Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 191
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

Your second image is completely brilliant! James Gordon has done a great job discussing the physicians'

visit to the Archives. The remarks by "Pepper" Jenkins about the cerebellum are absurd and tend to

confirm my inference that, as anesthesiologist, he was the "back up", where he could (in the excitement

and turmoil) have given JFK too much gas and finished the job. The consistent reports of cerebral and

cerebellar tissue extruding from the wound are FUNDAMENTAL to understanding the case. It was those

reports that led Robert B. Livingston, M.D., world authority on the human brain, to conclude diagrams and

photos in the Archives are fake. The cerebellum is a compact part of the brain at the base, where these

two kinds of brain tissue look completely different and would not be mistaken by a 1st year med student:

cerebellum+location.jpg

Bob also reasoned that the extruding cerebellum meant that the tentorium had to have been ruptured

BEFORE those two shots to the head--the one near the EOP from behind and the one to the right temple--

which appears to have been caused by a fragment from the bullet that hit him in the throat and must have

fragmented, part going downward into the lung, the other upward into the brain, rupturing the tentorium.

We have no other possible explanation for the extruding cerebellum, which would not have occurred had

the tentorium NOT BEEN RUPTURED, than a fragment from that missile having caused it to become torn:

Livingston+on+the+brain.jpg

I also believe that the Parkland physicians were shown THE REAL PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE WOUNDS AS

THEY APPEARED BEFORE THE BETHESDA ALTERATIONS. Notice we never see the photos on which

they are in agreement that they say look like what they remember the wounds having looked like. This was

the genius of the deception. They agree on the photos, but we never see the photos on which they agree!

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin,

Excellent! The imposition over the Groden image a the top doesn't work, because that image is faked.

I know that you and others don't like to admit that any of these images are fake, but compare these two

with the two below. Is there any doubt that both sets cannot both be authentic but could both be fake?

Groden+images.jpg

The discrepancy was so great that, when the ARRB deposed Humes, he was asked whether the subject

had been given a shampoo and a haircut during autopsy, since the images are so blatantly inconsistent.

He replied, "No, no, no, no, no, . . . ." (See transcript in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), Appendix G.)

Bethesda:HSCA+photos.jpg

Your second imposition is exactly right and represents your work at its best! I also reveals the complete

indefensibility of the claim that the wound was on the right side of the head, where we can see the skull

flap extending to the right in the right-hand image. Here the blow-out has been blatantly covered up.

The image on the left is important, not only as proof that the throat wound was greatly enlarged to make

it resemble what it might have looked like had it actually been a wound of exit but for the eyes. Charles

Crenshaw closed his eyes just before the body was wrapped and placed in the casket. This is strange.

The apparent discrepancy is the result of cosmetic working having been done prior to some of the photos being taken. This was done by mortician, Thomas Robinson.

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/EMBALMER.htm

As for the damage to the BOH, the best witnesses were not in Parkland. They are us. And please don't tell me the perps created bogus frames showing massive damage to the upper rear of the head. Or if you do, please post your proof of that.

337.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin,

Excellent! The imposition over the Groden image a the top doesn't work, because that image is faked.

I know that you and others don't like to admit that any of these images are fake, but compare these two

with the two below. Is there any doubt that both sets cannot both be authentic but could both be fake?

Groden+images.jpg

The discrepancy was so great that, when the ARRB deposed Humes, he was asked whether the subject

had been given a shampoo and a haircut during autopsy, since the images are so blatantly inconsistent.

He replied, "No, no, no, no, no, . . . ." (See transcript in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), Appendix G.)

Bethesda:HSCA+photos.jpg

Your second imposition is exactly right and represents your work at its best! I also reveals the complete

indefensibility of the claim that the wound was on the right side of the head, where we can see the skull

flap extending to the right in the right-hand image. Here the blow-out has been blatantly covered up.

The image on the left is important, not only as proof that the throat wound was greatly enlarged to make

it resemble what it might have looked like had it actually been a wound of exit but for the eyes. Charles

Crenshaw closed his eyes just before the body was wrapped and placed in the casket. This is strange.

You don't think all the photos you posted show the exact same thing? ARE YOU BLIND?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

Robert,

I am baffled. Please explain these remarks, which make no sense at all. What are you talking about?

The apparent discrepancy is the result of cosmetic working having been done prior to some of the photos being taken. This was done by mortician, Thomas Robinson.

http://jfkmurdersolv...om/EMBALMER.htm

As for the damage to the BOH, the best witnesses were not in Parkland. They are us. And please don't tell me the perps created bogus frames showing massive damage to the upper rear of the head. Or if you do, please post your proof of that.

Were these comments meant for me? You think the massive discrepancy between the Groden images

and the other images was because of ALTERATIONS MADE BY THE MORTICIAN? But he didn't get the

body UNTIL AFTER THE AUTOPSY! Roderick Ryan, of course, told Noel Twyman that the "blob" and

the blood spray had been painted in! And the Hollywood film restoration experts have confirmed that the

wound at the back of the head was painted over in black! (They were astonished at how CRUDELY it had

been done.) As for the extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue, I find it difficult to imagine how any student

of JFK could dismiss these descriptions, given that the difference between brain tissue of these different

kinds would have been obvious, where blown-out cerebral tissue is grey and maggoty in appearance, while

cerebellar would be more reddish and granular in its appearance. Just consider the numerous, repeated

and consistent reports from these competent physicians, well-experienced with gun-shot victim wounds:

Cerebral+and+cerebellat.jpg

Roderick Ryan, by the way, would receive the Academy Award for his contributions to special-effects

cinematography in 2000. And while some like Lamson will insist he withdrew his opinion, that happens

when someone finds themselves in the midst of a controversy they would prefer to avoid. And as many

have observed, first opinions tend to be the more reliable. That is what he told Noel and David Mantik's

studies of the X-rays have confirmed that there was no blow-out to the right/front. That was simply one

more element in this meticulously planned and (for the most part) well-executed cover up of the crime.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Robin,

Don't you read any studies about the film? Roderick Ryan ALREADY told Noel Twyman that the "blob" and

the blood spray had been painted in! And the Hollywood film restoration experts have confirmed that the

wound at the back of the head was painted over in black! (They were astonished at how CRUDELY it had

been done.)

Uh jimmy, Ryan recanted that when he view the original film at a microscopic level and not the crappy b/w images Twyman presented to him.

Exactly why do your continue this charade?

As for the Hollywood restoration experts...really? Care to share a link to their body of work on the subject? And what are they viewing?: A copy of a copy of a copy? Please.....

And actually there is nothing CRUDE at all about the back of JFK's head in the frames in question. It is not "black". It is perfectly consistent with a shadow in term of of placement, tonality and as compared to the other shadows in the frame. More over it shows perfect gradation.

Best of luck to the hollyweirds trying to sell their claim...

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest James H. Fetzer

That was not meant for Robin. I mistook the author of the post, Robert Harris, which I have corrected:

Robert,

I am baffled. Please explain these remarks, which make no sense at all. What are you talking about?

The apparent discrepancy is the result of cosmetic working having been done prior to some of the photos being taken. This was done by mortician, Thomas Robinson.

http://jfkmurdersolv...om/EMBALMER.htm

As for the damage to the BOH, the best witnesses were not in Parkland. They are us. And please don't tell me the perps created bogus frames showing massive damage to the upper rear of the head. Or if you do, please post your proof of that.

Were these comments meant for me? You think the massive discrepancy between the Groden images

and the other images was because of ALTERATIONS MADE BY THE MORTICIAN? But he didn't get the

body UNTIL AFTER THE AUTOPSY! Roderick Ryan, of course, told Noel Twyman that the "blob" and

the blood spray had been painted in! And the Hollywood film restoration experts have confirmed that the

wound at the back of the head was painted over in black! (They were astonished at how CRUDELY it had

been done.) The Hollywood group obtained "the forensic copy" from the Archives, which turns out to be a

third-generation copy. I have visited their office and viewed what they have, which is exceptionally clear.

I am sorry, Lamson, but your song and dance has worn thin. ANYONE CAN SEE THE DISCREPANCIES

BETWEEN THE GRODEN IMAGES AND THE OTHER. The Groden has the hair long, gunky and stringy;

the other, the hair short and neat and free from gunk. You position is not just silly but completely absurd!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the Hollywood film restoration experts have confirmed that the

wound at the back of the head was painted over in black! (They were astonished at how CRUDELY it had

been done.) The Hollywood group obtained "the forensic copy" from the Archives, which turns out to be a

third-generation copy. I have visited their office and viewed what they have, which is exceptionally clear.

They have "confirmed" nothing. They have rendered an opinion. And opinion about shadow detail ...on a THIRD GENERATION copy. Unless you and the hollyweirds have forgotten , even with dedicated duplication film stocks, CONTRAST BUILDS and gradation decreases with each generation.

And they are working with a 3 generation product....

I am sorry, Lamson, but your song and dance has worn thin. ANYONE CAN SEE THE DISCREPANCIES

BETWEEN THE GRODEN IMAGES AND THE OTHER. The Groden has the hair long, gunky and stringy;

the other, the hair short and neat and free from gunk. You position is not just silly but completely absurd!

Really? Wanna try again?

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites

And while some like Lamson will insist he withdrew his opinion, that happens

when someone finds themselves in the midst of a controversy they would prefer to avoid.

He willingly PLACED himself in the midst of the controversy and if he had wanted he could have declined to comment to on the state of the original. Your logic is childish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like many other issues in this case, the back wound is not as easy to establish as it should be, if the official version was how things actually happened.

1. The photographic record shows bunching of the jacket. How much bunching is an estimate, at best.

2. The witness reports of the location of the back wound are pretty much universally consistent. This includes non-medical witnesses as well as medical witnesses

3. The hole in the shirt matches (approximately) the hole in the jacket, and both are approximately in the location specified by medical witnesses on the naked body.

It should not be possible for all three of these statements to be true - and yet this is where we find ourselves (in my opinion). If the jacket was bunched and the shirt was not then the two holes would not line up with each other, but they do. If both the jacket and the shirt were bunched by similar amounts, then they would line up approximately with each other (they do) but not with the body.

We are left with a picture like one of those optical illusions of a set of stairs that loops around on itself and joins on at the beginning.

But, as has been said, bunching or no bunching; wound at T1 or wound at T3, the one thing we can be sure of is that the wound was NOT where Gerald Ford put it, and it was NOT in a position that makes the SBT possible.

And that would seem to be the ballgame.

Arguing this point back and forward is a little like two baseball teams arguing whether the score was 10-5 or 13-8. The result is the same.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. The photographic record shows bunching of the jacket. How much bunching is an estimate, at best.

Factually incorrect.

Martin, glance down upon your right shoulder-line. Now raise your arm to wave and observe the movement of your shirt as you wave..

Your shirt fabric indents.

That's a fact. It happens that way every time you do it.

Why do you think it would have been any different for the well-dressed JFK?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no debate as to the location of JFK's T3 back wound.

There are only endlessly repeated conclusions to the contrary which cannot be intellectually or physically defended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, I must ask again: if you're gonna go on and on about Robert Livingston, might you also make the videos of him speaking--using HIS words--available to others?

I'm currently inclined to dismiss the poor man's claims, not just because they run counter to my current impressions, but because those pushing his story--chiefly, YOU--have been sitting on his filmed interviews and presentations for two decades now.

If he's as credible as you claim, you should make the tapes available. If he's not, well, then you should stop citing him in your posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

......What you don't seem to get, Daniel, is that the recollections of emergency room doctors are not the final say-so in determining cause of death. They observe and make reports. The body is then taken elsewhere and STUDIED by a pathologist, or coroner. It is the pathologist or coroner whose impressions are paramount, both in a court of law and in the field of medicine.

So you see...THAT is why the Parkland witnesses deferred to the autopsy report.... They defer to autopsy reports ALL THE TIME; it's in their training. Their job is to save lives, and let the coroners and pathologists of the world--whom they consider to be ghouls, janitors, and geeks--figure out what happened.

Unfortunately, the pathologists were never subjected to the rigors of cross-examination that would have occurred in a court of law.

The exception was Finck in New Orleans.

And had Oswald lived to face trial the testimony of the Parkland witnesses, as Pat refers to them, would have been crucial.

In a 1966 letter he sent to both Dr Boswell and Dr Humes, Harold Weisberg wrote:

But I do want you to know that among the things I say and prove in it is that the President got an autopsy unworthy of a Bowery bum. (emphasis added)

So damn true.

http://jfk.hood.edu/...nce/Item 01.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

......What you don't seem to get, Daniel, is that the recollections of emergency room doctors are not the final say-so in determining cause of death. They observe and make reports. The body is then taken elsewhere and STUDIED by a pathologist, or coroner. It is the pathologist or coroner whose impressions are paramount, both in a court of law and in the field of medicine.

So you see...THAT is why the Parkland witnesses deferred to the autopsy report.... They defer to autopsy reports ALL THE TIME; it's in their training. Their job is to save lives, and let the coroners and pathologists of the world--whom they consider to be ghouls, janitors, and geeks--figure out what happened.

Unfortunately, the pathologists were never subjected to the rigors of cross-examination that would have occurred in a court of law.

The exception was Finck in New Orleans.

And had Oswald lived to face trial the testimony of the Parkland witnesses, as Pat refers to them, would have been crucial.

In a 1966 letter he sent to both Dr Boswell and Dr Humes, Harold Weisberg wrote:

But I do want you to know that among the things I say and prove in it is that the President got an autopsy unworthy of a Bowery bum. (emphasis added)

So damn true.

http://jfk.hood.edu/...nce/Item 01.pdf

I disagree, Michael. It seems unlikely any of the Parkland witnesses would have been called, should Oswald have lived to reach trial. The emergency room doctors of murder victims are rarely called in murder trials. What would be the point? To establish the cause of death? That's the job of the medical examiner. No, I'm not kidding. That's what his job is. Emergency room doctors aren't experts in establishing cause of death, handling lawyers, or even handling the press--I mean, just look at the mess Perry got himself into with his speculation at the press conference... They are there to save lives, and once the lives are lost, it's someone else's problem.

And even IF they were called, it would have been one or two, perhaps even three. And who would those three have been? Carrico--who began Kennedy's treatment, Perry, who took over, and Clark, who pronounced him dead... And what did these three have in common? ALL three deferred to the autopsy report.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...