Jump to content
The Education Forum
Vince Palamara

Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

f 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?

 

That's a good point David. It is one of the reasons I reject some of Lifton's conclusions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:
1 hour 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.

 

Ron,

Yes, of course what you say is true... but only if the HSCA indeed stated that they interviewed 13 witnesses. Problem is, Aguilar doesn't say that... he says "perhaps 13." And he doesn't say how he came up with that number. Unless there's a footnote I couldn't see when I read that page of his book in Google Books.

If you know what his "perhaps 13" means, I'd appreciate your telling us.

 

Share this post


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

Either the ~40 witnesses were consistently wrong (an impossibility) or the photo was faked.

But, Sandy, remember that it's not just ONE photo that had to have been faked----it's many photos. Plus several X-rays. Plus the Zapruder Film. (Do you think the Z-Film is a fake too? Because it certainly doesn't show a big BOH blowout.)

As for the autopsy photos that would have to be faked if JFK really had a huge hole in the back of his head....

In addition to the more-widely-published color BOH picture, there's also at least one black-and-white picture that shows the equivalent of the color version. Is this photo faked too, Sandy? And I can see individual strands of JFK's hair in the RIGHT-REAR of his head, so the idea endorsed by many CTers that the right-rear was "blacked out" on this photo is not a valid or reasonable argument at all, because as anyone can easily see---it hasn't been "blacked out" at all....

JFK-Autopsy-Photo.jpg

 

JFK-Autopsy-Photos-BOH-Composite.jpg

 

00.+JFK+Autopsy+Photos+(Animated+GIF+Mon

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

 

Ron,

Yes, of course what you say is true... but only if the HSCA indeed stated that they interviewed 13 witnesses. Problem is, Aguilar doesn't say that... he says "perhaps 13." And he doesn't say how he came up with that number. Unless there's a footnote I couldn't see when I read that page of his book in Google Books.

If you know what his "perhaps 13" means, I'd appreciate your telling us.

 

No, I don't know why the exact number isn't known or stated. There must be a record of them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Either the ~40 witnesses were consistently wrong (an impossibility) or the photo was faked.

But, Sandy, remember that it's not just ONE photo that had to have been faked----it's many photos.


I count three photo that need to have been faked. Faking photos of a person's back is easy. And they had plenty of time to do it.

The alternative explanation is mass hallucination, which is impossible. As is 20 medical professionals seeing a large hole where there is none, to the point of describing cerebellar tissue oozing from it, skull fragments protruding, and a small fist being able to fit inside.

 

Quote

Plus several X-rays.


Why do you say the x-rays had to have been faked for the sake of the BOH wound in question?

Not being a radiologist, I can't determine if the x-rays are consistent with a BOH wound or not.

 

Quote

Plus the Zapruder Film. (Do you think the Z-Film is a fake too? Because it certainly doesn't show a big BOH blowout.)


I do believe that a number of frames in the Z film were altered.

Altering frames in a film wasn't a difficult thing even back then. Think of the special effects in movies... e.g. the cartoon penguin dancing with Dick Van Dyke. No big deal.


Really, faking things isn't a difficult thing, and is done all the time for fraudulent purposes.
 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

 

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.

 

Won't you stop it ?
Debating is one thing. Accusing someone of saying something that they have never said is dishonest. You are being dishonest.
You tell me when I wrote that there was a mass hallucination ?
Come to think of it, wasn't that you who, some posts earlier, when replying to me, mentionned the holocaust ?
I'm not sure.
At any rate, please stick to what I say. You can criticize what I write, but don't criticize what I don't write nor think !

Share this post


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


I count three photo that need to have been faked. Faking photos of a person's back is easy. And they had plenty of time to do it.

The alternative explanation is mass hallucination, which is impossible. As is 20 medical professionals seeing a large hole where there is none, to the point of describing cerebellar tissue oozing from it, skull fragments protruding, and a small fist being able to fit inside.

 


Why do you say the x-rays had to have been faked for the sake of the BOH wound in question?

Not being a radiologist, I can't determine if the x-rays are consistent with a BOH wound or not.

 


I do believe that a number of frames in the Z film were altered.

Altering frames in a film wasn't a difficult thing even back then. Think of the special effects in movies... e.g. the cartoon penguin dancing with Dick Van Dyke. No big deal.


Really, faking things isn't a difficult thing, and is done all the time for fraudulent purposes.
 

I'll say it again :
- Doctor Perry, the key doctor at Parkland, agrees with the official conclusions
- Doctor Humes, the key doctor at Bethesda, agrees with the official version
- autopsy photographs support the official version
- autopsy x-rays support the official version
- a panel of experts (who had nothing to do with the Warren commision, may I add) all confirmed that the autopsy documents are genuine
- there are several autopsy documents (photographs and x-rays) and they are all coherent with one another
- the Zapruder film is coherent with the official version of the medical evidence
- the Zapruder film is genuine (I mean, it was proven that it is genuine, to the point that even James DiEugenio doesn't dare say that it is faked and that's saying a lot, no disrespect)

So, I, François Carlier, based on all of the above, reach the conclusion that the official version of events, as far as the medical evidence is concerned, is true !

But then comes along Sandy Larsen who claims that my conclusion is wrong. In other words, I must be credulous. Sandy Larsen (and here I take you as a symbol, knowing that there are other member here who share your conclusions) does not believe the official version. 
In order for him to dismiss the official version, he has to claim that :
- the autopsy photographs are faked (despite the experts saying the opposite)
- the Zapuder film is faked (despite the experts and logic saying the opposite) (or at least, part of it)
- we should not rely on Doctor Perry, who was the key doctor at Parkland
- we should not rely on Doctor Humes, who performed the autopsy and spent hours looking at Kennedy's body and touching it and even cutting into it

Sounds surprising, doesn't it ?
For sure, that is an extraordinary claim ! I suppose that Sandy Larsen must have extraordinary evidence to back up his claim.

What does he have ? Statements carefully selected by Gary Aguilar. Well, I won't deny that the sum of those statements sounds impressive. But where does it lead ?
First of all, those statements come from people who, at most, had a quick look at the body, which is very different from the long hours that James Humes could "enjoy" working on the body. That alone gives far more weight to Humes's statements than to the Sandy Larsen/Aguilar statements !
Second of all, those statements that Aguilar has gathered sometimes come from people who may claim to have seen the wound, when, in actual fact, they haven't.
Thirdly, well, there is no denying that some people tend to grant themselves a bigger role than they actually had on November 22, 1963 (Charles Crenshaw comes to mind)

It looks like Sandy Larsen's case is weak, at most. So what does he do ? He accuses his opponents in the debate of pretending that the witnesses had a mass hallucination (which, as far as I am concerned, I have never said). Then he goes on to say that such a mass hallucination is impossible. And now he is under the impression that he has proved his case. That's laughable, if I may say so. 
So, according to him, people making a mistake is impossible, but faking autopsy x-rays and autopsy photographs and the Zapruder film and still be undetected when experts try to analyze those documents is very possible (though he doesn't bother to explain how, let alone prove how).

All things considered, who, apart Ron Ecker, of course, could reasonably agree with Sandy Larsen ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, François Carlier said:
15 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

 

Won't you stop it ?
Debating is one thing. Accusing someone of saying something that they have never said is dishonest. You are being dishonest.


Francois, ~40 hospital witnesses say they saw a gaping hole in the back of Kennedy's head. You say that they didn't. Well if they didn't see it, then how is it they thought they did? They must have mass hallucinated it!

The problem is that if something, like this, doesn't agree with  your point of view, you simply ignore it. Well you can't do that and be taken seriously. Everything has an explanation. Everything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

In order for [Sandy] to dismiss the official version, he has to claim that :
- the autopsy photographs are faked (despite the experts saying the opposite)
- the Zapuder film is faked (despite the experts and logic saying the opposite) (or at least, part of it)
- we should not rely on Doctor Perry, who was the key doctor at Parkland
- we should not rely on Doctor Humes, who performed the autopsy and spent hours looking at Kennedy's body and touching it and even cutting into it



That's right. And in order for Francois to believe the official version, he has to believe that ~40 hospital witnesses saw something that wasn't there! That, Francois, is by definition a mass hallucination.

 

Share this post


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

The problem is that if something, like this, doesn't agree with  your point of view, you simply ignore it. Well you can't do that and be taken seriously. Everything has an explanation. Everything.

 

Maybe, but when Doctor Baden (not me) gives you an explanation (a very good one), you dismiss it with a wave of the hand.

Share this post


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

BTW, it does not necessarily have to be a fake photo does it?

Could it not be just his scalp pulled up over the crevice?

 

In my opinion they couldn't stretch the scalp far enough to do that. But I'm no expert and have never stretched scalp tissue, so I could be wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, François Carlier said:

Maybe, but when Doctor Baden (not me) gives you an explanation (a very good one), you dismiss it with a wave of the hand.


When Dr. Baden made that statement he wasn't aware that the HSCA had lied about the Bethesda witnesses by saying that they disagreed with the Parkland doctors on the location of the wound. The Bethesda witnesses in fact AGREED with the Parkland witnesses, that there was a gaping wound on the back of the head.

 

Share this post


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

When Dr. Baden made that statement he wasn't aware that the HSCA had lied about the Bethesda witnesses by saying that they disagreed with the Parkland doctors on the location of the wound.

For the record....

Dr. Michael Baden made that statement [repeated below] on January 8, 2000, in a telephone conversation he had with Vincent T. Bugliosi. That was 21 years after the HSCA closed up shop. In all of those 21 years, you don't think Baden had seen (or been made aware of, at least) the last paragraph printed on this 37th page of HSCA Volume 7?

Well, I guess you could be right, Sandy. But I'm a tad dubious.

Dr-Baden-Quote-Regarding-JFKs-Head-Wound

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this shows is just how bad Baden is on this case and its  why Bugliosi used him.

In Gary Aguilar's essay in MIDP, which evidently DVP has not read (no surprise), he says that he confronted both Blakey and Baden with the over 20 HSCA statements saying that these Bethesda witnesses saw such a wound in the back of Kennedy's skull.  Both men replied that they did not recall seeing those statements. (p. 200)

Now, you can believe that or not.  Personally, I have a hard time buying it.  But also recall, there were two nurses at Parkland who were assigned to clean off the body and prepare it for transport. They were Bowron and HInchliffe.  To put it mildly they are not good witnesses for the WC official story.

Therefore, this argument collapses when the full story is told.  Because of the two nurses, and the idea that somehow the 20 Bethesda witnesses could be confused after the body was cleaned.

PS Only DVP would use a witness who instructed Ida Dox to embellish the very photo under discussion.  That is Three Stooges stuff.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

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

×
×
  • Create New...