Bush not in Dallas- He is dead

[François Carlier]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 9:42 PM, 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. The Bethesda witnesses in fact AGREED with the Parkland witnesses, that there was a gaping wound on the back of the head.

 

See, you're precisely doing that : dismissing Baden's statement with a wave of the hand.
And with emptiness.
You don't like what he said (though he knows a lot more than you), so you are trying to make up an excuse. It won't work.
Besides, what you are saying here (repeating James DiEugenio's old speeches) won't change the fact that the x-rays and photographs were genuine !

[François Carlier]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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 ...

"Reasonable" … Did you really write "reasonable" ?
You definitely need a dictionary in order to look up that word !

[François Carlier]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

 

Me ? I don't "believe" anything.
I simply repeat what the experts have said (namely that the x-rays and photographs have been proven authentic) and what the key autopsy doctor vouched for (namely that the wound was not at the back of the head).
You are the one who "believes".
YES, I ignore the contadiction, as you put it, because I know critical thinking and I know what the best evidence has to be in this case. I follow the rules of logic. I do not consider myself more knowledgeable than Doctor Humes, nor do I claim to know better than the HSCA experts.
But you have the gall to do that, with no credentials at all, which is an attitude I'll refrain from publicly judgeing.
Having said that, YES, YES YES, I intend to review your "40 witnesses" panel and put it in the proper perspective. Unfortunately, I work hard and can only come to this forum in the evenings (Paris time), but in a few days at the latest, I'll devote some time to do exactly that.
As for me, I did say I had 4000, offhand, because I was thinking of the 25,000 interviews that the FBI conducted. And all those interviews put together led to the official overall conclusions, namely Oswald's guilt. More to the point, if you add all the people who gave testimony that went in the direction of Oswald's guilt (I think of a lot of people, among whom Hugh Haynesworth, or Dallas policemen), yes, I would probably be able to gather 4000.
But you don't seem to understand my point.
Again, I'll say it : my "version" fits the overall image (namely a man shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD).
Your version doesn't fit anything. So in order for you "version" to be correct, you would have to claim that there was someone shooting from the front. But there is NO evidence for that. So you have to create a whole scenario out of whole cloth.
I don't have to do anything of the sort. My version already fits the rest of the evidence like a glove.
That's why I wrote that you have a mountain of new evidence to uncover, even a whole planet. And I'm confident you won't even find a speck of sand !
Yes, your 40 witnesses (assuming they were 40 and assuming they did have a look at the wounds) got it wrong. There is better evidence to contradict them. Pure and simple. I have to concur with that.
You want to publicly resist, but deep down Inside you probably know that I am right.

 

[François Carlier]

23 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

an act that renders you the loser of the debate

 

You mean that accepting the conclusions of a panel of experts in their fields and believing the key autopsy doctor, all the while establishing that their statements fit the overall evidence is "losing the debate" ?
In that case, I hope that I will "lose" every debate that I'll take part in until I die !

[Guest]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Lancie:

Here is a more recent article on Perry's recanting and how it haunted him

https://crosscut.com/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters

Thanks, but there is NOTHING regarding this story that I'm not aware of.  The factoid we are going to examine in great depth is the assertion regarding Elmer Moore.  You aren't going to tap dance away from that quite so easily.  I don't doubt that Dr. Perry may have thought to his dying day that the throat wound was or at least might be an entry wound.  I don't doubt that after the autopsy any Parkland doctors who spoke openly about an entry wound may have been strongly encouraged to get on board or shut up.  Under the circumstances I see nothing surprising or sinister in that.

I admittedly didn’t earn a Boy Scout merit badge in assassination planning, but as I skim pissing contests like this thread it always occurs to me that if I were planning a Presidential assassination and hoped to pin the deed on some patsy on the sixth floor of the TSBD, all shots would come from a semi-plausible cone extending back to that location, which would include many other locations within the TSBD and the Dal-Tex Building.  Include a couple of clear shots as the limo came down Houston Street and a couple as it went down Elm  and, voila, you’d have two cones to confuse things – shots from the front and the back.  Even if the shots didn’t match the cones perfectly, they would be far more explainable than a shot from, say, the Grassy Knoll or the underpass.  Wouldn’t this be the most obvious thing in the world, even if the assassin planners were near-idiots?

Instead, according to conventional conspiracy wisdom, the planners took all the risks associated with shooters in other locations, including the Grassy Knoll where literally anything in terms of observations, photographs or capture could have gone wrong, and necessitated a Keystone Cops scramble of altered films and photos, massive witness intimidation, body alterations, physician intimidation, fake autopsy photos and all the rest.  They made the whole thing approximately 1000 times more difficult and risky than it needed to be, did they not?  But despite all this, they allowed the patsy to walk out the front door of the TSBD and muck things up?

Why did they do this?  Is there any plausible reason?  Is not the real explanation that common sense, logic, the best evidence and most reasonable inferences all point toward Oswald as the lone assassin, but to make a conspiracy theory work we must discard all that and turn the assassination planners into inept fools?

So which is – the assassination planners were hopelessly inept or conspiracy theorists are living a fantasy that simply makes no sense?

Edited December 21, 2018 by Guest

[François Carlier]

23 hours 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

Please be honest. The Parkland doctors at the press conference could only conjecture as far as the wounds were concerned. They themselves said it. Perry said it then (on November 22, 1963) and he wrote exactly that in his letter to me.
They did not take the time to perform an autopsy. And that's what autopsies are for.
But Doctor Humes performed a complete autopsy. And he was adamant that the wound was not at the back of the head (and as to the neck wound, it was then established that it was an exit wound, and you know it).

[François Carlier]

18 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

And then there were the twenty witnesses in Bethesda who saw the same thing after the head had been cleaned up! 

Please try to be precise. Are you telling us that the wound in Bethesda was the same as the wound at Parkland ?
In other words, are you saying that David Lifton's theory, based mostly on the huge difference in size of the head wound, is wrong ?
How come a conspiracy theorist (Lifton) is saying that there was a huge difference in size between Parkland and Bethesda, and at the same time, another conspiracy theorist (Larsen) is saying that there was no difference at all between Parkland and Bethesda ?
Do you have the same "40 witnesses" ?
Please explain.

[Rick McTague]

23 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Please be honest. The Parkland doctors at the press conference could only conjecture as far as the wounds were concerned. They themselves said it. Perry said it then (on November 22, 1963) and he wrote exactly that in his letter to me.
They did not take the time to perform an autopsy. And that's what autopsies are for.
But Doctor Humes performed a complete autopsy. And he was adamant that the wound was not at the back of the head (and as to the neck wound, it was then established that it was an exit wound, and you know it).

Francois,

It was more than conjecture, he was stating his observations, the day of the event.  Of course they didn't do an autopsy.  They stated what they saw, but it was with years of experience which is why I tend to believe him on that day - there was no official story that needed to be adhered to.  The WC conjectured that the neck would was one of exit when they invented the SBT out of whole cloth; they hardly "established" it, AND YOU KNOW IT.

And you can keep your lame little dig at me about not being honest.  You don't know me and I take offense at your implication.  This is one forum where, for the most part, people can debate the issues without getting personal and nasty.  Of course there are exceptions ... I for one will refrain. 

[François Carlier]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:50 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

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.

What about the earliest statement of them all : "Three shots were fired at President Kennedy's motorcade in downtown Dallas. The first reports say that President Kennedy has been seriously wounded by this shooting" !
Do you believe that one ?
(I do)

[Ron Bulman]

Yeah, Bush is dead.  Like this thread.  No, he wasn't in Dallas at the time of the assassination.  Really, on just this page, four posts by Frank, another long one by Lance, two more by Frank.  A legitimate response by Rick rejecting casting of an aspersion about his character.  Another post by Frank.  The thread had some interesting and relevant points at times but it appears to have been hijacked.  Could make a suspicious person wonder if some of it is deliberate disinformation. 

Edited December 22, 2018 by Ron Bulman

[Cliff Varnell]

On 12/15/2018 at 1:36 PM, Jake Hammond said:

 

wikipedia , first line " In sewing and patternmaking, ease is the amount of room a garment allows the wearer beyond the measurements of their body.' It is the movement engineered in by the cut, NOT the movement of the fabric.  

Jake Hammond is correct.

My insistence that “ease” had an alternative definition in clothing design was dead wrong.

I stand corrected.

— insert eating crow emoji —

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

On 12/19/2018 at 1:42 PM, 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. The Bethesda witnesses in fact AGREED with the Parkland witnesses, that there was a gaping wound on the back of the head.

 

See, you're precisely doing that : dismissing Baden's statement with a wave of the hand.

And with emptiness. You don't like what he said (though he knows a lot more than you), so you are trying to make up an excuse. It won't work.

Hey Francois, what I wrote is a fact! I didn't just make it up. BADEN HIMSELF SAID IT!  The only difference is that Baden just brushed off the allegation of suppression, whereas I called it for what it was... a LIE. We know it's a lie because we now have the testimonies of the Bethesda witnesses.

 

[François Carlier]

On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 5:57 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey Francois, what I wrote is a fact! I didn't just make it up. BADEN HIMSELF SAID IT!  The only difference is that Baden just brushed off the allegation of suppression, whereas I called it for what it was... a LIE. We know it's a lie because we now have the testimonies of the Bethesda witnesses.

 

??? Whatever do you mean ?
I know that you are trying to blur the issue and take cheap shots.
But giving us an irrelevant answer won't help you hide the fact that you are really unable to counter what Doctor Baden has said :

Baden : "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong. 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."

(my emphasis)

That is the quote that I am using from Baden. Nothing else. And that is the only quote from him that I have been using in this thread. It explains why some witnesses thought that they saw a wound where there was none.

Other people had that answer even before that quote from Bugliosi's work, by the way.
It's only logical.
You have never said anything about that. Maybe that's because you can't.
Your verbiage about a lie having to do with documents about testimonies later found and told or not told to Baden has nothing to do with the simple fact that there is a physical, logical, medical, intelligent explanation for the appearance of a wound when there is none.
Accept it !

[James DiEugenio]

FC, I think that what Sandy is saying is that Baden was not aware of the twenty morgue witnesses who said they also saw the wound in the rear of JFK's skull, until Gary Aguilar showed him the statements released by the ARRB in, I think, 1995.

If I have this wrong, Sandy will correct me. But the evidence is in the chart that is in MIDP.  Its on page 199.  You say you have 200 books on the JFK case and you do not have that one?  I have less than that and I do.  As per your other point about Baden saying the wound was a mess, I dealt with that already. I do not buy it because of the specifics of the Dallas doctors memories, including the testimony about the cerebellum. (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p.161)

But that argument collapses when one recalls what I also said: Bowron and Hinchliffe cleaned the body before it left Dallas. Believe me, their testimony does not support your side.  And then you have the 20 witnesses in Bethesda who saw the cleaned body. 

It gets a bit discouraging when it becomes clear that you and DVP and Lancie either do not read the right pieces of information in book form or documents, and then you just rattle on as if you do.

[François Carlier]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

It gets a bit discouraging when it becomes clear that you and DVP and Lancie either do not read the right pieces of information in book form or documents, and then you just rattle on as if you do.

I understand that point, of course.
If there is clear evidence somewhere of a cover-up and I (or we) don't take it into account and keep repeating the same old arguments, then you have reason to want to quit.
But as far as I am concerned, I am willing to take everything into account. If I have some more work to do, I'll do it.
But please be frank :  do you take everything into account, yourself ?