."
>
> I guess we need to add McHugh to the list of conspirators.

Why?

Chris

[mainframetech]

Don't be ridiculous again! It hasn't enlarged at all. The numbers
are still the same as before. I allowed room for a few extras to be
included later. And I didn't say it was guarantee that Burkley was in it,
though it would seem so, since LBJ rewarded him, and he was instrumental
at the autopsy.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Again: there is no evidence that LBJ told "them" to steal the body from
Parkland. None. Not a bit.

When I asked you just recently to present any you didn't.

By all available evidence the decision to move the boy occurred with no
input or directions or orders from LBJ. He was either on the way to Air
Force One after leaving Parkland or on the plane when it was done. But he
never had any conversation with any of the people - O'Donnell and
Kellerman most specifically - who took JFK's body back to AF-1.

Present your evidence please.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2016 9:42 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:23:10 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17
>>>
>>> This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
>>> the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
>>> the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.
>>>
>>> In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
>>> responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.
>>>
>>> .John
>>> -----------------------
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> This of course is completely inappropriate. If the victim were John Doe,
>> Jane Doe would have been given no choice of where the autopsy would take
>> place nor what steps would be taken during the autopsy. A medico-legal
>> autopsy is an important procedure which if botched could jeopardize the
>> prosecution of the suspect. I would bet many of the errors would have been
>> brought up in court by the defense to try to get the autopsy thrown out.
>> That would have been problematic for the prosecution since cause of death
>> must be legally established for there to be a homicide prosecution. I
>> don't have the legal expertise to know what the chances of that happening
>> would have been.
>
> This was, frankly, all the fault of the Kennedy people. Burkley,

Not ALL. The Kennedys were not there in the autopsy room telling the
doctors to not dissect the back wound.

> O'Donnell, O'Brien, RFK and even Jackie. They were the ones insisting on
> all of this. It's another piece of evidence, for me, of the absence of a
> conspiracy. In order for the conspirators to pull this off - hijack the

Now, wait a damn minute. If you were a real kook you could think up a
conspiracy involving all the Kennedys as well.

> body - they'd have to have the cooperation of JFK's closest people,
> including his brother and wife. That's absurd. Do the conspiracy people
> really want to make that argument?
>
> Scratch that last line; yeah they do. Their hallucinations are unlimited.
>
> Just came across this anecdote from Bugliosi:
>
> On the flight back to Washington:
>
> "A dispute over how and where to take the body broke out. Admiral Burkley
> advised Captain Taz Shepard, the president's naval aide, to make
> arrangements with Bethesda Naval Hospital...General [Godfrey] McHugh
> [JFK's top military aide] ordered an ambulance, but was informed it was
> illegal in the District of Columbia to move a dead body by ambulance
> without a coroner's permit. McHugh didn't give a damn. "Just do it," he
> snapped. "And don't worry about the law. I'll pay the fine."
>
> I guess we need to add McHugh to the list of conspirators.
>

No, he's one of the good guys.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 10:21:44 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 9:39:39 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 1:08:28 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 12:24:54 AM UTC-4, Ace Kefford wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
> > > > > http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17
> > > > >
> > > > > This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
> > > > > the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
> > > > > the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.
> > > > >
> > > > > In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
> > > > > responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.
> > > > >
> > > > > .John
> > > > > -----------------------
> > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
> > > >
> > > > What about the speculation that Burkley had also had had a bit too much to
> > > > drink. Was that just rumors and b.s.? Or is there anything to it?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > If he were part of the conspiracy, as I think he was, it seems
> > > possible.
> > >
> >
> > My, how your little conspiracy keeps growing. And to think it included
> > JFK's personal physician. Whodda thunk it?
>
>
> Don't be ridiculous again! It hasn't enlarged at all.

As long as you keep adding names to it, it is enlarging.

> The numbers
> are still the same as before.

Oh really? Who did you drop when you added Burkley?

> I allowed room for a few extras to be
> included later.

So you have some wild card selections. How many did you allow yourself?

> And I didn't say it was guarantee that Burkley was in it,
> though it would seem so, since LBJ rewarded him, and he was instrumental
> at the autopsy.
>

So he only gets partial credit.

[mainframetech]

LBJ was too high up in the hierarchy of the conspiracy to plan details.

> When I asked you just recently to present any you didn't.
>

Sorry, I'm not sure what it was you asked. Want to try again? I
promise to try and answer your questions.

> By all available evidence the decision to move the boy occurred with no
> input or directions or orders from LBJ. He was either on the way to Air
> Force One after leaving Parkland or on the plane when it was done. But he
> never had any conversation with any of the people - O'Donnell and
> Kellerman most specifically - who took JFK's body back to AF-1.
>
> Present your evidence please.

Ah, OK. I take it "boy" means 'body', right?

I doubt that LBJ had anything whatsoever to say about how the
conspiracy was carried out in detail. I believe that a few SS and FBI
agents were involved though. And many were all on the AF1 plane leaving
Dallas for Washington, DC.

If what it is you want to know about is the 'switch' of the caskets, I
can give you some of the information, but I wasn't there and can't give
you EXACT details of a part of it. First, there were 2 possibilities, one
is that a couple of agents were recruited to help switch caskets during
the time when Jackie was asked by LBJ to come forward and stand by him
when he took the oath. Most people on the plane came forward for that.
While that was going on was a perfect opportunity to switch caskets. 2
men could do it quickly, The shipping casket would have been loaded into
the galley at the rear of the plane on the starboard side where no one was
placed. There was an emergency exit there.

The second possibility was that a couple agents that were part of the
plot waited at the rear where the Bronze casket was and when everyone went
forward to the oath taking, they made the switch. The shipping casket
would have been loaded into the galley emergency exit.

When AF1 reached the Washington airport, and there was all the noise
and crowding at the port side of the plane, while they brought out the
Bronze casket and placed it in the scissor lift, at that time a forklift
was at the starboard side of the plane removing the shipping casket
through the emergency exit in the galley.

As had been suggested from AF1, the shipping casket was placed on a
helicopter and was taken to the Bethesda hospital helipad. We know from
witnesses that the shipping casket arrived at the Bethesda morgue at
6:35pm, as recorded by Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian, who filled out an after
action report:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md236/pages/md236_0005a.gif

At that point the shipping casket was brought inside the morgue by
Dennis David who supervised a detail of sailors that did the carrying:

Dennis David saw both casket arrive 30 minutes apart:

"He said it was a simple, gray SHIPPING casket such as he frequently saw
used later during the Vietnam war. His group of sailors took the casket
into the anteroom directly adjacent to the morgue. He then dismissed them
and went back upstairs to an administrative office on the second floor of
the tower building, "out front" toward the lobby.

About 30 minutes later, he said, he saw a motor cavalcade, including a
gray Navy ambulance, drive up outside of the front of the Bethesda Tower.
He went out on the curved, open second story balcony above the Bethesda
Tower lobby and observed Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert McNamara, and several
others immediately enter the Bethesda lobby from the motorcade, and go
directly up to the 17th floor suite on the elevator (without stopping or
pausing for anything)."

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=708#relPageId=3&tab=page
page 3


So now we have a shipping casket that arrived at 6:35pm and we have
seen it taken into the morgue. Next we hear from one of the sailors who
helped to carry in the shipping casket. He is Edward Reed, X-ray
Technician:

"A: And next, We were instructed to -
Someone opened the casket. I forget who exactly.
It was an enlisted man.
Q: Is this in the hallway?
A: Yes. Let me - No, I’m sorry. We did
not open it in the hallway. We carried it into the
morgue.
Q: Did you, yourself, help carry it?
A: Yes, I did.
Q: Did anyone else you know assist carrying
it in?
A: Jerry Custer, the medical - I don’t know
their names. But the lab technologists, and the
medical photographer - enlisted man. And I forget
anyone else.
.
.
.
Q: Do you recall now who opened the casket?
A: No, I don’t.
Q: After the casket was opened, what did you
see?
A: I was able to look in. and I saw President
Kennedy without - completely nude in a plastic
bag."

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf
Pages 22, 23, 24


Now the shipping casket has been brought in and Reed and others have
taken the body out and he has identified it as JFK. Reed is also one of
the witnesses that watched some of the clandestine 'work' on the body done
by Humes and Boswell which is next:

"Q: What was the first incision?
A: The cranium.The scalp, right here.
Q: And can you describe how that procedure -
A: Commander Humes made an incision. After
we brought all the X-rays back, we were all allowed
to sit up in the podium and observe.
And Commander Humes made an incision -
that I could see from my vantage point - an
incision in the forehead, and brought back the
scalp.
Q: Okay.
A: Like this.
Q: And you were making a line first across
the top of your forehead. roughly along the
hairline -
A: With a scalpel.
Q: - and then pulling the scalp back.
A: That’s correct. Just like this.
Q: What else did you observe from where you
were with regard to any incisions or operations on
the head?
A: Well, after about 20 minutes, Commander
Humes took out a saw, and started to cut the
forehead with the bone - with the saw. Mechanical
saw. Circular, small, mechanical
almost like a cast saw, but it’s made -
Q: Sure.
A: - specifically for bone."

Page 58
http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf


So now we have brought in the shipping casket and Humes and Boswell have
gone at it with their tools, scalpel and bone saw. As we know from the
comparison of the descriptions of the body at Parkland, and the
descriptions at Bethesda, it was obvious what steps were taken as part of
the clandestine 'work'. They expanded the 'large hole' at the BOH to go
around the right side and a bit of the top of the head. Nothing
complicated, just an expansion of an existing wound. Here are some
comparison articles:

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

So at this point there were times that the FBI agents and others left
the morgue all together to the anteroom, because they were told that they
couldn't be in the morgue room while X-rays were being taken. So if you
believed all this time that the FBI agents stayed with the body every
second, it's false:

"A: Yes. I might mention - on this Exhibit
157 - that when we were in that autopsy room. One
of us was present all the time, with the exception
of when photographs and radiology work and X-rays
were done.
Of course, you can see the reason for
that. We didn’t have lead jackets to wear, like a
doctor does working in that environment. But,
otherwise, one of us was always present."
From Sibert ARRB testimony page 25-26
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Sibert_9-11-97.pdf

That was a perfect opportunity to put the body back into the Bronze
casket and ready it for the coming autopsy at 8:00pm.

If I've left anything out, let me know, and I'll be happy to supply it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Burkley satisfied both the family and the plotters by hurrying things
along. And Burkley was the one that LBJ picked out to reward with the job
of president's physician.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

The Secret Service acts on the orders of the President.

> By all available evidence the decision to move the boy occurred with no
> input or directions or orders from LBJ. He was either on the way to Air
> Force One after leaving Parkland or on the plane when it was done. But he
> never had any conversation with any of the people - O'Donnell and
> Kellerman most specifically - who took JFK's body back to AF-1.
>

BS.
Did O'Donnell have a gun pointed at Earl Rose?
Why the cover-up?
Because you are afraid that people will think your hero LBJ did
something wrong?

> Present your evidence please.
>
>


Already did. wake up.

[Anthony Marsh]

Rewarded? Silly. It's called continuity. Did LBJ reward Bobby Kennedy by
keeping him on as AG? You misuse words to promote KOOKSPEAK.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/5/2016 10:21 PM, mainframetech wrote:

what the Hell are you talking about? The limo always goes back to the WH
garage after every trip. Nothing unusual about that.
Do you really think the DPD had a CSI unit to recover tiny specs of
evidence from the limo? Both the SS and the FBI examined the limo and
recovered evidence.

>
>
>
>> Scratch that last line; yeah they do. Their hallucinations are unlimited.
>>
>> Just came across this anecdote from Bugliosi:
>>
>> On the flight back to Washington:
>>
>> "A dispute over how and where to take the body broke out. Admiral Burkley
>> advised Captain Taz Shepard, the president's naval aide, to make
>> arrangements with Bethesda Naval Hospital...General [Godfrey] McHugh
>> [JFK's top military aide] ordered an ambulance, but was informed it was
>> illegal in the District of Columbia to move a dead body by ambulance
>> without a coroner's permit. McHugh didn't give a damn. "Just do it," he
>> snapped. "And don't worry about the law. I'll pay the fine."
>>
>> I guess we need to add McHugh to the list of conspirators.
>
>
> Why?
>

I think they call it a Straw Man argument, a staple of the cover-up team.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you have to pay for your straw man arguments or does the CIA give
them to you for free?



#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

#
#
##########
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

> He's got everybody except John-John and Caroline. Although it's still
> early, I guess.
>

Isn't Caroline part of the cover-up since she's the one blocking an
exhumation?
John-John wasn't part of the shooting because he wasn't big enough to
hold the gun.

> Hey, but don't you dare question the honesty of a serious doctor like
> Livingston.
>

Well, you won't dare question the honesty of Humes.

> I mean, at some point you just have to laugh.
>

Hypocrisy, thy name is WC defender.

[Ace Kefford]

Good to know that's your opinion. I just know it was thrown out there by
at least one published "researcher".

[Ace Kefford]

I am pretty sure that speculation came from a book by one of two
"researchers" I am thinking of, but before adding further confusion let me
see if I can check the source, although it might be in a book I tossed.
I was hoping that someone else would recall it and add either the basis
for it or why it is not supported by the evidence. One of these authors
was someone who did not hesitate to throw wild accusations into his
written work.

[Bud]

Useless, worthless hobbyist figuring. When do the folks with the
reasonable, supportable compelling conspiracy theories show up?

[Anthony Marsh]

Cheap slander. Just working for LBJ does not prove anything.

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:09:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:>
>

> Burkley satisfied both the family and the plotters by hurrying things
> along. And Burkley was the one that LBJ picked out to reward with the job
> of president's physician.
>

He already had that job.

[bigdog]

They may be extinct.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 8:29:59 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

Are you waiting for the LN kooks today? They sometimes have interesting
theories, like the 'single bullet' of the 'lone nut' theories that make
the WCR.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

OH YEAH, you mean like Proving that the Zapruder film is authentic, eh?
Yeah, that's pretty kooky, isn't it?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/6/2016 8:18 PM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 6:42:30 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 11:24:54 PM UTC-5, Ace Kefford wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 1:44:18 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> http://archive1.jfklibrary.org/JFKOH/Burkley,%20George%20G/JFKOH-GGB-01/JFKOH-GGB-01-TR.pdf#page=17
>>>>
>>>> This confirms what the HSCA found: Burkley was in constant touch with
>>>> the Kennedy entourage on the 17th floor, and was the person conveying
>>>> the wishes of "the family" to the autopsy team.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, he (due to his loyalty to the Kennedys, was
>>>> responsible for the rushed and incomplete autopsy.
>>>>
>>>> .John
>>>> -----------------------
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>>
>>> What about the speculation that Burkley had also had had a bit too much to
>>> drink. Was that just rumors and b.s.? Or is there anything to it?
>>
>> Where did you read this kind of speculation?
>
> I am pretty sure that speculation came from a book by one of two
> "researchers" I am thinking of, but before adding further confusion let me

I think even in fake quote marks the word researchers is not quite right.
Did McAdams specifically tell you that you are not allowed to use the
word KOOK here? He may have meant you can't use it to single out a
specific poster active here. But you can use it for a public figure who
does not currently post here.
If you can't Google it try Bing. When you're really desperate, go to the
DEEP WEB, Wayback Machine, or ARCHIVE.

[Anthony Marsh]

Something like that.
Define published.

[mainframetech]

Naah. It's been shown, but not as 'theories', but as reality, but the
poor LNs were unable to understand reality.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual. He had the job of Physician for JFK. Each President
picks his own physician. LBJ picked Burkley for the position of prestige.

Chris

[Jason Burke]

Golly, gee, Chris.
You mean what actually happened?

You *really* need a new hobby. You're pretty lousy at this one.

[bigdog]

Was that Secretary of Presitige?

It seems what you are saying is "Physician for JFK" was different than
"president's physician". Is that about the size of it?

[Anthony Marsh]

WOW! I thought the goal was to get drugs.

[Bud]

Then why do all the conspiracy hobbyists settle on a different reality?

[mainframetech]

Lately Jason, you seem to have only opinions to put out. Try some
arguments with proof of what you believe. The opinions carry no weight.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Of course not. But Burkley was JFK's chosen physician, and then when
LBJ took over, he chose Burkley. Which would make a nice reward for his
efforts in the plot.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

I can't explain it to you if you've never studied science, especially
quantum mechanics. About the closest you could get is to understand the
story about the blind men who describe an elephant.


Blind men and an elephant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Blind Men Appraising an Elephant by Ohara Donshu, Edo Period (early 19th
century), Brooklyn Museum

The story of the blind men and an elephant originated in the Indian
subcontinent from where it has widely diffused. It is a story of a group
of blind men (or men in the dark) who touch an elephant to learn what it
is like. Each one feels a different part, but only one part, such as the
side or the tusk. They then compare notes and learn that they are in
complete disagreement.

It is a parable that has crossed between many religious traditions and
is part of Jain, Buddhist, Sufi, Hindu and Bahá’í lore. The tale later
became well known in Europe, with 19th century American poet John
Godfrey Saxe creating his own version as a poem.[1] The story has been
published in many books for adults and children, and interpreted in a
variety of ways.

Contents

1 The story
2 Jain
3 Buddhist
4 Sufi Muslim
5 Hindu
6 John Godfrey Saxe
7 Modern treatments
8 See also
9 References
10 External links

The story
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this
section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the
dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one feels a
different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They
then compare notes and learn that they are in complete disagreement. The
stories differ primarily in how the elephant's body parts are described,
how violent the conflict becomes and how (or if) the conflict among the
men and their perspectives is resolved.
The blind men and the elephant
(wall relief in Northeast Thailand)

In some versions, they stop talking, start listening and collaborate to
"see" the full elephant. When a sighted man walks by and sees the entire
elephant all at once, the blind men also learn they are all blind. While
one's subjective experience is true, it may not be the totality of
truth. If the sighted man was deaf, he would not hear the elephant bellow.

It has been used to illustrate a range of truths and fallacies; broadly,
the parable implies that one's subjective experience can be true, but
that such experience is inherently limited by its failure to account for
other truths or a totality of truth. At various times the parable has
provided insight into the relativism, opaqueness or inexpressible nature
of truth, the behavior of experts in fields where there is a deficit or
inaccessibility of information, the need for communication, and respect
for different perspectives.
Jain

A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to
determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the
elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like
a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope;
the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the
one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who
feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels
the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A king explains to them:

All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it
differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the
elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned.[2]

The ancient Jain texts often explain the concepts of anekāntvāda and
syādvāda with the parable of the blind men and an elephant
(Andhgajanyāyah), which addresses the manifold nature of truth.[3] This
parable resolves the conflict, and is used to illustrate the principle
of living in harmony with people who have different belief systems, and
that truth can be stated in different ways (in Jain beliefs often said
to be seven versions). This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvada, or
the theory of Manifold Predications.[2]

Two of the many references to this parable are found in
Tattvarthaslokavatika of Vidyanandi (9th century) and Syādvādamanjari of
Ācārya Mallisena (13th century). Mallisena uses the parable to argue
that immature people deny various aspects of truth; deluded by the
aspects they do understand, they deny the aspects they don't understand.
"Due to extreme delusion produced on account of a partial viewpoint, the
immature deny one aspect and try to establish another. This is the maxim
of the blind (men) and the elephant."[4] Mallisena also cites the
parable when noting the importance of considering all viewpoints in
obtaining a full picture of reality. "It is impossible to properly
understand an entity consisting of infinite properties without the
method of modal description consisting of all viewpoints, since it will
otherwise lead to a situation of seizing mere sprouts (i.e., a
superficial, inadequate cognition), on the maxim of the blind (men) and
the elephant."[5]
Buddhist
Blind monks examining an elephant, an ukiyo-e print by Hanabusa Itchō
(1652–1724).

The Buddha twice uses the simile of blind men led astray. In the Canki
Sutta he describes a row of blind men holding on to each other as an
example of those who follow an old text that has passed down from
generation to generation.[6] In the Udana (68–69)[7] he uses the
elephant parable to describe sectarian quarrels. A king has the blind
men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought
in and they are asked to describe it.

When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king
went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen
the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt
the elephant's head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a
plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a
pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).

The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the
question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The
Buddha ends the story by comparing the blind men to preachers and
scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just
so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and
unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome,
wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."
The Buddha then speaks the following verse:

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.[8]

Sufi Muslim

The Persian Sufi poet Sanai of Ghazni (currently, Afghanistan) presented
this teaching story in his The Walled Garden of Truth.[9]

Rumi, the 13th Century Persian poet and teacher of Sufism, included it
in his Masnavi. In his retelling, "The Elephant in the Dark", some
Hindus bring an elephant to be exhibited in a dark room. A number of men
touch and feel the elephant in the dark and, depending upon where they
touch it, they believe the elephant to be like a water spout (trunk), a
fan (ear), a pillar (leg) and a throne (back). Rumi uses this story as
an example of the limits of individual perception:

The sensual eye is just like the palm of the hand. The palm has not
the means of covering the whole of the beast.[10]

Rumi does not present a resolution to the conflict in his version, but
states:

The eye of the Sea is one thing and the foam another. Let the foam
go, and gaze with the eye of the Sea. Day and night foam-flecks are
flung from the sea: oh amazing! You behold the foam but not the Sea. We
are like boats dashing together; our eyes are darkened, yet we are in
clear water.[10]

Rumi ends his poem by stating "If each had a candle and they went in
together the differences would disappear." [11]
Hindu
Question book-new.svg
This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Relevant
discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve this
article by introducing citations to additional sources. (December 2015)

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa used this parable to discourage dogmatism:[12]

A number of blind men came to an elephant. Somebody told them that
it was an elephant. The blind men asked, ‘What is the elephant like?’
and they began to touch its body. One of them said: 'It is like a
pillar.' This blind man had only touched its leg. Another man said, ‘The
elephant is like a husking basket.’ This person had only touched its
ears. Similarly, he who touched its trunk or its belly talked of it
differently. In the same way, he who has seen the Lord in a particular
way limits the Lord to that alone and thinks that He is nothing else.

John Godfrey Saxe
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this
section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may
be challenged and removed. (December 2015) (Learn how and when to remove
this template message)

One of the most famous versions of the 19th century was the poem "The
Blind Men and the Elephant" by John Godfrey Saxe (1816–1887).
And so these men of Hindustan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right
And all were in the wrong.

The poem begins:

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind[13]

They conclude that the elephant is like a wall, snake, spear, tree, fan
or rope, depending upon where they touch. They have a heated debate that
does not come to physical violence. But in Saxe's version, the conflict
is never resolved.

Moral:

So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

Natalie Merchant sang this poem in full on her Leave Your Sleep album
(Disc 1, track 13).
Modern treatments

The story is seen as a metaphor in many disciplines, being pressed into
service as an analogy in fields well beyond the traditional. In physics,
it has been seen as an analogy for the wave–particle duality.[14] In
biology, the way the blind men hold onto different parts of the elephant
has been seen as a good analogy for the Polyclonal B cell response.[15]
"Blind men and elephant", from Martha Adelaide Holton & Charles Madison
Curry, Holton-Curry readers, 1914.

The fable is one of a number of tales that cast light on the response of
hearers or readers to the story itself. Idries Shah has commented on
this element of self-reference in the many interpretations of the story,
and its function as a teaching story:

...people address themselves to this story in one or more [...]
interpretations. They then accept or reject them. Now they can feel
happy; they have arrived at an opinion about the matter. According to
their conditioning they produce the answer. Now look at their answers.
Some will say that this is a fascinating and touching allegory of the
presence of God. Others will say that it is showing people how stupid
mankind can be. Some say it is anti-scholastic. Others that it is just a
tale copied by Rumi from Sanai – and so on.[16]

Shah adapted the tale in his book The Dermis Probe. This version begins
with a conference of scientists, from different fields of expertise,
presenting their conflicting conclusions on the material upon which a
camera is focused. As the camera slowly zooms out it gradually becomes
clear that the material under examination is the hide of an African
elephant. The words 'The Parts Are Greater Than The Whole' then appear
on the screen. This retelling formed the script for a short four-minute
film by the animator Richard Williams. The film was chosen as an
Outstanding Film of the Year and was exhibited at the London and New
York film festivals.[17]

The story enjoys a continuing appeal, as shown by the number of
illustrated children's books of the fable; there is one for instance by
Paul Galdone and another, Seven Blind Mice, by Ed Young (1992).

In the title cartoon of one of his books, cartoonist Sam Gross
postulated that one of the blind men, encountering a pile of the
elephant's fewmets, concluded that "An elephant is soft and mushy."

An elephant joke inverts the story in the following way:

Six blind elephants were discussing what men were like. After
arguing they decided to find one and determine what it was like by
direct experience. The first blind elephant felt the man and declared,
'Men are flat.' After the other blind elephants felt the man, they agreed.

Moral:

"We have to remember that what we observe is not nature in itself,
but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg

See also
Portal icon Novels portal

Anekantavada
Dispersed knowledge
Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, an 1884 satirical novella
Hasty generalization
Rashomon effect
Syncretism
The blind leading the blind
Unreliable narrator

References

Martin Gardner (1 September 1995). Famous Poems from Bygone Days.
Courier Dover Publications. p. 124. ISBN 978-0-486-28623-5. Retrieved
2012-08-25.
"Elephant and the blind men". Jain Stories. JainWorld.com. Retrieved
2006-08-29.
Hughes, Marilynn (2005). The voice of Prophets. Volume 2 of 12.
Morrisville, North Carolina: Lulu.com. pp. 590–591. ISBN 1-4116-5121-9.
Mallisena, Syādvādamanjari, 14:103–104. Dhruva, A.B. (1933) pp. 9–10.
Mallisena, Syādvādamanjari, 19:75–77. Dhruva, A.B. (1933) pp. 23–25.
Accesstoinsight.org
Katinkahesselink.net
Wang, Randy. "The Blind Men and the Elephant". Retrieved 2006-08-29.
Included in Idries Shah, Tales of the Dervishes ISBN 0-900860-47-2
Octagon Press 1993.
Arberry, A.J. (2004-05-09). "71 – The Elephant in the dark, on the
reconciliation of contrarieties". Rumi – Tales from Masnavi. Retrieved
2006-08-29.
For an adaptation of Rumi's poem, see this song version by David Wilcox
here.
Gupta, Mahendranath (11 March 1883). "Chapter V – Vaishnavism and
sectarianism – harmony of religions". Kathamrita. Vol. II. ISBN
81-88343-01-3.
Saxe, John Godfrey. "Wikisource link to The Blind Men and the Elephant".
The poems of John Godfrey Saxe. Wikisource. Wikisource link [scan]
For example, Quantum theory by David Bohm, p. 26. Retrieved 2010-03-03.
See for instance The lymph node in HIV pathogenesis by Michael M.
Lederman and Leonid Margolis, Seminars in Immunology, Volume 20, Issue
3, June 2008, pp. 187–195
Shah, Idries. "The Teaching Story: Observations on the Folklore of Our
"Modern" Thought". Retrieved 2010-03-05.

Octagon Press page for The Dermis Probe, with preview of story

External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Blind men and an elephant.

Jalal al-Din Muhammad Rumi. "Wikisource link to Book III". Masnavi
I Ma'navi. Trans. Edward Henry Whinfield. Wikisource.
Story of the Blind Men and the Elephant from
www.spiritual-education.org
All of Saxe's Poems including original printing of The Blindman and
the Elephant Free to read and full text search.
Buddhist Version as found in Jainism and Buddhism. Udana hosted by
the University of Princeton
Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Rumi's version as translated by A.J. Arberry
Jainist Version hosted by Jainworld
John Godfrey Saxe's version hosted at Rice University

Categories:

Elephants in Indian cultureFictional elephantsFablesOral
traditionIndian literatureIndian folkloreIndian short
storiesParablesSufi literaturePersian literatureWisdom literaturePali
Buddhist textsStorytellingEpistemologyPerceptionRelativismInductive
fallaciesInformal fallaciesBeliefRealityIllusionsBlindnessMetaphors
referring to elephants

Navigation menu

Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in

Article
Talk

Read
Edit
View history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools

What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

In other projects

Wikimedia Commons

Languages

العربية
Català
Deutsch
Español
Esperanto
فارسی
日本語
Русский
Simple English
Suomi
தமிழ்
中文

Edit links

This page was last modified on 3 May 2016, at 23:36.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike
License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered
trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called continuity.

> Chris
>

[bigdog]

If LBJ chose Burkley wouldn't that make Burkley LBJ's chosen physician
which is the same job he had when he was JFK's chosen physician? How was
Burkley rewarded by keeping the same job he already had under JFK?

[Bud]

So you are saying that Oswald killed Kennedy but a blind man with his
head lodged up an elephant`s ass thinks it was the CIA.

[mainframetech]

Because most president's choose their own physician, different from the
previous one. Each person can choose their own doctor, you know! But
insuring that a person can keep the job they have when it is a plum is
nice when you're the one getting the plum.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

How are incompetent people rewarded by being allowed to keep their jobs
after they've screwed up badly and should have been put in jail? Remember
Hurricane Katrina?

Bush knew damn well what was up when he told his head of FEMA, Michael
Brown, "you???re doing a great job, Brownie"--and just because he had to
dump Brown a few days later in the face of mass outrage doesn???t change
that.

[bigdog]

So what you are telling us is Burkley went along with the conspiracy just
so he could keep his job. Why not blow the whistle on the conspiracy when
they approached him and that way he could keep his job and his boss.

[Bud]

On Sunday, June 12, 2016 at 2:10:44 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 12:34 AM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 7:41:19 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 7:10:57 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, June 8, 2016 at 11:36:51 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 3:59:03 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 4:09:30 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Burkley satisfied both the family and the plotters by hurrying things
> >>>>>> along. And Burkley was the one that LBJ picked out to reward with the job
> >>>>>> of president's physician.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> He already had that job.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> WRONG as usual. He had the job of Physician for JFK. Each President
> >>>> picks his own physician. LBJ picked Burkley for the position of prestige.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Was that Secretary of Presitige?
> >>>
> >>> It seems what you are saying is "Physician for JFK" was different than
> >>> "president's physician". Is that about the size of it?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course not. But Burkley was JFK's chosen physician, and then when
> >> LBJ took over, he chose Burkley. Which would make a nice reward for his
> >> efforts in the plot.
> >>
> >
> > If LBJ chose Burkley wouldn't that make Burkley LBJ's chosen physician
> > which is the same job he had when he was JFK's chosen physician? How was
> > Burkley rewarded by keeping the same job he already had under JFK?
> >
>
> How are incompetent people rewarded by being allowed to keep their jobs
> after they've screwed up badly and should have been put in jail?

Hillary Clinton?

[bigdog]

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 5:38:50 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>

> Because most president's choose their own physician, different from the
> previous one. Each person can choose their own doctor, you know!

Except under Obamacare

[mainframetech]

That depends on the corporation offering the policy.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Stop your foolishness! I did NOT say that Burkley did it for
the job. He may have included that as part of his reasoning, but I doubt
that it was the only reason.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

It has to be "In Network."
You can choose any flavor you want as long as it's vanilla.