Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Brad Milch said:

James DiEugenio said: Don't forget the ice bullet and the flechette Cliff.

 

Or the alleged Robert & Marina Oswald sleaze that appeared in the 'Ruth Pain was a CIA operative' thread a few months back.

I'm not sure if either Cliff or Paul was responsible for it or not. For those that missed it, Robert Oswald was alleged to have been docking his ship at Marina's port of entry (lol). Ralph Cinque has picked up on it & demanding a DNA test between LHO's brother Robert & LHO's 2 daughters on his blog.

Seriously...I kid you not. Sleaze catches attention.

BM

 

 

Your aspersions on me are sleazy, Milch.

I don't opine on things Oswald, bey-otch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thread that features you, Cliff, and Paul Trejo vs. Jim DiEugenio is a entertaining, educational read for EF readers.

For me, the obvious love you 3 researchers have for each other (NOT!) is like that old Sylvester & Tweety cartoon in which Granny makes them stop fighting & hug each other & kiss. Both began spitting violently (lol).

EF readers can feel the love too & ignore posts if it gets out of hand.

Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Brad Milch said:

Any thread that features you, Cliff, and Paul Trejo vs. Jim DiEugenio is a entertaining, educational read for EF readers.

For me, the obvious love you 3 researchers have for each other (NOT!) is like that old Sylvester & Tweety cartoon in which Granny makes them stop fighting & hug each other & kiss. Both began spitting violently (lol).

EF readers can feel the love too & ignore posts if it gets out of hand.

Brad Milch

 

What does that have to do with you associating me with sleaze?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Brad Milch said:

@Cliff Varnell

This is getting good, Cliff (so good, in fact, I put off downloading Microsoft's free Windows 7 3+ Gigabyte ISO file to free up time until the alleged 'dissing' is over & I can get both yours & Paul Trejo's viewpoints together in one thread for reference).

It kinda reminds me of the old Yankees in the last inning of the World Series: Yanks are down by 3. Bases are loaded. 2 outs. Next at bat: Mickey Mantle [Roger Maris next, following Mickey]

Mickey's at the plate batting left handed instead of his usual right, signaling sportscasters & fans alike that Mickey's 'going for the fence'. Sandy Koufax has been replaced by Mr. 'LHO did it', David Von Pein, who has unexpectedly been brought to the mound from the bullpen. David's looking to strike Mickey out & put the Series to bed.

The suspense is thick. Those in the stands are munching on hot dogs, peanuts & cracker jacks. Others not present have their ears glued to small transistor radios....

(smiles)

Restfully & Sincerely,

Brad Milch

But don't forget ..... DVP (that's me) led the league in saves with 44. (To go with a not-too-shabby 2.89 earned-run average.)

And I've always had good success in my 16-year career against Mantle. Mickey's only 17-for-71 (.239) lifetime against the southpaw hurling of DVP, with just 2 long balls (one in 1964 and the other [a grand-slam, unfortunately] in '66).

So the odds are with DVP in this battle against The Mick. :)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9E6ed_4-hx6dFRSaHRVRi1vZTg/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1HfZEtZCsf5YkgzWkJaN29VSjQ/view

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@David Von Pein

I had a feeling you'd excel in the situation, David. You stand up to power sluggers day in & day out. I hope EF readers & researchers alike can read thru the lines & realize that the underlying message was: excluding DVP (David Von Pein) from the game only causes the game to suffer.

You're tougher than I'll ever be, David. That's one of the reasons I admire reading your posts & your unwavering viewpoints about the JFK case.

Respectfully & sincerely,

Brad Milch

 

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Milch said:

Mickey's at the plate batting left handed instead of his usual right, signaling sportscasters & fans alike that Mickey's 'going for the fence'. Sandy Koufax has been replaced by Mr. 'LHO did it', David Von Pein, who has unexpectedly been brought to the mound from the bullpen. David's looking to strike Mickey out & put the Series to bed.

[...]

I had a feeling you'd excel in the situation, David. You stand up to power sluggers day in & day out.

But if you were to ask most conspiracy believers around the Internet, they would say that I have had grand-slams hit off me every time I take the mound. :)

Actually, though, for the "official" record books [~chuckle~], I only pitched in one game during my glorious 4-year (Optimist Little League) baseball "career" (1973-1976). I hurled two-thirds of an inning in one game when our team was apparently getting our brains beaten out so badly that there was nobody else left to put in except first baseman Von Pein. :) (I did okay, though, giving up no runs with one strikeout.)

Sorry about this additional "baseball" diversion, but I was watching an old reel of home movies that my brother recently transferred into a digital computer file, and it includes this one minute of footage that my father took of me playing baseball as an 11-year-old in 1973, which prompted me to create the homemade "Topps baseball card" seen below. (Has anybody else here ever wanted to see their name and picture on a Topps bubble gum card?)

Yeah, I know, this "card" should be more rectangular than this, but I did the best I could with the two fuzzy pictures I captured from my father's home movie.

And, Brad, I hope you will take notice of the bond I share with the Hall-of-Famer you mentioned earlier--Mickey Mantle. We both wore the same uniform number (7). The similarity ends there, however. Mickey batted .298 lifetime. I hit about .198. I guess maybe that's why the Reds weren't beating down my door to draft me. :) ....

1973-DVP-Baseball-Card.jpg

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@David Von Pein & Michael Walton:

After reading Joe Pepitone's book in the '70's, I believe Mickey Mantle's batting average would have been much higher if he'd laid off the pot smoking with Pepitone (lol). That goes for Whitey Ford, Elston Howard, Yogi Berra, Roger Maris & all the other Yankees Pepitone may have corrupted with his drugs fans would toss at him from the stands wrapped in tin foil (lol). Sheesh!

I hope you both didn't suffer the horror I discovered when I learned my good 'ol dad had taken advantage of me leaving home for the Army, cleaned out my room & tossed out all my trading cards & comics (one featuring Mantle & Maris - I think it was a Batman or Superman issue). A small fortune in collectables slipped right thru my little fingers...including my Beatles trading cards (crying hysterically)....

I've never gotten over it, nor forgiven. My mother kept it from me for a long, long time. She KNEW how much the old Yanks meant to me....mom never let on that she suspected me of blowing my lunch money on Tops baseball & Beatles trading cards & gum.

Brad

PS: David's baseball time trip was marvelous, to say the least. Possibly one of the best pieces he's ever written. It belongs in David's Hall Of Fame too (along with the video clip of JFK tossing out the ball from a Washington stadium that David has posted at his video blog) IMHO.

That fine looking young man with #7 on the back of his uniform shirt clearly demonstrates that David Von Pein is not the monster some try to make him out to be....

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But has anyone even bothered to look at the intensity of the "blackness" of Clint Hill's head when examining the "Wilkinson scan" of the Zapruder Film?

In other words, when viewing the Wilkinson HD scan, has anyone performed the type of comparison like the one I did on a lower-quality version of the Z-Film (comparing Clint Hill's head to JFK's head) to see whether or not the "black" levels are the same or totally different in shading and intensity?

If such a direct "Hill vs. JFK" comparison hasn't been done for that Wilkinson material, and if nobody has even paid any attention to Clint Hill in the Wilkinson scan (has anyone?), then how can we know that Jim DiEugenio is 100% correct when he said this recently: "I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else"?

Now, to be fair, maybe somebody has done a direct comparison of Clint Hill's head with President Kennedy's in the "Wilkinson scan". I don't know for sure. That's why I asked.

But even if someone has done such a comparison and has concluded that a "black patch" has definitely been artificially placed over the back of JFK's head in many frames of the Zapruder home movie, I still wonder how those CTers can explain the fact that high-quality autopsy photos of JFK's head (like the one below) pretty much prove, via the presence of individual hairs that are visible in the right-rear section of the head, that President Kennedy most certainly did not have a huge gaping hole in the back of his head when he was on the autopsy table at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of 11/22/63....because there most certainly is not a "black patch" over the back of JFK's head in this autopsy photograph:

JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brad:

All of my old Topps baseball cards are now gone too. My dad didn't toss them out, though. I myself threw them all away years ago. Geez, how stupid I was for doing that! I'd love to have those cards back today. And I'm a persnickety fusspot too, keep in mind, so I kept each card in perfect (mint) condition all the time. Who knows what my "Johnny Bench In Action" card from '72 would be worth today in the mint condition I kept it in. :)

Johnny-Bench-Topps-Card-1972.jpg

@Michael:

Great Kentucky Post newspaper clipping. A no-hitter, eh? That's incredible (even for a Knothole player). The best I could ever do was two doubles in one game in 1976 (plus a few good plays on defense while digging out low throws at first base).

Your newspaper clipping reminds me of something else from my "baseball past" that I wish I still had today -- the box scores from my Little League games. Yes, as incredible as it might sound today, the local paper in my small hometown (The Palladium-Item in Richmond, Indiana) actually would publish in the Sports section the complete box scores for every Optimist League game played. I think I used to cut out those box scores and keep them as souvenirs, but they're all gone now. I must have tossed them all in the trash along with my many complete sets of Topps baseball cards. Oh, the ignorance of youth. :(

Thank you both (Brad and Michael) for sharing your baseball memories. I know it has nothing to do with the JFK case....but, heck, there are a few things in the world besides the events of November 22nd, 1963, right? SMILE-ICON.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I have seen the Wilkinson scan. In their high-resolution scan I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But has anyone even bothered to look at the intensity of the "blackness" of Clint Hill's head when examining the "Wilkinson scan" of the Zapruder Film?

In other words, when viewing the Wilkinson HD scan, has anyone performed the type of comparison like the one I did for a lower-quality version of the Z-Film (comparing Clint Hill's head to JFK's head) to see whether or not the "black" levels are the same or totally different in shading and intensity?

If such a direct "Hill vs. JFK" comparison hasn't been done for that Wilkinson material, and if nobody has even paid any attention to Clint Hill in the Wilkinson scan (has anyone?), then how can we know that Jim DiEugenio is 100% correct when he said this recently: "I can assure you that the black patch does not appear anywhere else"?

Now, to be fair, maybe somebody has done a direct comparison of Clint Hill's head with President Kennedy's in the "Wilkinson scan". I don't know for sure. That's why I asked.

But even if someone has done such a comparison and has concluded that a "black patch" has definitely been artificially placed over the back of JFK's head in many frames of the Zapruder home movie, I still wonder how those CTers can explain the fact that high-quality autopsy photos of JFK's head (like the one below) pretty much prove, via the presence of individual hairs that are visible in the right-rear section of the head, that President Kennedy most certainly did not have a huge gaping hole in the back of his head when he was on the autopsy table at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the night of 11/22/63....because there most certainly is not a "black patch" over the back of JFK's head in this autopsy photograph:

JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg

 

 

Michael T. Griffith, Missing Autopsy Photos and the Large Head Wound (1st November, 2002)

 

What follows is a brief summary of some of the historic new evidence contained in recently released autopsy witness interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1976-1979 and in interviews of key witnesses conducted over the last three years by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).

 

What do the above mentioned documents reveal? As we'll see in a moment, they contain, among other things, evidence that a bullet struck Kennedy in the right temple, that there was a large wound in the back of the skull (which of course indicates the bullet came from the front and exited the rear of the head), that several important autopsy photos are missing, that there was NOT a straight path from the Oswald window to the back wound to the throat wound (because the back wound was lower than the throat wound and because Kennedy was not leaning off the seat when the back missile struck), that even Secret Service agents believed there had been a conspiracy, and that autopsy photos were altered (obviously in order to give a false impression of the direction of the gunfire that struck the president).

Here are some of the important new disclosures:

John Stringer reported that the throat wound was probed. This is key because it's further evidence the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry.

White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went downward from the throat wound, which means that if the throat wound was the exit point for the back wound, then the back wound was lower than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory.

Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) upward to the area of the right orbit (behind the right eye). This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not.

Saundra Kay Spencer, as established by chain of evidence documentation, processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and she told the ARRB she did not process any of the autopsy photos now in evidence. She said the extant autopsy photos were not the ones she processed. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were two sets of autopsy photos.

Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole in the back of the head. This is yet another witness who saw a sizeable wound in the rear of the skull. The evidence of a large wound in the back of Kennedy's head is important because the current autopsy photos show no such wound. In the autopsy photos the back of the head is virtually undamaged. Critics contend those photos have either been altered or the skull was cosmetically repaired before the pictures were taken, so as to conceal the large wound in the back of the head. A large wound in the back of the head, of course, would be characteristic of a shot from the front, not from behind.

O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed what appeared to be an entry wound in the right temple.

This is key because there were several reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist).

Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he had already told the HSCA on the issue of a small wound in the temple, namely, that he saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple").

O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos, one genuine and the other altered.

Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy.

Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.

Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into three wounds. The WC said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than one gunman.

Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled at least two probes inserted into wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which three probes were inserted into wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period. In fact, in this instance two probes might mean conspiracy since it's unlikely the pathologists would have probed the head wound.

Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his comment.

Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere.

The special agent in charge of the Miami Secret Service office told the HSCA he believed some elements of the Secret Service might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination.

Secret Service Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound was an entrance wound.

Robert Bouck, who was the chief of the Protective Research Division of the Secret Service in 1963, told the HSCA he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

Special Agent Fox made black and white autopsy photo prints at the Secret Service lab.

Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.

Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an "orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged period of time, but he also HANDLED it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson "confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear.)

Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e., that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda.

X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer has a point. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed?

Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays.

Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you guys think the medical forgeries were created with the EOP entry wound in mind, or something different like the cowlick entry? If so, why didn't they make the right cerebellum area on the x-rays/surrogate brain show more damage? You can prove conspiracy without anything being fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Do you guys think the medical forgeries were created with the EOP entry wound in mind, or something different like the cowlick entry? If so, why didn't they make the right cerebellum area on the x-rays/surrogate brain show more damage? You can prove conspiracy without anything being fake.

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols, and there is no chain of possession for them.

The autopsy photos have no weight as scientific evidence in a murder case (to paraphrase the HSCA conclusions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 11:54 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

You've whet my appetite Cliff. Could you give me a thumbnail sketch of it?

Hi Kirk

My "It's A Murder Case, After All" article is going to be more involved than an outline.

You'll find my research outlined in the long-banished Trump? thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23193-trump/&do=findComment&comment=337682

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23193-trump/&do=findComment&comment=337895

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols, and there is no chain of possession for them.

The autopsy photos have no weight as scientific evidence in a murder case (to paraphrase the HSCA conclusions).

You have your low holes in the shirt/jacket, and I have my barely damaged right cerebellum. Nothing has to be forged for the EOP wound and the lack of severe cerebellar damage to prove a conspiracy. So if anybody wants to say there was a posterior exit wound, why would they cover that up something else that could easily be proof of conspiracy?

Share this post


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

×