Mili Cranor Demolishes more Disinfo

[James DiEugenio]

How do they get these idiots?

 I mean this guy thought you could have a brain that weighs 2100 grams?

And he uses a charlatan like Lattimer for 13 footnotes.  This might be the worst since Dale Myers' Single Bullet Fact.

https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/05/31/scientist-neutralizes-jfks-back-and-to-the-left-or-does-he/

Edited May 31, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

Added the following comment to Cranor's article.

May 31, 2018 at 5:57 pm

Cranor has a flaw in her analysis of JFK’s back wound.

She cites the autopsy photo showing a wound at the top of JFK’s back (T1) and also the autopsy face sheet showing the wound lower on the back (T3), consistent with the holes in JFK’s clothes (4 inches below the bottom of the collars), the verified death certificate (put the wound specifically at T3), the contemporaneous written notes of two FBI men and a Secret Service agent, and the consensus witness statements of another dozen back wound witnesses.

The autopsy photo was not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol; lacks a chain of possession; shows an intact back of the head inconsistent with witness statements and other autopsy photos; shows a wound with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below; a ruler that doesn’t measure anything; shows a wound two inches higher than the bullet holes in the clothes, requiring JFK’s shirt and jacket to elevate in a manner inconsistent with reality.

The autopsy photo is clearly a fraud — JFK’s back wound was at T3.

[Michael Walton]

49 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The autopsy photo is clearly a fraud — JFK’s back wound was at T3.

It's not fake, Cliff.  You're muddling the picture with this. Humes said that wound did not terminate so what does that mean? No SBT. Period. And you seem to think that 1960's technology could magically move a bullet wound around.

Give it a rest.

[Cliff Varnell]

19 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

It's not fake, Cliff.  You're muddling the picture with this.

It's not even a good fake.

It's like they wanted to be found out.

Quote

Humes said that wound did not terminate so what does that mean? No SBT. Period.

So what? Disproving the SBT is no big deal -- a ten year old could do it in less than 60 seconds.

The issue is what caused the hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process?

The T3 back wound is too low to have made that fracture -- which could only have been caused by a shot in the throat from the front.

The T3 back wound proves the autopsy photo is a fake.  It's physically impossible for the bullet defects in his clothing to line up with the "wound" in the autopsy photo.

Quote

 

 

And you seem to think that 1960's technology could magically move a bullet wound around.

You're claiming that photos can't be faked?

 

Quote

Give it a rest.

This diagram does not show the location of the bullet holes in the clothes.

The night of the autopsy the Secret Service wouldn't let the autopsists view the clothing.

Tools of the cover-up have been trying to obfuscate the clothing evidence ever since.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Cliff Varnell

[James DiEugenio]

As Cranor shows, what kind of authority does not even know what the top weight of a brain is?

But further, the guy did not even get any counsel from anyone else.

This is what they trot out at the 50th of RFK and MLK and the 55th of JFK.

And Newsweek runs the story.

I am glad Mili got this in Russ Baker's site.  It will get some wide exposure there.  

 

[James DiEugenio]

I should add, when you click through, leave a like or share.

This will encourage more stories on the assassinations.

That web site is pretty far reaching so we will get a wider platform.

 

[Michael Walton]

8 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're claiming that photos can't be faked?

I'm stating, not claiming, your "it's fake" claim is bogus.

[Cliff Varnell]

10 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I'm stating, not claiming, your "it's fake" claim is bogus.

Induce your shirt to move two inches, then get back to us.

Until then Fox 5 stands exposed and debunked.

[Sandy Larsen]

Of course you are right, Cliff. I'm glad you keep reminding people of the clothing evidence.

The bullet hole on the shirt and jacket are significantly below the bullet hole shown in the autopsy photo. For some reason Michael Walton simply refuses to consider the possibility that photos were faked, and this forces him to ignore inconvenient discrepancies... in this case the misalignment of the bullet holes. For some reason he has no problem ignoring discrepancies.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course you are right, Cliff. I'm glad you keep reminding people of the clothing evidence.

 

Fortunately it is still possible to disprove the SBT in spite of the fact that the autopsy photo was faked.

Unfortunately the fakery in the photo helps make the SBT look more viable.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy,

 

Did you read the article? Neither of your comments indicates you did so.

Cranor was using the photo to show how Lattimer had misrepresented the facts.  He was the first physicians to be at NARA and he saw the evidence.

As Cranor noted, he then misrepresented that evidence in an illustration he conjured up to show the back wound in the neck, when he knew better. Thus proving he was a xxxx.

And the author of this article uses him for 13 footnotes.  So why should we trust him.  That was her point.

 

Edited June 1, 2018 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy,

 

Did you read the article? Neither of your comments indicates you did so.

Cranor was using the photo to show how Lattimer had misrepresented the facts.  He was the first physicians to be at NARA and he saw the evidence.

As Cranor noted, he then misrepresented that evidence in an illustration he conjured up to show the back wound in the neck, when he knew better. Thus proving he was a xxxx.

And the author of this article uses him for 13 footnotes.  So why should we trust him.  That was her point.

 

Using bogus evidence to debunk bogus evidence?

 

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course you are right, Cliff. I'm glad you keep reminding people of the clothing evidence.

The bullet hole on the shirt and jacket are significantly below the bullet hole shown in the autopsy photo. For some reason Michael Walton simply refuses to consider the possibility that photos were faked, and this forces him to ignore inconvenient discrepancies... in this case the misalignment of the bullet holes. For some reason he has no problem ignoring discrepancies.

 

Thank you, Sandy.

Unfortunately, it's not just Michael Walton who promotes this obvious fake.

The JFKA Master Class loves the fake autopsy pic!

Keeps the Question of Conspiracy Parlor Game running...

[Eddy Bainbridge]

We hit a nasty impasse when the single bullet theory is challenged. The argument goes : Look at the evidence! It shows the SBT is false. I believe this to be true, but to complete the argument and conclude  'and this is what actually happened!'   always relies on impugning the evidence. The list of theories are some variant on 1. The body was altered 2. The film was altered. 3. The autopsy photos/xrays were altered, or combinations of the three.

This makes for an area of research ripe for disinformation. 

It is impossible to argue with any credibility that no evidence alteration has occurred. So if some alteration is proven then other alteration is plausible. Forget the 'No alterationists'. That position is not tenable. 

In my short time studying the case I have read nothing persuasive that stops me believing that JFK left the motorcade with a large hole in the back of his head. Until I am persuaded otherwise I want to know why I can't see that on the Z-film (altered/spliced ?) and why the evidence indicates brain matter went forcefully back, and showered forwards.

These views are very relevant to the current thread,. Milicent Cranor does not challenge the 'back and to the left' motion as accurately reflecting history. I do challenge it, for the reasons above.( I have a theory, but don't we all)

[James DiEugenio]

Eddy:

What Mili is challenging is Nilli's ideas about a recoil effect on the film and that somehow the forward bob is part of that. What she is saying is that his calculations are all wrong since he does know the case very well, and then he makes that worse by relying on hacks like Lattimer and Alvarez.  She shows how Lattimer has completely distorted and misrepresented evidence  that he had to know was wrong, as I noted above.  He was knowing telling a falsehood since he had seen it at the Archives.

Recall, Lattimer was the first physician allowed to see that stuff, a urologist.  

She is not advocating any theory.  She is taking the guy on per his own terms which is the way you are supposed to do things in academic circles.  You don't demolish someone's work in order to advance your own speculation.  What you do is you tear down that position in order to show that the other side cannot be trusted with evidence.

Today, one does not need any theories to show the Single Bullet Fantasy is just that. CE 399 was destroyed by the first generation critics, including Ray Marcus.

Her article is not about that. Its about the question of jet effect, and its supplement so-called neurospasm that caused the forward bob on the Zapruder film.  

BTW, I know Cranor does not buy the Z film as being authentic.  But like a good and honest essayist, she does not bring that into the argument. She takes the guy apart on his own terms, and grinds no personal axe.  That is intellectual purity and honest debate.  

Edited June 1, 2018 by James DiEugenio