Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[Ron Ecker]

3 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

If people remember the wounds locations differently, well, one thing is certain : some of them MUST be wrong !

So which ones did the HSCA suppress and lie about, the right ones or the wrong ones? Either way, that's some "investigation," isn't it? Ha ha ha ha.

 

 

[François Carlier]

All data are not equal. There is a hierarchy in evidence.
(I remember David Lifton writing that in his book)
The best evidence has to be the autopsy report, confirmed years later by the autopsy doctors, and backed by the x-rays and photographs.
Therefore, whatever "recollections" that you want to gather from people who give different accounts (not to mention that some of them didn't even see what they claim to have seen) have to be discarded !

Edited December 18, 2018 by François Carlier

[François Carlier]

20 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Secondly, it is not  matter of believing Aguilar or Humes.  

Well, it depends on how you see things, maybe, but I would say that yes, it's a matter of believing Humes.
I believe what Humes says. I trust him.
The fact that we have confirmation from other sources strengthens my belief, which becomes a conviction.

[Ron Ecker]

I'm through asking people questions who can't or won't answer them.

He's all yours, Jim. Have fun.

 

 

 

 

 

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can't find in the HSCA documents where they say that the Bethesda witnesses largely agree with the autopsy. .... Does anybody know where this might be, or have any tips on where I could find it?

It's in HSCA Volume 7, Page 37 (linked below)....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

But even Vince Bugliosi agreed that the HSCA's conclusion about the Bethesda witnesses is "so incorrect it can only be categorized as strange"....

"In an assertion by the HSCA forensic pathology panel that is so incorrect it can only be categorized as strange, someone (no one, thus far, has admitted authorship) wrote, "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 [autopsy] photographs; none had differing accounts" (7 HSCA 37). However, though they clearly were wrong, several autopsy witnesses thought the exit wound was to the right rear or rear of the president's head." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 408-409 of "Reclaiming History" (Footnote) (Emphasis on the word "All" is Bugliosi's own emphasis.)

Edited December 19, 2018 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

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

Here are some of my thoughts on the "BOH" matter that I've archived over the last few years at my website (blog)....

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/boh-part-16.html

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1092.html

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-550.html

Many more....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

 

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, François Carlier said:

If people remember the wound locations differently, well, one thing is certain: some of them MUST be wrong!

But we can now get a few members of David Lifton's fan club to chime in here with their theory about how JFK's body was surgically altered before the official autopsy began. (If there are any Lifton fans still left at this forum; I'm not sure there are.)

Which brings up another fascinating question for those people who might still be in the Lifton "Body Altering" camp....

If JFK's body was altered via "surgery of the head area" before the body ever got to Bethesda ---- then how could any of the witnesses at Bethesda have seen any large wound in the BACK of Kennedy's head? I thought that was the main reason for such covert surgery---to rearrange all the wounds so that the "real" BOH wound would be totally hidden from view at the "second" autopsy. Right? So why do we have any Bethesda "BOH" witnesses at all? Makes no sense (if you believe in Mr. Lifton's fairy tale, that is).

Edited December 19, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

On 12/17/2018 at 5:38 PM, 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.

 

I'll bet that Doctor Baden was unaware, when he said that, that nearly every Bethesda witness agreed with the 20 Parkland  witnesses on the BOH gaping wound.  [EDIT: I see now that Ron has already confirmed what I suspected.]

As Dr. Aguilar has shown, the HSCA lied regarding the Bethesda Witnesses.

P.S. Does anybody want me to post Dr. Aguilar's list of Bethesda witness testimonies? (It is on the same web page as the Parkland witness testimonies, a little below those.)

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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 

 

Thanks Jim and Ron.

Here again is the HSCA statement in question:

"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."

The statement doesn't say how many witnesses the HSCA interviewed. So if they cherry-picked their interviewees carefully, their statement could technically speaking be correct. For example, if they interviewed two of the autopsists and none of the witnesses, then they'd be telling the truth. But clearly this would amount to an intentional misrepresentation.

I think lawyers refer to this sort of thing as a "fraudulent misrepresentation." I think that most honest laypeople would consider it to be a sneaky form of lying.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

7 hours 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.

 

Ron,

We CTers believe the ~40 witnesses at both Parkland and Bethesda, whereas Francois believes Drs. Perry and Humes.

The problem  for Francois is that he can't explain how 40+ witnesses saw the wound on the back of the head. We, on the other hand, CAN explain how Perry and Humes got it wrong. Francois simply dismisses what the 40+ witnesses said. We DON'T dismiss what Perry and Humes said.

What Francois doesn't understand is that when one is investigating something, ALL the evidence must be explained. There's a reason for everything, and if you don't have a reasonable explanation significant evidence, your theory must be discarded.

Francois theory must be discarded.

 

[Ron Ecker]

22 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The statement doesn't say how many witnesses the HSCA interviewed. So if they cherry-picked their interviewees carefully, their statement could technically speaking be correct. For example, if they interviewed two of the autopsists and none of the witnesses, then they'd be telling the truth. But clearly this would amount to an intentional misrepresentation.

 

The statement says "all of those interviewed," and according to Aguilar that meant "perhaps 13 autopsy witnesses" (p.198), so the statement would be not just a cherry-picked misrepresentation but a lie.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

On 12/16/2018 at 11:38 AM, 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 ?

 

Get to the bottom of it? I've already gotten to the bottom of it!  (Though certainly not on my own. I give most the credit to David Lifton, Dr. Aguilar, and many others for digging up the evidence, and to David Lifton for figuring our much of what happened at Bethesda with the multiple casket entrances.) I'm now to the point of filling in the details.

But I'm always open to new information and other peoples' ideas. However, I'm pretty sure I won't be getting anything very useful from you. Because you rely too much on ideologues and people who clearly aren't good at critical thinking.

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

If people remember the wounds locations differently, well, one thing is certain : some of them MUST be wrong !

Problem is Francois, most of the witnesses -- both at Parkland and at Bethesda -- DON'T remember the wounds very differently! (Even though the HSCA fraudulently tried to make it seem that way.)

The real contradiction is between the ~40 hospital witnesses and the BOH autopsy photo. Either the ~40 witnesses were consistently wrong (an impossibility) or the phoot was faked.

You essentially believe that those ~40 witnesses mass hallucinated. I don't believe in mass hallucinations. Apparently you do.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

The best evidence has to be the autopsy report, confirmed years later by the autopsy doctors, and backed by the x-rays and photographs.

 

Okay Francois... so you believe that the WC autopsy report is correct, and that the ~40 hospital witnesses mass hallucinated the same wrong thing.

Good luck with that.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

17 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can't find in the HSCA documents where they say that the Bethesda witnesses largely agree with the autopsy. .... Does anybody know where this might be, or have any tips on where I could find it?

It's in HSCA Volume 7, Page 37 (linked below)....

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm

 

Thanks David. I see now that I need use text beginning on page 37.