Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

One question about the occipital-blowout theory that every alteration believer must answer.

If you want a large head wound with cerebellum and foramen magnum visible, how can the small wound near the external occipital protuberance with it? The autopsy report, face sheet diagram, and nine autopsy participants corroborated the existence and anatomic location of this small wound. Dr. Finck said the beveling of the bone was indicative of entrance, and insisted that this hole in the skull existed as an unimpeded perforation in the occipital bone even after the top of the skull had been opened to facilitate the removal of the brain.

The external occipital protuberance lies between the border of the occipital lobe and cerebellum. If this wound was below the large head wound, how could cerebellum be loose and the foramen magnum visible? Was the large head wound more to the right than above? How did this small wound/hole stay intact within the occipital bone after the brain had already been removed? Was Humes and Boswell lying about the extreme shattering of bone surrounding the large defect so extensive that a saw was barely needed to remove the brain? Was Finck lying that the small head wound was intact within the empty cranium? Was the small head wound below the external occipital protuberance, contrary to the autopsy report that says the small wound was slightly above?

DSL apparently solves this issue by hypothesizing that lower occipital area was literally rebuilt, with filler material replacing bone, and a small hole resembling a wound of entrance surgically fabricated. That's surprisingly pretty logical if you believe the back-of-head stuff.

 

8SvO4ZO.jpg

 

See how the dura mater covers up a part of the exposed brain? At a glance, couldn't the layer of dura mater pass for the border between the cerebellum and occipital lobe?

viI0Vtm.jpg

 

If Kennedy's head was tilted back in this photo, in the tracheotomy position, wouldn't the large head wound look way more behind the ear than it really was?

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

DAVID LIFTON SAID (IN THIS 2011 EDUCATION FORUM DISCUSSION):

The purpose of the Kennedy assassination was not just to kill the President...but to kill the man AND to get away with it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So the plotters did everything in their power to complicate the shooting and the plot to the Nth degree to make sure it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the "All Shots Came From The Front" plot to stay a secret.

Ya gotta love the backward logic of David S. Lifton.

In addition....

The following hunk of logic never occurs to the conspiracy theorists who want to believe that everything connected to Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases is phony and fake:

If the whole rifle transaction was phony from the get-go, then why wouldn't the plotters who cooked up the scheme have made sure that the rifle's length MATCHED the ad from the magazine from which it was ordered?

In a truly "fake" and made-up-from-whole-cloth scenario regarding the rifle, would the conspirators have wanted to have a mis-match of rifle lengths so that the conspiracy mongers could now say what they are saying today? -- i.e., "Look! The C2766 rifle is the wrong length!"

This is just one more example (among dozens) of the built-in idiocy of the so-called "patsy framers" in this case. Everything is supposedly "manufactured" and planted ALL THROUGHOUT THE CASE to make it look as though Oswald did certain things and bought certain things and shot certain people -- but the retarded plotters apparently didn't know their asses from the hole in JFK's cranium.

More....


David-Von-Pein-Vs-David-Lifton-Logo.png

David-Lifton-1980-Interviews-With-Witnesses-Logo.png
 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

One question about the occipital-blowout theory that every alteration believer must answer.

If you want a large head wound with cerebellum and foramen magnum visible, how can the small wound near the external occipital protuberance with it? The autopsy report, face sheet diagram, and nine autopsy participants corroborated the existence and anatomic location of this small wound. Dr. Finck said the beveling of the bone was indicative of entrance, and insisted that this hole in the skull existed as an unimpeded perforation in the occipital bone even after the top of the skull had been opened to facilitate the removal of the brain.

The external occipital protuberance lies between the border of the occipital lobe and cerebellum. If this wound was below the large head wound, how could cerebellum be loose and the foramen magnum visible? Was the large head wound more to the right than above? How did this small wound/hole stay intact within the occipital bone after the brain had already been removed? Was Humes and Boswell lying about the extreme shattering of bone surrounding the large defect so extensive that a saw was barely needed to remove the brain? Was Finck lying that the small head wound was intact within the empty cranium? Was the small head wound below the external occipital protuberance, contrary to the autopsy report that says the small wound was slightly above?

DSL apparently solves this issue by hypothesizing that lower occipital area was literally rebuilt, with filler material replacing bone, and a small hole resembling a wound of entrance surgically fabricated. That's surprisingly pretty logical if you believe the back-of-head stuff.

 

 

viI0Vtm.jpg

 

If Kennedy's head was tilted back in this photo, in the tracheotomy position, wouldn't the large head wound look way more behind the ear than it really was?

Why is it assumed this photo is authentic?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I took the picture which Micah has posted as it looks to be of a better quality compared to those which I was able to view via a Google search. Of course, the wound is dark and the resolution not perfect, however, I guess it is still possible to reconstruct parts of what was the original incision made by Dr. Perry and a crude alteration performed later. 

The picture below shows a cropped view of the autopsy photograph with the throat wound area (top), and the outcome of the photographic processing. The processing consisted in increasing the contrast and adding the light to the dark tones, adding hues which helped to resolve the contiguous patches of pixels (middle part), and resampling. The lower panel gives the description of different features of the wound. using numeric labels. This is explained in the next figure zooming only on the wound.

processed_neckwound.jpg?w=768&h=1670

The next figure is the enlargement of the gash on the throat.

enlarged_neckwound.jpg?w=768&h=701

 

Residuals of the original tracheostomy:
1: The upper edge of Dr. Perry’s clean horizontal incision. 5. Existing gunshot hole or a tracheostomy opening.  6. A hypothetical line delineating the inferior edge of Dr. Perry’s  incision. 7-8. Small openings related to sutures?

Expansion-related signs: 2. A cut expanding the upper horizontal edge of Dr. Perry’s incision on the right-hand side of President’s throat. A raised flap of skin forms a triangle. 3. A raised skin flap on the left side of President’s throat. 4. A vertical mid-saggital cut. 

Of course,  some of the signs are debatable, however, the neat about 3-cm line (1) clearly differs from the lines (cuts) on each side (2-3) or in the lower lip of the wound(4). These are different cuts made by different persons. What was likely to happen was that Dr. Perry made a clean incision (1) and performed a tracheostomy. The skin incision was very likely sutured with 2 stitches, one on each side, during or after the tracheostomy.  Since the skin incision was very professional and neat,  it would have been possible to inspect the original skin injury related to the gunshot as to whether it was an entry or exit wound. I assume the wound was sutured by some junior staff member after the senior staff left and the body was being in the process of preparation for the transport for the autopsy.

This neat wound was apparently seen by Dr. Ebersole (BE, Chapter 23) and since there was a stitch over the midline as well, he was confident that this was related to the tracheostomy. Surgeons would close the wounds which were created by themselves and would leave those wounds which existed and did not threaten patient's life intact for forensic purposes. The pathologist knows in such a case what was a wound related to the crime and what was a wound created by the surgeons. It is also a part of a good surgical practice to close any wounds arising during a surgery no matter whether the patient survived or not.

The wound was heavily tampered with though. The sutures from Dallas, if they existed, were removed, and cuts were made to extend the top lip of Dr. Perry's incision wound to each side. These cuts were about 1.5-2 cm each. Then, the lower lip of the original incision wound was cut vertically with about 1 cm cut. This cut eventually destroyed the rounded gunshot wound. A retractor was used to pull the lower lip of what is now an expanded incision, and as the wound was expanded by at least 2 cm, it was necessary to relieve the tension around the edges by two other cuts. This is why a triangular flap (2) can be seen in the gash on the throat.

As Dr. Ebersole claimed he had seen the neat sutured wound at Bethesda and attributed it to the tracheostomy made in Dallas, this expanded wound was very likely caused after Dr. Ebersole's first view of the body. Could it then be during the time elapsing between the first presentation of the body and the official start of the autopsy? I am aware that David  (L) assumes that this time was used to reunite the body with the bronze casket, however, the alteration of the throat wound would be a matter of 3 minutes, and could be squeezed into more than 30 minutes elapsing between the first and second presentation of the body.

 

Edited by Andrej Stancak

Share this post


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

Why is it assumed this photo is authentic?

Altering a photograph to raise the location of the back wound is one thing, but the location large head wound is another issue. Altering the location of the large head wound not only requires staged or doctored photos/x-rays, but probably also altering the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmoore films.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Altering a photograph to raise the location of the back wound is one thing, but the location large head wound is another issue. Altering the location of the large head wound not only requires staged or doctored photos/x-rays, but probably also altering the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmoore films.

I was referring to the throat wound.

Share this post


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

I was referring to the throat wound.

Do some question whether the throat wound at the autopsy was even bigger and more gruesome than shown in the pictures?

Share this post


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

DAVID LIFTON SAID (IN THIS 2011 EDUCATION FORUM DISCUSSION):

The purpose of the Kennedy assassination was not just to kill the President...but to kill the man AND to get away with it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So the plotters did everything in their power to complicate the shooting and the plot to the Nth degree to make sure it would be virtually IMPOSSIBLE for the "All Shots Came From The Front" plot to stay a secret.

Ya gotta love the backward logic of David S. Lifton.

In addition....

The following hunk of logic never occurs to the conspiracy theorists who want to believe that everything connected to Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases is phony and fake:

If the whole rifle transaction was phony from the get-go, then why wouldn't the plotters who cooked up the scheme have made sure that the rifle's length MATCHED the ad from the magazine from which it was ordered?

In a truly "fake" and made-up-from-whole-cloth scenario regarding the rifle, would the conspirators have wanted to have a mis-match of rifle lengths so that the conspiracy mongers could now say what they are saying today? -- i.e., "Look! The C2766 rifle is the wrong length!"

This is just one more example (among dozens) of the built-in idiocy of the so-called "patsy framers" in this case. Everything is supposedly "manufactured" and planted ALL THROUGHOUT THE CASE to make it look as though Oswald did certain things and bought certain things and shot certain people -- but the retarded plotters apparently didn't know their asses from the hole in JFK's cranium.

More....


David-Von-Pein-Vs-David-Lifton-Logo.png
 

Let's talk about the hole in JFK's cranium, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 3:14 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Why is it assumed this photo is authentic?

Because that's from the record, Cliff. Just because you think it's faked doesn't make it so. In other words, if I took a photo of you with a Polaroid right in front of you and handed the photo that came out of the camera, would you call it fake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Let's talk about the hole in JFK's cranium, shall we?

Mic, what you fail to understand about this theory are the logistics of it. Don't get hung up on the holes and ripped scalp and so on of the photos and the head injury.  We know his head was blown to bits.

Instead, back up and think how this entire theory could have possibly taken place. The body's put in a coffin at Parkland. It was wrapped with sheets and the head was wrapped as well. It's put in an ambulance.  The wife and his staff are all right there, feet away from it all.

Now ask yourself - is it really, truly possible that some how, some way, this coffin surrounded by the wife and staff, was some how stolen or whisked away? Perhaps at Love Field, where someone on the plane took a photo of it as it was being brought on board, with the wife walking behind it?

Or perhaps two hours later as the plane lands? Remember the wife and staff are around the coffin for the duration of the flight. But as it lands and as the wife walks out of the plane on that transport thing and the coffin is right there and then into the ambulance, some how, some way, secret agents were able to get the body out of that same coffin - I'm guessing mid-flight right in front of everyone - put it in a body bag, and as the plane lands, in full view of everyone, they whisk it out the back door of the plane onto a thrumming helicopter?

So now ask yourself, Mic.  Could it really, truly have happened that way? Could it, Mic? While all of this was going on and when all these people were some how around and kind of looking at each other and bumping into each other in the hall ways and on the plane and so forth?

And not a single one of them ever came forward with something like, "Well, yeah, I remember as we arrived at Love there was a decoy ambulance and the one from Parkland drove off and went into a hangar and I saw white-coated doctors taking the coffin out of the ambulance.  I seen it." Or "Yeah I went to the bathroom in mid-flight and took a peek inside of the room where the coffin was...no one was there, but I noticed two military guys in there, one closing the lid and I glanced on the floor and there was a body bag with a body in it. Jackie stepped in and I looked at her and she nodded and smiled.  I seen it."

Not a single person ever came forward, Mic, in 55 plus years. All of these people out and about and no one ever saw this happen and reported it.

It makes a great story but knowing how life goes, it didn't happen that way and there was no reason for it to have happened that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

 

I was referring to the EOP wound. I don't believe the occiput was blown out. See my long post about it above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

I was referring to the EOP wound. I don't believe the occiput was blown out. See my long post about it above.

Mic, come on.  Don't dodge my post.  You can say you're discussing the head wounds and all of that and try to wiggle out of it.  But I'm clearly asking you to address the logistics of how this whole thing went down. This is, after all, the Lifton thread as in Lifton = body alteration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2018 at 5:51 AM, Andrej Stancak said:

I took the picture which Micah has posted as it looks to be of a better quality compared to those which I was able to view via a Google search. Of course, the wound is dark and the resolution not perfect, however, I guess it is still possible to reconstruct parts of what was the original incision made by Dr. Perry and a crude alteration performed later. 

Andrej can you please not post such large and graphic images of President Kennedy's graphic throat wound please? It is very upsetting especially for those who may be sensitive to these types of things.  As a matter of fact, I think it would be especially upsetting to the Kennedy family if they happened to stumble upon these very graphic and upsetting images on the Education Forum.

I would kindly ask you to remove those images please as they upset me greatly and if they are not removed, I will have to report your post as offensive to me and I'm sure other researchers.

Thank you.

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

×