Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[James DiEugenio]

In his essay in The Assassinations, Gary writes, quoting the HSCA volumes, "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy.  All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs, none had differing accounts...it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect."

 

He references this to HSCA Volume 7, p. 39

[Rick McTague]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

3.) The 20 Parkland professionals saw a large amount of blood and gore at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head, and those witnesses were honestly mistaken when they reported that there was a large "wound" in that area of the President's head.

Mr. Von Pein,

To carry your 3rd option to it's logical conclusion, not only were they all mistaken that they didn't see the large wound in the back of the head, but they were all mistaken when none of them reported seeing the wound as shown in the Zapruder film, correct?  None of them said they saw the huge red/orange/white blob/flap as shown in the Z film, in addition to being mistaken about the wound in the back of the head?  So they were doubly mistaken, is that your position?

Thanks

[Ron Ecker]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

According Dr. Aguilar, the HSCA stated in their report that numerous (I forgot the number, but greater than 20) Bethesda witnesses agreed with the location of the gaping head wound as stated by the autopsy. Dr. Aguilar says this is not true, and he shows that most the Bethesda witnesses agree with the Parkland witnesses. He has the Bethesda witness accounts documented and sourced.

However, I can't find in the HSCA documents where they say that the Bethesda witnesses largely agree with the autopsy. I've  looked in a number of document including HSCA Volume 7 and haven't been able to find it. (Naturally I could have missed it.) Does anybody know where this might be, or have any tips on where I could find it?

I want to quote it on the website I'm planning to build.

 

The Bethesda witness interviews agreeing with Parkland were not included anywhere in the 12 volumes that the HSCA published (Aguilar, Murder in Dealey Plaza, p. 198). To find them, I guess you have to go to an ARRB site, or else search online by the name of the interviewed witness.

Edit: I think I've misunderstood you. Are you asking where it is in the HSCA documents that the HSCA lied about the witnesses? The citation in Aguilar is 7HSCA37-39..

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by Ron Ecker

[François Carlier]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

They then discount or forget matters when the HSCA was honest enough to say something fatal to the WC:  like the HSCA found that Ruby lied during his polygraph test. And further, the FBI rigged the test in advance.  To any normal person that would carry the impact of a harpoon through the chest.  Somehow, it just runs off their backs like water in a shower:  What me worry?

 

Please, James DiEugenio, this is an interesting debate about one of the wounds and what the HSCA concluded. Why do you feel compelled to talk about Jack Ruby's polygraph test ? Please, we'll talk about that somewhere else.

[François Carlier]

20 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But it's not JUST the authentication of the autopsy photographs and X-rays by the HSCA, Jimmy Boy (which is nice for LNers to have, granted), but there's also the other "photographic" piece of evidence (i.e., "virtual proof") that exists in this case which practically proves, all by itself, that the conspiracy theorists don't have a leg to stand on when they keep insisting that JFK had a huge hole in his occipital----the Zapruder Film. So, is that film a fake and a fraud too, Jim?

Indeed, there's a lot of evidence, not just the HSCA's conclusions.

[François Carlier]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 As Gary writes, it may be that the lens had been switched out in the intervening years. 

You're priceless.
When the evidence is not faked and the witnesses are not liars, then you have things that are "switched" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How convenient !
You're really one of a kind !

[Ron Ecker]

1 minute ago, François Carlier said:

Indeed, there's a lot of evidence, not just the HSCA's conclusions.

Yes, evidence that the HSCA deliberately suppressed and lied about. Why do you suppose they would do that?

 

 

[François Carlier]

19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

But, IMO, the way you've worded it shows your own bias. Because the Parkland people don't necessarily have to be "mass hallucinating". They were ALL WRONG, yes, when they THOUGHT there was a big HOLE in the back of Kennedy's head. But they didn't "hallucinate" anything. They saw something that FOOLED them into THINKING there was a wound back there

I essentially agree with you, David.
I share your analysis.

 

[François Carlier]

19 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It should have been on your "list" of options for years.....particularly since the head man of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel totally endorses it....

• "Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History"

In all honesty, I think that Doctor Baden has explained the situation very well !
That's the answer that -- sadly -- Sandy Larsen and James DiEugenio will refuse to acknowledge.
 

[Ron Ecker]

1 minute ago, François Carlier said:

In all honesty, I think that Doctor Baden has explained the situation very well !
That's the answer that -- sadly -- Sandy Larsen and James DiEugenio will refuse to acknowledge.
 

Never mind that Baden didn't have the benefit of the Bethesda witness statements that the HSCA withheld from him. I guess the HSCA didn't want to confuse the poor man.

 

 

 

 

[François Carlier]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And Dr. Humes of the autopsy team was even CLOSER to it. And what did he say? ....

"The exit wound was a large irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1967 [Click For Video]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

Very good !
I think that it's very powerful !
Doctor James Humes was a decent man.
His words are powerful and cannot be easily discounted.
In essence, James Humes is actually saying that Sandy Larsen and James DiEugenio are 100% wrong ! So they either acknowledge their mistake (or dishonesty), or they'll claim that Humes lied.
Just think about it :
Doctor Perry has the key role at Parkland, and he agrees with the official conclusions of the medical evidence and the Warren commission.
Doctor Humes has the key role at Bethesda, and he agrees with the official conclusions of the medical evidence and the Warren commission.
That's powerful, to me !
And if I may, I would like to add that neither James DiEugenio nor Sandy Larsen were at Parkland or Bethesda.
Perry and Humes were there.
So I'd rather take their word !
So you add Malcolm Perry + James Humes + the HSCA's panel of independent experts + the Zapruder film, and you can reach a safe conclusion.
What can Sandy Larsen and James DiEugenio do ?
Please Don't tell me that James Humes was a l-i-a-r-. Please !
I am willing to debate and listen to anybody, but I just have a hard time with members who dare smear the name of honest, deceased people. I shall never smear the name of honest people. I mean, does "respect" still means anything ?
As to Aguilar, whose name comes up regularly in James DiEugenio's posts, well, I met him in 1996. That year, I had registered to both the JFK-Lancer conference and the COPA conference, where Aguilar was a speaker. I attended Aguilar's conference and even recorded it (I still have the tape). I talked to him and seem to remember exchanging messages with him after that. I'd say that I know him fairly well. i was never impressed by him, I must say.
One thing is certain : he was not at Parkland (unlike Doctor Perry) and he was not at Bethesda either (unlike Doctor Humes). Therefore, I'll choose to believe Perry and Humes over Aguilar, with no hesitation !

Edited December 18, 2018 by François Carlier

[Ron Ecker]

4 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

 I'll choose to believe Perry and Humes over Aguilar, with no hesitation !

I asked you a question, but I didn't expect you to answer. Just kill the messenger (Aguilar) on the HSCA's documented deceit.

 

 

[François Carlier]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 7:38 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Excellent suggestion. I'm outta here!

 

Come on, don't you think that it would be a more mature behavior if you tried to get to the bottom of it ?
You claim something that is very staggering, namely that an official autopsy report is wrong, that you don't believe the conclusions of the autopsy doctor, that you deny the conclusions reached by a panel of independent experts, that you believe that a wound was at a location that is NOT seen on the Zapruder film (which is authentic).
And you want to leave without trying to check whether, after all, you may be wrong ? At least try to reach a satisfying conclusion !

[James DiEugenio]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

You're priceless.
When the evidence is not faked and the witnesses are not liars, then you have things that are "switched" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How convenient !
You're really one of a kind !

Incredible, FC does not even know what I meant about the lens.  And he quotes it in the contrary terms in which I used it. 

And he talks to us about critical thinking.

Secondly, it is not  matter of believing Aguilar or Humes.  I mean did you even look at the list?

Its people like McHugh, Stringer, Greer, Clint Hill, Tom Robinson, Rudnicki, Ebersole, LIpsey, I ran do you want me to name them all?  Do you really want to call them all either wrong or liars?

[François Carlier]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Incredible, FC does not even know what I meant about the lens.  And he quotes it in the contrary terms in which I used it. 

And he talks to us about critical thinking.

Secondly, it is not  matter of believing Aguilar or Humes.  I mean did you even look at the list?

Its people like McHugh, Stringer, Greer, Clint Hill, Tom Robinson, Rudnicki, Ebersole, LIpsey, I ran do you want me to name them all?  Do you really want to call them all either wrong or liars?

Well, you will agree with me, I'm sure, when I say that the assassination happened only one way.
There was only ONE set of wounds.
If people remember the wounds locations differently, well, one thing is certain : some of them MUST be wrong !