Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[Ron Ecker]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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

No.

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

Yes.

And either way, the purpose is deception.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

 

Which stooge is DVP?

I'm bettin' on Curly.

[François Carlier]

Hello again,
Well, to sum up, this is what we have in this debate, regarding the medical evidence :

I say that the official version of events is true. I base my conclusions on this :
- 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)

But Sandy Larsen the official version. So 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.

OK, all of that deals with the medical evidence. But one thing is very important to remind everybody : my version (backed by science) is consistent with the rest of the evidence in this case. What I say here about the wounds is consistent with everything that was found in Dealey Plaza, the investigation of the Dallas Police, the FBI findings, the actions of Lee Oswald himself, the testimony of Oswald's brother, the results of all experiments done since 1963, the computer-generated recreations, and the rest.

My "version" of the medical evidence is consistent with everything that is known about the overall case.

On the other hand, Sandy Larsen's version is compatible with nothing that we know or that has been observed in Dealey Plaza.
If he wanted to convince a reasonable audience, he would have to bring not a pile, not a mountain, but a whole planet of evidence ! So far, he doesn't even have a speck of sand…

He says he has 40 witnesses (and I challenge that), but I have 400 and probably 4000 !

First of all, Sandy Larsen should prove that the photographs are faked. When he has done that, he'll tell us where the shooter was.
That will never happen.

My understanding of the medical version fits the picture. The Aguilar/Larsen theory runs counter to everything that we know. To paraphrase Harold Weisberg, cows will jump over the moon before Sandy Larsen can bring the beginning of the tiniest scintilla of evidence !

[Sandy Larsen]

45 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Hello again,
Well, to sum up, this is what we have in this debate, regarding the medical evidence :

I say that the official version of events is true. I base my conclusions on this :
- 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)

But Sandy Larsen the official version. So 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.

OK, all of that deals with the medical evidence. But one thing is very important to remind everybody : my version (backed by science) is consistent with the rest of the evidence in this case. What I say here about the wounds is consistent with everything that was found in Dealey Plaza, the investigation of the Dallas Police, the FBI findings, the actions of Lee Oswald himself, the testimony of Oswald's brother, the results of all experiments done since 1963, the computer-generated recreations, and the rest.

My "version" of the medical evidence is consistent with everything that is known about the overall case.

On the other hand, Sandy Larsen's version is compatible with nothing that we know or that has been observed in Dealey Plaza.
If he wanted to convince a reasonable audience, he would have to bring not a pile, not a mountain, but a whole planet of evidence ! So far, he doesn't even have a speck of sand…

He says he has 40 witnesses (and I challenge that), but I have 400 and probably 4000 !

First of all, Sandy Larsen should prove that the photographs are faked. When he has done that, he'll tell us where the shooter was.
That will never happen.

My understanding of the medical version fits the picture. The Aguilar/Larsen theory runs counter to everything that we know. To paraphrase Harold Weisberg, cows will jump over the moon before Sandy Larsen can bring the beginning of the tiniest scintilla of evidence !

Francois,

The big difference between what you believe and what I believe is this:  I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound, whereas you CAN'T. I've asked you multiple times to explain the contradiction and you won't. Instead you simply ignore the contradiction, an act that renders you the loser of the debate

You said:

"[Sandy] says he has 40 witnesses (and I challenge that), but I have 400 and probably 4000 !"

I posted here on this thread what 20 of the 40 said, that the gaping hole was on the back of the head. I posted a link to the other 20 saying the same. So your challenging what I said about the 40 witnesses is intellectually dishonest. In addition, I think you're being disingenuous in saying you have 400, or "probably 4000" witnesses to counter my 40.

Prove me wrong Francois. I challenge you to 1) show how it is that my 40 witnesses got it wrong, and 2) produce statements of the 400 to 4000 of your witnesses contradicting what my 40 witnesses said.

 

[Rick McTague]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

Hello again,
Well, to sum up, this is what we have in this debate, regarding the medical evidence :


- Doctor Perry, the key doctor at Parkland, agrees with the official conclusions
 

Francois,

Dr. Perry did not agree with the official conclusion on the day of the assassination when he told reporters at the press conference three times that the wound in his throat was one of entrance.  If anyone is qualified to make that judgment, he would since he had seen hundreds of gunshot wounds.  Obviously, he made a radical change after the "official conclusions" were released; he had "help" arriving at that change by a secret service agent, whose name escapes me now.

I now await your reply that he was "mistaken" like the other Parkland witnesses who described the back of the head wound and did not describe the red/orange/white blob/flap as shown in the Z film.

Thanks

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

Francois,

Dr. Perry did not agree with the official conclusion on the day of the assassination when he told reporters at the press conference three times that the wound in his throat was one of entrance.  If anyone is qualified to make that judgment, he would since he had seen hundreds of gunshot wounds.  Obviously, he made a radical change after the "official conclusions" were released; he had "help" arriving at that change by a secret service agent, whose name escapes me now.

I now await your reply that he was "mistaken" like the other Parkland witnesses who described the back of the head wound and did not describe the red/orange/white blob/flap as shown in the Z film.

Thanks

 

Rick,

As a general rule I choose to believe witnesses' earlier statements over their later ones, because their later statements may have changed due to external influences . It sound like you are that way too.

In contrast, Francois chooses to trust whatever statements support his beliefs. And that's the reason he believes what Dr. Perry said later on. There's no doubt in my mind about that.

 

[Cory Santos]

2 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Hello again,
Well, to sum up, this is what we have in this debate, regarding the medical evidence :

I say that the official version of events is true. I base my conclusions on this :
- 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)

But Sandy Larsen the official version. So 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.

OK, all of that deals with the medical evidence. But one thing is very important to remind everybody : my version (backed by science) is consistent with the rest of the evidence in this case. What I say here about the wounds is consistent with everything that was found in Dealey Plaza, the investigation of the Dallas Police, the FBI findings, the actions of Lee Oswald himself, the testimony of Oswald's brother, the results of all experiments done since 1963, the computer-generated recreations, and the rest.

My "version" of the medical evidence is consistent with everything that is known about the overall case.

On the other hand, Sandy Larsen's version is compatible with nothing that we know or that has been observed in Dealey Plaza.
If he wanted to convince a reasonable audience, he would have to bring not a pile, not a mountain, but a whole planet of evidence ! So far, he doesn't even have a speck of sand…

He says he has 40 witnesses (and I challenge that), but I have 400 and probably 4000 !

First of all, Sandy Larsen should prove that the photographs are faked. When he has done that, he'll tell us where the shooter was.
That will never happen.

My understanding of the medical version fits the picture. The Aguilar/Larsen theory runs counter to everything that we know. To paraphrase Harold Weisberg, cows will jump over the moon before Sandy Larsen can bring the beginning of the tiniest scintilla of evidence !

Such a joke.

Your "version" is not consistent with "everything that was found in Dealey Plaza."

Your "version" is consistent with fantasyland.

You make broad ridiculous statements, but they are not true.

Why don't you prove LHO was on the 6th floor.  Oh you cant.  Are you going to rely on Brennan?  LOL, really?  Go ahead, please make me laugh some more.

What about... wait, why debate someone who makes such outlandish broad statements.  

I am wasting my time.

Cliff, you got a point here.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Rick,

As a general rule I choose to believe witnesses' earlier statements over their later ones, because their later statements may have changed due to external influences . It sound like you are that way too.

In contrast, Francois chooses to trust whatever statements support his beliefs. And that's the reason he believes what Dr. Perry said later on. There's no doubt in my mind about that.

Its even worse than that.  See, these guys always deny that a cover up took place.  Because if you admit that happened then you have to ask: Why?

In this case Elmer Moore of the Secret Service admitted that his function after the assassination was to inhabit Parkland Hospital and get the doctors to jump on board the official story, and he specifically talked about what he did to Perry to get him to change his story. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 166-69)  Moore was so bad that he showed up for his fist interview for the Church Committee with his lawyer in tow.

Now, what are we left with here:  either DVP, FC, etc, never knew about Moore, which makes them rather incompetent and unknowledgeable since his name has been out there for over 20 years; or they did know about him but they don't want to bring him up since he really hurts their case.  I would rather think its the former, but I tend to think its the latter since DVP has been on these boards for decades in lieu of, as he says, the life he does not have. 

And that is intellectual dishonesty defined.  But the evidence that the WC was a huge cover up is all over the place.  What the WC did not know or care to know could have filled up another 26 volumes.  Except that info was all much more important and pertinent to a criminal inquiry.  The Arizona lawyer called my rather brief recitation of it, "mind numbing".  Which tells you all you need to know about who he is and what he is about. The FBI rigged Ruby's polygraph and the WC used that rigged test. David Phillips was running the CIA's anti FPCC campaign operations.  

Just what was TIppit doing from about 12:20 to the time he was shot?  Try and find that in the WR.  You will not.  But its in Joe McBride's book, and its in my article "The TIppit Case in the New Millennium."  And it helps explain why Tippit was not where he was supposed to be at the time he was shot.  The Tippit case is extraordinarily important.  I mean how the heck did the Oswald ID get there? Why did we have to wait thirty years to find that out? That point is so crucial that Bugliosi simply BS'd his way out of it.

As I have always said, you do not have to pull the perfect crime.  You just have to control the cover up.  

[David Von Pein]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound...

You think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"? I beg to differ. Such a conclusion is not "reasonable" at all. Far from it. It's nothing but utter desperation. And, furthermore, such a conclusion has been proven to be incorrect. Just check out 7 HSCA 41 yet again. (But you think all 20 experts on that Photo Panel lied their eyes out, don't you? Which is yet another unreasonable conclusion to reach, of course.)

And that's what we're left with most of the time with JFK conspiracy theorists ---- a series of unreasonable explanations and wholly unsupportable conclusions.

Edited December 21, 2018 by David Von Pein

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The big difference between what you believe and what I believe is this:  I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound, whereas you CAN'T.

Francois can and so can I. The Dallas doctors were engaged with saving the President, not documenting the wounds which they did not do. In the "data dump" from a while back your witnesses obviously differed in their descriptions and drawings of the wounds. You may say the differences are minor, but if witnesses are as reliable as you say they are, there should be no differences. Of course, we know that it is a scientific fact, supported by studies such as those done by Loftus and others, that witnesses will vary when reporting on an event. They are very often not reliable at all. BTW, the HSCA thought this explanation was reasonable and included it in their report. And in light of the authenticated autopsy materials and the Zapruder film, it is obviously the solution to this "problem."

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound...

You think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"?

 

Sure it's a reasonable explanation... because it's possible.

In contrast you believe that 20 medical professionals at Parkland all saw the wrong thing, and that twenty more at Bethesda also saw the same wrong thing. And you think THAT is reasonable??  It's utter lunacy!

 

[James DiEugenio]

Davey:

I hate to repeat this again, but you cannot be serious about that alleged authentication?

As Gary Aguilar pointed out many years ago, not only did the HSCA misrepresent the witness testimony on this issue, they also misrepresented the fact that they could not find the original autopsy camera. They did.  But they could not get a photographic match.  So they then said well, the camera lens or shutter must have been altered.  Which may or my not be true. But the ARRB--you do know who they were right?--could not find the notes on the experiment they did to determine such a thing occurred.

Further, if the x rays are authenticated as the originals, then how does one explain the appearing 6.5 mm fragment that was not there originally, and the disappearing particle trail that was there originally and then vanished?  Because you do not mention them, does this mean they do not exist?  In your world of faith, maybe.  But in our real world of testimony and evidence, they do exist.  As do the densitometry readings of Mantik as described by Doug Horne in Volume 2 of Inside the ARRB.

Again, I do not know if you simply hide all this data in order to mislead,  or  are somehow unaware of it.  Maybe its a mixture of the two.  But really, its an unflattering display for you and your web site.  Why not stick to Leave it to Beaver?

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The big difference between what you believe and what I believe is this:  I can give a reasonable explanation for the most glaring and obvious contradiction regarding the location of the head wound, whereas you CAN'T.

Francois can and so can I. The Dallas doctors were engaged with saving the President, not documenting the wounds which they did not do. In the "data dump" from a while back your witnesses obviously differed in their descriptions and drawings of the wounds. You may say the differences are minor, but if witnesses are as reliable as you say they are, there should be no differences. Of course, we know that it is a scientific fact, supported by studies such as those done by Loftus and others, that witnesses will vary when reporting on an event. They are very often not reliable at all. BTW, the HSCA thought this explanation was reasonable and included it in their report. And in light of the authenticated autopsy materials and the Zapruder film, it is obviously the solution to this "problem."

 

Tracy,

There were witnesses in Parkland who held the body, cleaning it and placing it in a casket. One doctor situated right behind the head peering down into the hole as cerebellar tissue oozed out. And then there were the twenty witnesses in Bethesda who saw the same thing after the head had been cleaned up! How could they possibly have seen a hole on the back of the head that -- according to you -- wasn't there? IT WAS CLEANED UP!

You are in utter denial.

 

[David Von Pein]

David Von Pein said:

You [Sandy Larsen] think that your claim that has the autopsy pictures being fakes is a "reasonable explanation"? I beg to differ. Such a conclusion is not "reasonable" at all. Far from it. It's nothing but utter desperation. And, furthermore, such a conclusion has been proven to be incorrect. Just check out 7 HSCA 41 yet again. (But you think all 20 experts on that Photo Panel lied their eyes out, don't you? Which is yet another unreasonable conclusion to reach, of course.)

And that's what we're left with most of the time with JFK conspiracy theorists ---- a series of unreasonable explanations and wholly unsupportable conclusions.

 

James DiEugenio said:

Davey:

I hate to repeat this again, but you cannot be serious about that alleged authentication?

Of course I'm serious. You know that I am. The HSCA did numerous tests to confirm the validity of all of the original autopsy photos AND X-rays. Read their conclusions again---starting RIGHT HERE. It's pretty detailed. Is all of that information nothing but a pack of lies? All of it!!? Come now.

Is there anything in this case you don't think is phony? At some point, the "Everything Is Fake" mantra repeated by conspiracists becomes very tiresome, desperate-sounding, and—quite frankly—very silly.

Edited December 21, 2018 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

Lets settle this rather easily, do any of the wc defenders believe that even 1 xray from the autopsy was lost destroyed or unaccounted for?  

Edited December 21, 2018 by Cory Santos