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
James DiEugenio

Chesser/Mantik cut from Mock Trial

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I thought I'd take advantage of the rare occasion we are in agreement, Cliff.

I recently took a look at some old evidence--the statements and testimony of the people known to have been in the depository before and after the shooting and discovered that, much as the clothing evidence, which did in fact demonstrate there was more than one shooter, this statements and testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that some unidentified person who was not Oswald took an elevator down from an upper floor just after the shooting.

It kinda blew my mind. I mean, why wasn't this a focus of the early researchers? Or the media?

 

Nah, I like it better when we disagree.

The clothing evidence indicates the shot in the back was too low to associate with the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, which only could have occurred as the result of a shot to the throat from the front.

Hard evidence of a shot from the front.  You may disagree, Pat, but you cannot intellectually defend your position.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To get this thread back on track, here is what Chesser is concluding based on his analysis of the x-ray images:

dot+on+head.jpg

And then the January video I made questions the black dot on the autopsy photo. If this photo is fake then you'd think the secret agents would try to *take out* the black dot, not leave it in as what is the explanation otherwise for what the black dot is? It does not appear to be an anamoly in the photo or film:

the+black+dot.jpg

If Chesser is right - if his blue dot accurately shows an entrance, then what other conclusion is the black dot in the autopsy photo?

The combination illustration I made below:

rear+wound.jpg

...shows the potential exit wound from this shot.  The shot had to come out some place.  The circular beveled hole is potentially the sign of an exit wound.

As for the accuracy of the illustration I made, the so-called mystery photo has to fit into the head somewhere.  From all indications, the illustration is accurate, meaning it's positioned in the right part of the head; it cannot be the front of the head.

So what then...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Walton said:
On 11/30/2017 at 8:12 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

Are you aware of the fact that Michael Chesser claims in his presentation that there is evidence of alteration in the autopsy skull x-rays and some of the autopsy photographs? Are you aware of his claim that the brain photographs in the archive are not those of John F. Kennedy's?

Michael Chesser's presentation is what is being praised here. It is what got Larry Hancock talking about the evidence tampering at Bethesda. So are you gonna start railing against and belittling him (and Larry Hancock and Jim DiEugenio, etc., etc.) the way you do the rest of us whenever we suspect evidence tampering?

Sandy - I think you're misconstruing the notion that I think "nothing at all" was faked in the case. That's not true. I believe strongly that the BYP's are fake to implicate Oswald; I think the gun purchase records were manufactured to show LHO bought the gun so he could be blamed for the murder.  And if you want to call this "believing in fakery," I do think some testimony is "fake" like for example how the White Russian folks all lined up to say LHO beat Marina.

But yes, I don't think the funniness that some people think - like the Z film, and then the Nix film, and then the Muchmore film, and then the plaza photography, and then LHO's military photo with his 13-inch head - was faked.


Michael,

Oh, I see. So you feel that if you think something was faked, then that is quite all right. But if somebody else thinks something was faked, and you disagree, then that person is a clown and deserves your disrespect and ridiculing.

Gotcha.

That being the case, I see that you include among your list of clowns the Chesser being praised in this thread. For you yourself wrote:

But again [Cliff], if you think the Z film, the photos, the x-rays, the clothes, the color of the limo and the moon landings were faked then this presentation will appear faked to you as well.

I've highlighted in red things Chesser said in his presentation were altered. So let your disrespecting and belittling of Chesser begin!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Those assuming this film will be an endless string of doctors claiming they saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head will be sorely disappointed, however. Three of the doctors appeared at the 2015 Lancer Conference. Two of them said they saw the head wound. They both said the wound they saw was on the top and right side of the head.


Both these doctors at first said the wound was in the back. They changed their stories when they discovered that the back-of-head (BOH) autopsy photo proved them wrong. (Can they be blamed for doing that?)

Almost every Parkland medical professional said at first that there was a large hole at the back of the head. And most of them never changed their stories.

The BOH photo therefore was tampered with in a way to make the rear blowout wound disappear.


(Check out Dr. Aguilar's comprehensive list of head wound witnesses. It includes how their stories changed.)

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that  picture Mike.

I have never seen that before.  Where did you get it?

That does not appear to be matted hair.  That is even better than the pic Don Thomas showed at Lancer a few years ago.

You combine that, with Robinson's declassified HSCA testimony, with Chesser's new work (still tentative, but hopefully soon accepted)  and you have  a good case for a gunshot entry wound to the temple. Is that not what Kilduff seemed to be saying in that famous picture/film?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Both these doctors at first said the wound was in the back. They changed their stories when they discovered that the back-of-head (BOH) autopsy photo proved them wrong. (Can they be blamed for doing that?)

Almost every Parkland medical professional said at first that there was a large hole at the back of the head. And most of them never changed their stories.

The BOH photo therefore was tampered with in a way to make the rear blowout wound disappear.


(Check out Dr. Aguilar's comprehensive list of head wound witnesses. It includes how their stories changed.)

 

Actually, neither of those doctors ever said the wound was on the back.

P.S. Most of the Parkland doctors have at one time or another deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. Even McClelland has said the photos are legit. (He thinks scalp has been pulled up on the BOH photo, and that this conceals the true extent of the wound.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that  picture Mike.

I have never seen that before.  Where did you get it?

That does not appear to be matted hair.  That is even better than the pic Don Thomas showed at Lancer a few years ago.

You combine that, with Robinson's ARRB  testimony, with Chesser's new work (still tentative, but hopefully soon accepted)  and you have  a good case for a gunshot entry wound to the temple. Is that not what Kilduff seemed to be saying in that famous picture/film?

1. Mike photo-shopped the mystery photo onto the BOH photo. It is not a real photo, although it does represent an approximation of the appearance of the back of Kennedy's head...after the scalp was peeled to the left side, some skull was broken off, and the brain removed.

2. Robinson did not get a good look at the head wound upon his first arrival. The hole on the back of the head he later observed was the hole left after Ed Stroble performed a reconstruction designed to make Kennedy acceptable for an open casket funeral. In other words, the skull was reconstructed so as to leave the areas of missing scalp and bone on the back of the head, which was then closed up with rubber (and/or Plaster of Paris) and hidden in a pillow.

3. Robinson claimed he saw a small wound to the right cheek that was far too small to be a bullet entrance (he thought it was a fragment wound). In any event, this wound was inches away from Chesser's newly proposed location for a bullet entrance (which amazingly went unseen at both Parkland and Bethesda).

4. Only one head wound, a large gaping wound missing scalp and bone, was observed at Parkland Hospital. Kilduff pointed out the location of this wound in his press conference. It is, as one might expect, just where it is shown in the autopsy photos. The belief Kilduff was pointing out an entrance wound that connected to a separate blow out wound on the back of the head was just wishful thinking, and refuted by Kilduff's own words in the years to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Both these doctors at first said the wound was in the back. They changed their stories when they discovered that the back-of-head (BOH) autopsy photo proved them wrong. (Can they be blamed for doing that?)

Almost every Parkland medical professional said at first that there was a large hole at the back of the head. And most of them never changed their stories.

The BOH photo therefore was tampered with in a way to make the rear blowout wound disappear.


(Check out Dr. Aguilar's comprehensive list of head wound witnesses. It includes how their stories changed.)

 


Actually, neither of those doctors ever said the wound was on the back.


Please name those two doctors.

As I stated, nearly every Parkland medical professional said at first that there was a large hole at the back of JFK's head. I want to confirm that the ones you have in mind were among the tiny minority who didn't say that.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. Most of the Parkland doctors have at one time or another deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos.


Your source please.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Even McClelland has said the photos are legit. (He thinks scalp has been pulled up on the BOH photo, and that this conceals the true extent of the wound.)


Dr. McClelland said the autopsy photos showed the way he remembered the body. Except for the back-of-head photo. He said that they pulled the scalp over the hole when they took the photo. (It's obvious that they could not have pulled the scalp over that far. McClelland was probably just avoiding the controversy.)

McClelland always insisted that there was a large hole on the back of the head and that he saw cerebellar tissue oozing from it. He said, “That’s where there was a massive hole in the back of his head. I looked at that hole from 18 inches for about 12 minutes.

Here he is again in 2013 saying the same thing. Go to 6:00:
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

Oh, I see. So you feel that if you think something was faked, then that is quite all right. But if somebody else thinks something was faked, and you disagree, then that person is a clown and deserves your disrespect and ridiculing.

Gotcha.

That being the case, I see that you include among your list of clowns the Chesser being praised in this thread. For you yourself wrote:

But again [Cliff], if you think the Z film, the photos, the x-rays, the clothes, the color of the limo and the moon landings were faked then this presentation will appear faked to you as well.

I've highlighted in red things Chesser said in his presentation were altered. So let your disrespecting and belittling of Chesser begin!

Polish up your reading comprehension skills, Sandy. I clearly said:

As for Chesser, he seems to say that the original x-ray looks messed with compared to the enhanced version (or vice versa). Is it true?  I don't know. 

And by the way, do you have ANYTHING to add to this thread?  Just like DJ said that about me when I'm here?

You're just mad because I called you out on when you said you saw one of the old guys down in Dealey holding a pistol.  Remember that?  And then you laughed it off saying it was all a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that  picture Mike.

I have never seen that before.  Where did you get it?

That does not appear to be matted hair.  That is even better than the pic Don Thomas showed at Lancer a few years ago.

You combine that, with Robinson's ARRB  testimony, with Chesser's new work (still tentative, but hopefully soon accepted)  and you have  a good case for a gunshot entry wound to the temple. Is that not what Kilduff seemed to be saying in that famous picture/film?

I got that picture - I think - from Unger's website.  I flipped it upside down to make more sense of it.

I agree about Kilduff.  That's why I've always thought, in the heat of the moment he was probably running around back there with everyone else in the chaos.  But SOMEONE had to have told him "the shot was there" and thus, him pointing to the temple area. Here's a frame from the JAN video I made:

mac.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

4. Only one head wound, a large gaping wound missing scalp and bone, was observed at Parkland Hospital. Kilduff pointed out the location of this wound in his press conference. It is, as one might expect, just where it is shown in the autopsy photos. The belief Kilduff was pointing out an entrance wound that connected to a separate blow out wound on the back of the head was just wishful thinking, and refuted by Kilduff's own words in the years to follow.

 

It's irrelevant what Assistant Press Secretary Kilduff believed. The ultimate source of his press conference information was one or more doctor attending to Kennedy. And every single doctor -- sixteen of them -- in JFK's room at Parkland said that the large wound was at or near the back of the head.  (Source)

(Only later, when they discovered that the BOH autopsy photo "disproved" what they said, did some doctors change their minds. I put "disproved" in quotation marks because I believe that that photo has been doctored and thereby doesn't prove anything.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. Most of the Parkland doctors have at one time or another deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. Even McClelland has said the photos are legit. (He thinks scalp has been pulled up on the BOH photo, and that this conceals the true extent of the wound.)

That is EXACTLY what I was thinking as well. IMO - it's not a photo tampering issue but a matter of pulling the scalp back in place.  Strangely enough though, when they took that photo and if they did that, why didn't they just close the flaps on the side of the head as well?  Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. Mike photo-shopped the mystery photo onto the BOH photo. It is not a real photo, although it does represent an approximation of the appearance of the back of Kennedy's head...after the scalp was peeled to the left side, some skull was broken off, and the brain removed.

Jim D - I may have misunderstood you.  I thought you meant where I got the black hole photo.  That was from Unger I think.  But Pat S is correct about the back of the head photo - I combined the so-called mystery photo and the autopsy photo together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It's irrelevant what Assistant Press Secretary Kilduff believed. The ultimate source of his press conference information was one or more doctor attending to Kennedy. And every single doctor -- sixteen of them -- in JFK's room at Parkland said that the large wound was at or near the back of the head.  (Source)

(Only later, when they discovered that the BOH autopsy photo "disproved" what they said, did some doctors change their minds. I put "disproved" in quotation marks because I believe that that photo has been doctored and thereby doesn't prove anything.)

Sounds good, Sandy. As always, we're free to choose and believe what we want.

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

×