David Josephs

The story of dirty tricks in American politics begins with the first campaign for President of the United States, in the 1790s. Thomas Jefferson hired journalist and pamphleteer James Thomas Callender to slander his opponent, Alexander Hamilton. After a falling out, Callender turned on Jefferson and published attacks on his previous employer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_tricks

His (James Callender) crowning success came with the exposure, in his pamphlet History of 1796, of a sexual relationship between Alexander Hamilton and a married woman, Maria Reynolds, the subsequent blackmail against Hamilton, and Hamilton's alleged financial corruption. Callender presented compelling evidence of adultery, but in 1797's Sketches of the History of America he wrote that the affair was merely a distraction from Hamilton's more nefarious offense: partnering with Reynolds' husband in corrupt financial dealings.[8] Hamilton vehemently denied being a party to any improper financial matter, although he confessed to the adultery. According to Callender, that was just a smokescreen. Although the financial charges were never proven, Hamilton never again held public office. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Thomas_Callender

Callender eventually targeted Jefferson, revealing that Jefferson had funded his pamphleteering. After denials were issued, he published Jefferson's letters to him to prove the relationship. Later, angered by the response of Jefferson supporters, which included the smear that Callender had abandoned his wife, leaving her to die of a venereal disease,[15] Callender wrote in a series of articles that Jefferson fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings.

"which helped unleash our modern scandal culture" - is this man just now waking up?

Evidence that Nixon was corrupt and the Kennedy's fought fire with fire... and started a few fires on their own....

If this was the beginning of a series ultimately linking Nixon to the assassination thru Bush and Operation 40 so be it....

but it sure doesn't feel that way

Also of note are the spectators seen on the overpass wall in Bell.

many of them are clearly visible in the Cabluck photo taken from the bus.

The light pole seen in Bell is clearly visible in Cabluck.

Thanks for the high res enlargement. I once asked Harry about it, and he

assured me the bright area was not retouched. Your enlargement plainly

shows that was not so. I believe it was an open gate in the fence which

had to be hidden. On the other side of it is the drain grate leading to

the storm sewers, a site many believe held a gunman, who hid his rifle

in the drain pipe and walked away after firing through the gate.

Jack

Jack... Above you write NOT RETOUCHED yet the text says it was RETOUCHED... ?? And if it was open, why didn't all the people we see there in yet another photo simply walk thru it?

EDIT: mis read it...you say it was retouched... sorry

I agree, it was retouched - just wondering why now.

and From the 1967 view there doesn't appear to be a gate in the middle of that picket fence... Was this changed?

http://www.primary-surgery.org/ps/vol2/html/sect0017.html

Would we consider Perry "inexperienced"???

OPENING THE TRACHEA

If you are inexperienced, make a 5 cm vertical incision starting just below the patient’s cricoid cartilage, as in A, Fig. 52-4. When you have had several successes, make a transverse incision 5 cm long 2 cm below the border of his cricoid cartilage. Cut through the patient’s subcutaneous fat, and his cervical fascia ©.

CAUTION! (1) From now on use blunt dissection. Use it to raise short flaps and expose his anterior jugular vein and the underlying muscles.

Use blunt dissection to define and separate the fibrous median raphe between his right and left sternohyoid muscles. His sternothyroid muscles lie slightly deeper, find them and retract them laterally. You will now see the isthmus of his thyroid gland and part of his trachea. They vary considerably.

If the isthmus of his thyroid is small, there is no need to divide it.

If the isthmus of his thyroid is large and interferes with your approach to his trachea, divide it. Make a small horizontal incision through his pre–tracheal fascia over the lower border of his cricoid cartilage. Put a small haemostat into the incision and feel behind his thyroid isthmus and its fibrous attachment to the front of his trachea (D). When you have found the plane of cleavage, use blunt dissection to separate the isthmus from the trachea. Put a large haemostat on each side of the isthmus, and cut it. Later, oversew the cut surfaces or tie them (E).

Put sutures into the skin edges ready to close the wound round the tube later.

Insert a tracheal hook below his cricoid cartilage and pull his trachea forwards and upwards (not illustrated). Have a sucker and a catheter ready.

CAUTION! Control all bleeding before you open the patient’s trachea. Cut the membrane below its second or third ring transversely, and keep the sucker near the opening. Then stand clear. If there is blood in his trachea, he will cough it everywhere.

Turn a flap (F) containing his second tracheal ring downwards and insert the tube. The flap will act as a guide to direct the tube into his trachea and will make changing it easier. A flap largely eliminates the great danger of a tracheostomy, which is inability to replace the tube quickly when it has come out accidently. When the tube is safely in place, stitch the flap to his skin.

CAUTION! (1) Don’t disturb his first tracheal ring. (2) Don’t remove any trachea. (3) Don’t incise more than 40% of the circumference of his trachea, or severe stenosis may follow.

Inject 2 ml of lignocaine into the stoma in his trachea; he will tolerate the tube more easily with his mucosa anaesthetized.

Does anyone agree that Perry's HSCA testimony in my previous post shows that he saw the damage when he made the trach incision?

As I continued to search around for somehting that would show what a "normal" tracheotomy would look like I find in EVERY CASE a much larger opening than the 2-3cms that Perry claims... They couldn't do what they were doing with only a 2-3cm opening or see what he saw.

This diagram is the best I've found to illustrate the point. It's not just "cut it open and stick a tube in"

Seems to me from all I've researched about this, the incision we see in F1 may have opened a little but based on this diagram it even looks as if the opening is much larger than the tube which should allow for Perry to see inside rather easily.

Tony, since you have Perry's HCSA testimony handy, is there a more full explanation of what he did to prepare the throat for the trachestomy?

thanks

DJ

Does anyone agree that Perry's HSCA testimony in my previous post shows that he saw the damage when he made the trach incision?

As I continued to search around for somehting that would show what a "normal" tracheotomy would look like I find in EVERY CASE a much larger opening than the 2-3cms that Perry claims... They couldn't do what they were doing with only a 2-3cm opening or see what he saw.

This diagram is the best I've found to illustrate the point. It's not just "cut it open and stick a tube in"

Seems to me from all I've researched about this, the incision we see in F1 may have opened a little but based on this diagram it even looks as if the opening is much larger than the tube which should allow for Perry to see inside rather easily.

Tony, since you have Perry's HCSA testimony handy, is there a more full explanation of what he did to prepare the throat for the trachestomy?

thanks

DJ

Thanks Frank...

Curious though... why not seal the building then go to the 6th floor window FIRST and work their way from there.

They went floor by floor from the bottom up, other than Baker who of course found nothing but that unidentified man coming down the steps between the 3rd and 4th floors.

Even Sawyer, who is there very early, simply runs up to the 4th floor with 2 other officers, looks around and comes down, alone... what was that???

The funneling of people to the TSBD conclusion was indeed very interesting in the moments after the assassination.

Dispatcher 12:30 p.m. KKB 364.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Go to the hospital - Parkland Hospital. Have them stand by.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

Well at least the Chief and the Sheriff got it right!

DH...

didn't Hathcock usually shot from 500 to 2000 yards from his target... there was nothing to get away from in many cases.

Besides, there is also the fact that on Houston, all eyes that followed JFK would be looking directly at the TSBD whereas down the road a bit all eyes on JFK makes it less likely that a 6th floor sniper would be seen or identified other than what might be considered "plants"... 30, 5'10", 165 lbs...

and again... and again... and again.

If he can't be placed at the window, and he can't, what does it matter what he MIGHT have done or SHOULD have done.

The real assasins, who were in place and ready to fire from about 12:10 on (just about when JFK was supposed to pass by) waited until JFK was in the kill zone with the knowledge that a shooter would be no more than 20-40 yards away for the last 3-5 seconds of the DP trip.

AND IT STILL TOOK A NUMBER OF SHOTS TO FINALLY HIT HIM IN THE HEAD....

So the real question is whether or not the back, throat and JC shots were intended or simply poor marksmanship?

that's a great point Pat.... "...which affords the sniper a chance to escape"

Given the MASSIVE amount of incriminating evidence conveniently left behind the previous 3 months, and given the assumption that Oswald was indeed a LONE NUT ASSASSIN... the only inconsistency is his attempting to escape at all. The crazed, lone nut killer left himself COMLETELY DEFENSELESS by dropping the rifle with its one bullet left?

Whether it be the 2nd floor or the roof of Dal-Tex - shooting down Elm not only is the best shot and escape location but conveniently lines up with a 6th floor SE corner shot (Dal-Tex roof that is).

I seem to remember that Dal-Tex was "Searched" but very limited at best... anyone go up to the roof? My point being that a shooter there wouldn't even have to leave in a hurry like the mysterious men leaving the back of the TSBD right afterward...

And let us not forget that while standing at the South face of the Picket Fence, JFK just gets closer and bigger with each second.

DJ

Oswald was not at the 6th floor window when the car turned onto Houston or any other time after 11:55 that day. If he was, and was indeed a LONE ASSASSIN, then common sense does suggest he would have taken his first and best shot as JFK approached him

I think this illustrates pretty well that as the limo approaches there is plenty of time in which the angle of the shot is steep enough to clear anything that may be in the way like the windshield or bow.

The "Anomaly" would be that a triangulation of fire was awaiting him off Elm Street halfway down Dealey Plaza with a final gunman not 30 yards from him at the GK.

David... first, place Oswald at the window when the shots were fired... if you can do that then we can talk about what he may or may not have done and why.

If you can't get him there when the motorcade was SUPPOSED to have passed that window, in the midst of the other armed men seen on the 6th floor at the time, why bother talking about what he did there?

Thanks Bill... once again.

DJ

Easy to see how your frame grab and my originals/enhancements are of the same quality...

You're way smarter than that Duncan... I've seen you work with photos... if you have taken that frame and determined it is simply the back of his head and is NOT blocked out in that and many other frames... as opposed to Doug Horne with the access and the purpose and the resources... so be it.

Covering up some things on the film to obscure reality versus the mass, synchronated changing of ALL the evidence

Obscure the holes and eliminate the blood spray versus the clandestine acquisition, changing and replacing of many, many pieces of evidence.

Definitely up the CIA's alley, yet why go thru all that troble when the first option accomplishes the same thing without all the legwork?

So Zapruder, Nix, Muchmoore, Altgens, Bronson, etc... were all altered????

Kind of hard to see how all of these were changed to obscure their being in the street, just to cover zapruder.

I have seen that interview with Jean/Moorman... Don't know what to tell you other than moving them to the grass in every instance

is a bit of a stretch... the mystery continues...

Like what is that black square doing over the back of JFK's head....

David,

There is no black "square"

What you are looking at is his hair. The square appearance on the particular area of the image which you posted, has been caused by someone over "enhancing" the image, causing mega pixelation and distortion of the image content.

Whatever you say Duncan... this image was done to show the head travel and was not enhanced. And I thought it was Horne who saw the 35mm enlargements abd said that blcak swquare seemed to just hover over the frame as with a variety of other frames with black and white blobs covering the front and rear of his head....

Believe what you will... looks pretty obvious to me. I forget who posted the clear z337 frame saying "they missed this one" in the alteration..

Look at the original z317.. there's a blacked out area in the back of his head there as well.....

Makes more sense to me to "cover it up" then to try and align each and every one of the OTHER photos and films you mention in that other thread you started....

But for you, or me, to definitively say one way or another is not possible at this point.

DJ

HillJean Ex 5 - Sketch drawn by Jean L. Hill showing her location at the time of the assassination.

She made her cross ON the street---

KK

Thanks Karl... can you post the question this drawing is in response to please....

they were well down the street from where those "X"s are and the dotted line indicates to me she moved. Even if she was in the street for a second, they were both back on the grass at the time of the photograph and well before that time as evident in a number of images I posted.

DJ

Karl....

In the lower right hand corner of the wide version of Altgens we see the shadows of Brehm, Hill and Moorman

In Bronson, it is more than obvious they are on the grass and nowhere near being in the street close enough to touch the limo.

She may have stepped in the street at some point, but not when she was taking her photograph

The other photo shows how sloped the grass area is... from Bronson's view we would not be able to see their feet

There is simply no evidence that puts Hill or Moorman in the street any time after z180 or so...

The Bronson photo seems to be about z190 or so and they are obviously standing on the grass.

I think there are more than enough examples of how the Z film may have been altered than to try to place Mary and Jean in the street.

Like what is that black square doing over the back of JFK's head....

Alright Len, my mistake.

I would appreciate it though if you explained what I was a TRUE BELIEVER in? The possibility of a better world? guilty as charged

but I am not spouting off anything with religious zeal here.

If you want to continue to believe that the Rothschilds, Morgan's, and Rockefellers in the world have YOUR best interest at heart as opposed to the way they are depicted in this history, so be it. Not so much a jewish issue as much a HUMAN one.

Given the opportunity, most will steal you blind.

The point was that the Federal Reserve System stinks to high hell and has made debtors of most of it's citizens as well as the rest of the world thru the IMF and World Bank.

That the History of Money and the History of the Rothschilds articles have valuable information mixed in with crap...

And Zeitgeist, like Loose Change, will hopefully open some eyes.

I'm no true believer yet somehow I remain optomistic.... maybe pure folly, but I know of no other way to live.

Thanks for taking the time to address these issues. I appreciate your candor and approach

I don't mind being wrong, just ask my ex wife...

and I am obviously wrong on a number of these issues or at least in the manner I went about presenting them.

Live and Learn.

DJ

misspost

Milicent Cranor wrote an interesting article about thi sissue once.

Fastidious researcher that she is, she even found an article by Perry in which he described tracheotomies as wide.

So did Griffith

PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S THROAT WOUND

Michael T. Griffith

1996

@All Rights Reserved

In light of Dr. David Mantik's determination, based on his

study of the original autopsy x-rays and photos at the National

Archives, that no bullet could have gone from President Kennedy's

back wound to the wound in the front of his throat without

smashing straight through the spine (Livingstone, KILLING

KENNEDY, 93-94), we can now be highly confident that the throat

wound was an entrance wound, just as the doctors and nurses at

Parkland Hospital in Dallas originally said it was. This wound

was situated in the middle (or midline) of the neck and was

slightly below the Adam's apple.

Other than the fact that Dr. Mantik's discovery very

probably proves the throat wound was an entrance wound, what is

some of the other evidence that this wound was an entry point?

Here is a brief summary:

* The wound was very small, no more than 5 mm in diameter,

and possibly only 2-3 mm in diameter. In a taped 1979 interview,

Dr. Charles Baxter said the wound "was no more than a pinpoint."

He added that it was "made by a small caliber weapon. And it was

an entry wound" (Groden and Livingstone 45). Interviewed again

in 1992, Dr. Baxter said,

Looking at that hole, one would have to [think]--and my

immediate thought was that this was an entry wound because

it was so small. The hole was only the size of a pencil

eraser, about 2 or 2.5 mm across. . . . (Livingstone,

KILLING THE TRUTH, 718)

Dr. Pierre Finck, one of the autopsists, wrote that the

throat wound was approximately 5 mm in diameter (Livingstone,

KILLING KENNEDY, 217). When Dr. James Humes, the chief

pathologist at the autopsy, spoke with Dr. Malcolm Perry, the

surgeon who performed the tracheostomy on the President, the

throat wound, according to the notes of that phone conversation,

was described as "only a few mm in size, 3-5 mm" (Lifton 275).

The caliber of the ammunition that was supposedly used by

the alleged lone-gunman was 6.5 mm. A missile of this caliber

would have made a much larger wound if it had exited the throat.

* The wound was not jagged or punched out like a normal

exit wound, but rather was round and relatively clean-cut.

Dr. Robert McClelland reported that the throat wound "had

the appearance of the usual entrance wound of a bullet"

(Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH, 717). Dr. Malcolm Perry

repeatedly described the wound as an entrance wound on the day of

the assassination, on national television. Dr. Charles Carrico

described the wound as a "small PENETRATING wound" in his

11/22/63 report (WCR 519; CE 392; Livingstone, KILLING THE TRUTH,

717).

The problem posed by the throat wound's neat appearance was

highlighted to the Warren Commission by Dr. Ronald Jones of

Parkland Hospital. Dr. Jones noted that a bullet traveling at

the required speed would have had a shock wave, and might very

well have begun to wobble while passing through the neck, thereby

leaving a larger wound of exit than the pencil-sized hole in

Kennedy's throat that he and the other Dallas doctors had

observed. (The shock wave alone almost certainly would have

caused the resulting exit wound to be punched out and larger than

the caliber of the bullet. See below on the Warren Commission's

own wound ballistics tests involving simulated human necks.) Dr.

Jones went on to explained that one could not have both a tiny,

neat exit wound and a bullet traveling as fast as the magic

bullet would have been moving when it allegedly exited the throat

(Lifton 68). Surprisingly, WC counsel Arlen Specter then

elicited from Dr. Jones the fact that in order for the small,

neat throat wound to have been an exit wound the bullet must have

been traveling at a very low velocity:

Specter: Would it [the Parkland throat wound] be

consistent, then, with an exit wound but of low

velocity, as you put it?

Jones: Yes, of very low velocity to the point that

you might think that this bullet barely made it

through the soft tissues and [had] just enough

[velocity] to drop out of the skin on the opposite

side. (Lifton 68)

Such a missile, of course, would have posed no threat to

Governor John Connally, who was supposedly struck by the bullet

that allegedly exited the President's throat. Dr. Jones'

testimony was not discussed in the WC's report.

* Dr. Carrico told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath

the small hole in the throat indicated that the bullet must have

been traveling from front to back (7 HSCA 270). Similarly, Dr.

Nathan Jacobs observed that the Parkland doctors described a

laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was LARGER than the

small throat wound, "indicating that the bullet had traveled from

the front of the neck to the back" (Meagher 158 n 39).

* In the WC's own wound ballistics tests, the SMALLEST wound

of exit that was created in the simulated human necks was 10

MM IN DIAMETER. WC supporters attempt to explain these tests,

and the throat wound's size and neat appearance, by speculating

that the collar band of Kennedy's shirt restrained the skin of

the neck and prevented it from stretching too far, thereby

enabling the bullet to cause the resulting wound to be small and

neat. This theory is invalid, however, because WC supporters

also claim that the bullet made the slits in the front of the

President's shirt as it allegedly exited his neck, and those

slits were undeniably BELOW the collar band (see, for example,

Weisberg 245).

* Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, an experienced emergency room

nurse at Parkland Hospital who saw the throat wound, insisted

the wound was an entrance wound. When a WC attorney asked

her to describe what the wound appeared to be, she replied,

"an entrance bullet hole" (Groden and Livingstone 68-69). The

attorney then asked her, "Could it have been an exit bullet

hole?" She answered, "I have never seen an exit bullet hole

. . . that looked like that" (Groden and Livingstone 69).

* On the day of the assassination, several Parkland doctors

concluded that the bullet which entered the throat had ranged

downward into the chest. Dr. Kemp Clark told newsmen soon after

the shooting that the bullet entered the throat and then "ranged

downward in his chest and did not exit" (Lifton 280). The

accounts of the Dallas doctors contain evidence that a bullet did

in fact enter the chest (Lifton 279-280). Dr. Perry, for

example, found that the President's trachea was torn and

deviated, that respiration was especially inadequate on the right

side, and that there was free blood and air in the chest cavity.

Dr. Roy Jones recalled that as Dr. Perry performed the

tracheostomy, there was a "gush of air" (Lifton 279). Dr. Paul

Peters described a "bubbling" sensation in Kennedy's chest. Dr.

Clark told the WC that "Dr. Perry assumed that the findings in

the neck were due to penetration of the missile into the chest.

For this reason, he requested chest tubes to be placed" (Lifton

280 n).

* Dr. Perry was so certain the throat wound was an entrance

wound that when asked to comment on the report that the alleged

lone assassin fired from the Texas School Book Depository

Building (TSBD), which was to the right rear of the limousine

when the shooting occurred, he suggested that the President must

have been turned toward the building when he was wounded in the

throat (Lifton 58; cf. Lifton 65). It appears that initially

there was some thought given to claiming that Kennedy had turned

toward the TSBD when the throat bullet struck. The NEW YORK

TIMES reported that on December 5, 1963, the FBI conducted a

reconstruction in Dallas based on the assumption that the throat

wound was an entrance wound. The TIMES reported that a

"competent source" had explained that "the President had turned

to his right to wave, and was struck at that moment" (Lifton 65).

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

About the Author: Michael T. Griffith is a two-time graduate of

the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, and is

the author of four books on Mormonism and ancient texts. His

articles on the assassination have appeared in THE ASSASSINATION

CHRONICLES, in the JFK-DEEP POLITICS QUARTERLY, in DALLAS '63,

and in DATELINE: DALLAS. He is also the author of the book

COMPELLING EVIDENCE: A NEW LOOK AT THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT

KENNEDY (Grand Prarie, TX: JFK-Lancer Productions and

Publications, 1996).

Bibliography

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

Groden, Robert and Harrison Edward Livingstone, HIGH

TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY AND THE NEW

EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY, Berkley Edition, New York: Berkley

Books, 1990.

Lifton, David, BEST EVIDENCE, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1988

Livingstone, Harrison Edward, KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX

OF THE CENTURY, New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1995.

-----, KILLING THE TRUTH: DECEIT AND DECEPTION IN THE JFK

CASE, New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 1993.

Meagher, Sylvia, ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT, New York:

Vintage Books edition, 1992.

Weisberg, Harold, NEVER AGAIN: THE GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY IN

THE JFK ASSASSINATION, New York: Carroll & Graf

Publishers/Richard Gallen, 1995.

This ices it Tony.... Dr. C did not make his comments from viewing the OUTSIDE of the throat or trach but the inside.

I believe DL's theory still stands... that throat wound was definitely enlarged along the way...

DJ

I interviewed Doctor Perry in October, 1966--specifically about the size of the trach incision.

He said it was "2-3 cm."

I also spoke with Dr. Carrico within a day or so--and he said the same thing. Identical.

In fact, I interviewed all the Dallas doctors (that I could reach) on this very subject, and the results are laid out, in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, devoted entirely to the throat wound ("Dallas vs Bethesda").

FYI: Dr. McClelland came into the room AFTER the trach tube was in place, and so the flange covered the incision.

There's little question in my mind, based on these interviews, and other data, that the throat wound was enlarged by the time the body reached Bethesda.

In the "other data" department:

Remember what Dr. Finck testified to in New Orleans: that he could not find any trace of the original bullet wound on the edges of the so-called trach incision: "I do not know why it is not there," he said. (And doctor Humes answered a similar question--before the WC--the same way).

All of this is laid out crystal clear in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence.

But, I must say, one of my favorite quotes, indicating body alteration, comes from Paul O'Connor in our on-camera interview, circa 1989 (although this may be in our original 1980 filmed interiew--I'm just not sure):

QUOTE: You wouldn't do a tracheotomy on a man without a brain. UNQUOTE

DSL

If the trach incision was 2-3 cm. in length, then how could they ascertain the damage caused by the bullet?

Dr. Carrico told the House Select Committee on Assassinations, “There was some injury to the trachea behind it,” and the bullet “must have been going front to back.”

Dr. Marion Jenkins wrote up a report at 4:30 p.m. on November 22 stating Doctors Baxter, Perry, and McClelland “began a tracheotomy and started the insertion of a right chest tube” because President Kennedy had sustained “obvious tracheal and chest damage.”

Dr. Clark testified to the Warren Commission that when Dr. Perry made the incision for a tracheotomy, “He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the missile had entered the President’s chest.”

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0139b.htm

Tony,

Dr. C says here "I successfully passed an oral, endotrachael tube by mouth"

Seems to me he was in a perfect position to see what was happening down there... no need to see thru the 3mm hole or the 2-3cm slit.

They saw the damage from the inside.

He continued, "I noticed at that time some deviation of the trachea to the left.....

Hey David... a quick thanks for your fantastic book. Enjoyed and continue to enjoy your work

A thought dawned on me after your post...

Were was Perry trained that would have him do a horizontal incision versus a vertical one?

This article suggests that VERTICAL incisions were the order of the day for years and years....

yet I am having a tough time finding what would have been the suggested method in 1963 ER settings

just a thought.

DJ

Tracheostomy—The horizontal tracheal incision

I. Katoa1 c1, K. Uesugia1, M. Kikuchiharaa1, H. Iwasawaa1, J. Iidaa1, K. Tsutsumia1, H. Iwatakea1 and I. Takeyamaa1

a1 (Kawasaki, Japan)

Abstract

The complication rate after emergency tracheostomy is two to five times greater than after elective procedures. One of the main causes of the high risk of complications in emergency tracheostomy appears to be the amount of time required to open the trachea. Therefore, simple and fast procedures are mandatory. We have developed a new procedure as follows: A horizontal skin incision is performed. Strap muscles are dissected and retracted laterally. A transverse cut between tracheal rings below the thyroid isthmus is performed up to membranous portion of the trachea. The cut ends of the trachea remain open naturally because of the elasticity of the trachea. Skin and tracheal cut-ends are then joined by interrupted sutures.

We have used this procedure during the past three years and have not experienced any major complications. This demonstrates the clear advantage and the more physiological nature of the procedure over various other incisions of the tracheal wall.

(Accepted January 09 1990)

Correspondence:

c1 Dr. I. Kato, Department of Otolaryngology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Miyamae, Sugao 2-16-1, 213 Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan

Footnotes

Paper presented by Dr. K. Uesugi at the 6th World Congress of Bronchoesophagology in Tokyo 15-18 October 1989.

Thanks to Allen E via Bernice - always facinated by this story and how Dennis David did not meet the same fate.

In one section the Autopsy surgeon has no powder burns or marks of any kind that suggest the barrel was anywhere near Pitzer's head... yet lo and behold, the Autopsy makes no mention of this fact... they took a cast of his hand, but not of the gunshot area?

Hmmmm... where have we heard this before...

'cause if you're gonna kill yourself, you'd obviously hold the gun as far away from your head, head, mouth, whatever... as possible.

From the Autopsy:

SKIN: Sections from the margin of the entrance wound reveal a

loss in the continuity of the epidermis with a marked basophilic degeneration and hyalinization of

the underlying collagen. Scattered throughout these tissues are prominent collections of dark

brown to black granular material presumably representing nitrates. The neighboring portions of

the skin reveal moderate basophilic degeneration of collagen but no lesions of the epidermis or

deposits of a foreign material are present.

No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie.

So what? I could link to several LNT sources that “spell out” the same view as each other, ditto sources pushing creationism etc.

just because a site is a LNT source doesn't mean that the factual events related to the creation of the CIA in 1947 (or any factual presentation) on that site are incorrect... at least not until proven so.

In the Rothschild paper it says:

1920: Winston Churchill (whose mother, Jenny (Jacobson) Jerome, was Jewish – meaning he is Jewish under Ashkenazi law as he was born of a Jewish mother) writes in an article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, dated February 8th,

"From the days of Illuminati leader Weishaupt, to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, this worldwide conspiracy has been steadily growing. And now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America, have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and become the undisputed masters of that enormous empire."

Now I looked thru the entire article that Churchill wrote for the Feb 8, 1920 issue - page 5. I could not find the word for word quote but did find this paragraph that pretty well spells it out.

International Jews.

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Looks pretty accurate to me.... Rather than keep going... if you are so suspect of the history, (not the anti-semitism as we both know how real that is)check it out yourself as I expect anyone reading anything onwhich they are going to base their opinions would do.

But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy.

These are important topics but just like all other topics obscure sources that don’t back their claims are of little or no value except perhaps for entertainment.

There are a number of JFK books without footnotes and sources that still serve as excellent source of information (I'd have to look again but aren't Manchester and Buchannan's books without sources and footnotes? If a book can expose an idea that requires further investigation which proves fruitful - that book, regardless of the lack of sources, can still be considered more than entertainment.

And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate.

It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all?

Did you mean ‘ideological’? ‘Idealistic’ did not make sense in either instance. I don’t know anything about. thevenusproject.com but it seems to be the typical utopian clap trap and its association with ”zeitgeist the movie” is a bad sign. But at this point I’m guessing you’re a member of the 'cult'.

My bad, "idealistic" is not the correct word. Not sure what is... you calling one person's ideas on how to build a better world "typical utopian clap trap" is just as prejudicial as DVP calling refutiations of the SBT unfounded - no point in discussing "ideas" with you Len.... the fact is you fail to see how an intelligent person can pick and choose what makes sense and do the legwork to substantiate the info as opposed to the one of the bewildered herds who barely have time to look up from the trough.

Guessing doesn't become you Len. If you are wondering if I would prefer that 1% of the population not control 50% of the wealth and that a better way be sought... or that I prefer the government stop lying to us about damn near everything - the i GUESS you can call me a cult member....

30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts...

True but irrelevant many predictions about the future did NOT come true. Can you point to anyone who was not a top computer scientist who proposed such a thing 30 years ago? Can you point to any economists who believe what you do?

Point to someone??, who cares? - I am pointing to people NOW who have ideas about ripping the control of the world from the bankers.... there are those who talk of Nationalizing the FED and printing our own money... not a bad idea.... of looking at RESOURCE based models

this is not about predictions about the future Len.... this is about offering/discussing ideas that are in such conflict with the reality of the times (ending the Cold War for example) that they seem ridiculous on their face.

what happened to Copernicus?

About 1532 Copernicus had basically completed his work on the manuscript of De revolutionibus orbium coelestium; but despite urging by his closest friends, he resisted openly publishing his views, not wishing—as he confessed—to risk the scorn "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." Fact is the earth was not the center of the universe - I am sure you'd have been one of nay sayers holding to the old beliefs....

This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Any sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response.

True, but same applies to crackpot notions that went no where. The Shakers were scorned, by your "logic" we should assume they were right.

Sorry Len, I do not see the "logic" connection you've made. By my logic, any "crackpot notion" (Christianity comes to mind) can be looked at as you are.... brushed aside, not investigated, not considered.... but by those who do and actually find a better way to live with fellow humans and want to tell others... there is no right or wrong, there is... How do we want to live as a people?

The Talmud and Torah are basically "crackpot notions" of how people should live together and is considered not entirely "right" by most the world. You going to stop living a Jewish life becuase of that? We can just as easily make the argument that if we all lived as Jews the world would be a far better place.... doesn't take away from the history of judaism and you'd have just as hard a time convincing the world to adopt that destiny as you would with the venus project.... so what?

There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable?

Some did, some did not. Presumably most if not all the former were very good at documenting their claims something these crackpots failed to do.

No doubt there is significant SLANT in the Satan sourced article and significant optimism in the others... but what "CLAIMS" are you talking about Len??? We all would like every piece of information sourced back to an unimpeachable source - how often does that happen for you in your travels? As we've seen in the JFK case, anything is possible with regards to sources, documentation and evidence...

This is yet another piece of the Rothschild article... looks like a number of references and sources, and they are throughout the article... maybe one should read thru the linked articles and/or watch the entire zeitgeist movie before expressing one's opinions?

1995: Former atomic energy scientist, Dr Kitty Little claims the Rothschilds now control 80% of the world’s uranium supplies giving them a monopoly over nuclear power. (I found who she is/was yet was not able to substantiate this info... I would give it less weight than other info I have sourced.... would the article be better filled with references, of course, but Google makes finding things pretty swift these days...)

The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that,

"Israel aggressively collects (US) military and industrial technology."

The report stated that Israel obtains information using,

"ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties," of US citizens.

1996: A General Accounting Office report, "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors," found that according to intelligence sources, "Country A," (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 22 February 1996),

"conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally."

A pdf file of the report is here:

www.gao.gov/archive/1996/ns96064.pdf

An unformated text version is here:

http://fas.org/man/gao/gao9664.htm

The Jerusalem Post (30 August 1996) quoted the report,

"“Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country."

The report described, "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for (Israel) paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents."

The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was,

"a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information."

www.washington-report.org/backissues/0496/9604014.htm

I'd prefer we don't get into a debate over what constitutes a worthwhile pursuit and what you consider "crackpot notions" - DVP believes that anything that points away from Oswald is a "crackpot notion" and you, me and every other member has gone round and round with that...

I commented on this thread as I had seen and heard this info in a variety of forms, the cartoon above was very interesting and unique regardless of its slant, biases and what not... the message is still the same... FED = BAD

and if it takes a hate of jews ridden article to get people to wake up - or an idea of what utopia could be like with a switch to RESOURCE based economies, so be it.

When Dan Rather and Peter Jennings get on TV and tell us Oswald was innocent (as opposed to Jesse Ventura), only then we can begin to feel like we're making any headway. Until then I guess we keep reading the books, forums and articles and keep spreading the word.

Kinda sounds like a religion, don't it?

No Len, I am not saying the links I provided are gospel, just that much of the information contained in that cartoon is spelled out pretty well in these two articles and in zeitgeist the movie.

All the peripheral crap about the jews, zion, and any other astro-theological info thrown at you is just interesting imo.

But does not take away from the Money and Banking history, or the reality of the FED and Central Banking systems and the lengths those who run them go to insure their control, and the actual control over governments, people etal these banks enjoy.

And just because a site chooses to be idealistic in its approach, I don't think we can conclude their information is inaccurate.

It's a RESOURCE based approach rather than a monetary approach. thevenusproject.com is about as idealistic as it gets but if we don't go for it all how are we to get anything at all?

30 years ago, If i told you that in 2010 you could get a hold of anyone on the earth in an instance and talk to them as if they were right next to you, without wires.... you'd say I was nuts...

This is no different. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Any sufficiently advanced concepts about humanity, society or reality is usually met with your kind of response

There were obscure sites a while back that used to say Oswald did not kill Kennedy... did any of those turn out to be reliable?

There are times Len, that reading your posts brighten my whole day... "Jooz", love it...

(edit: btw - the history of the house of Rothschild paper has a number of anti-semetic passages...fyi)

HOW THE FED CREATES MONEY

We've been talking about how the privately owned Federal Reserve can produce money from thin air. Here's how it's done.

1. The purchase of bonds is approved by the Federal Open Market Committee.

2. The Fed buys the bonds which it pays for with electronic credits made to the sellers bank. These credits are based on nothing.

3. The receiving banks then use these credits as reserves from which they can loan out ten times the amount.

To reduce the amount of money in the economy they simply reverse the process.

The Fed sells bonds to the public and money is drawn from the purchasers bank to pay for them.

Each million withdrawn lowers the banks ability to loan by 10 million.

The Federal bank in this way has overall control of the US money supply, as each country's central bank does in the same way. The bankers, through the magic of fractional reserve banking have been delegated the right to create 90% of the money supply. This control makes a mockery of any elected government. It places so called leaders behind a toy steering wheel, like the plastic ones, set up to amuse small children.

Or as Rep.Charles Lindbergh father of famous aviator Lucky Lindy puts it when commenting on the Federal Reserve Act:

"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this bill, the invisible government by the Monetary Power will be legalised.

Studies show that most people learn more effectively with visual aids and thru the use of cartoons.

http://www.xat.org/xat/moneyhistory.html

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHhc67GopM

Seems most, if not all of this info comes from these sources. The Zeitgeist film has some far out ideas but is rather interesitng in fact... The two articles are for those who can't stand cartoons and really want to understand the FED.

i.e.

THE TALLY STICKS (1100 - 1854)

King Henry the First produced sticks of polished wood, with notches cut along one edge to signify the denominations. The stick was then split full length so each piece still had a record of the notches.

The King kept one half for proof against counterfeiting, and then spent the other half into the market place where it would continue to circulate as money.

Because only Tally Sticks were accepted by Henry for payment of taxes, there was a built in demand for them, which gave people confidence to accept these as money.

He could have used anything really, so long as the people agreed it had value, and his willingness to accept these sticks as legal tender made it easy for the people to agree. Money is only as valuable as peoples faith in it, and without that faith even today's money is just paper.

The tally stick system worked really well for 726 years. It was the most successful form of currency in recent history and the British Empire was actually built under the Tally Stick system, but how is it that most of us are not aware of its existence?

Perhaps the fact that in 1694 the Bank of England at its formation attacked the Tally Stick System gives us a clue as to why most of us have never heard of them. They realised it was money outside the power of the money changers, (the very thing King Henry had intended).

What better way to eliminate the vital faith people had in this rival currency than to pretend it simply never existed and not discuss it. That seems to be what happened when the first shareholder's in the Bank of England bought their original shares with notched pieces of wood and retired the system. You heard correctly, they bought shares. The Bank of England was set up as a privately owned bank through investors buying shares. Even the Banks resent nationalisation is not what it at first may appear, as its independent resources unceasingly multiply and dividends continue to be produced for its shareholder's.

These investors, who's names were kept secret, were meant to invest one and a quarter million pounds, but only three quarters of a million was received when it was chartered in 1694.

It then began to lend out many times more than it had in reserve, collecting interest on the lot.

This is not something you could just impose on people without preparation. The money changers needed to created the climate to make the formation of this private concern seem acceptable.

Here's how they did it.

With King Henry VIII relaxing the Usury Laws in the 1500's, the money changers flooded the market with their gold and silver coins becoming richer by the minute.

The English Revolution of 1642 was financed by the money changers backing Oliver Cromwell's successful attempt to purge the parliament and kill King Charles. What followed was 50 years of costly wars. Costly to those fighting them and profitable to those financing them.

So profitable that it allowed the money changers to take over a square mile of property still known as the City of London, which remains one of the three main financial centres in the world today.

The 50 years of war left England in financial ruin. The government officials went begging for loans from guess who, and the deal proposed resulted in a government sanctioned, privately owned bank which could produce money from nothing, essentially legally counterfeiting a national currency for private gain.

Now the politicians had a source from which to borrow all the money they wanted to borrow, and the debt created was secured against public taxes.

You would think someone would have seen through this, and realised they could produce their own money and owe no interest, but instead the Bank of England has been used as a model and now nearly every nation has a Central Bank with fractional reserve banking at its core.

These central banks have the power to take over a nations economy and become that nations real governing force. What we have here is a scam of mammoth proportions covering what is actually a hidden tax, being collected by private concerns.

The country sells bonds to the bank in return for money it cannot raise in taxes. The bonds are paid for by money produced from thin air. The government pays interest on the money it borrowed by borrowing more money in the same way. There is no way this debt can ever be paid, it has and will continue to increase.

If the government did find a way to pay off the debt, the result would be that there would be no bonds to back the currency, so to pay the debt would be to kill the currency.

With its formation the Bank of England soon flooded Britain with money. With no quality control and no insistence on value for money, prices doubled with money being thrown in every direction.

One company was even offering to drain the Red Sea to find Egyptian gold lost when the sea closed in on their pursuit of Moses.

By1698 the national debt expanded from £1,250,000 to £16,000,000 and up went the taxes the debt was secured on.

As hard as it might be to believe, in times of economic upheaval, wealth is rarely destroyed and instead is often only transferred. And who benefits the most when money is scarce? You may have guessed. It's those controlling what everyone else wants, the money changer's.

When the majority of people are suffering through economic depression, you can be sure that a minority of people are continuing to get rich.

Even today the Bank of England expresses its determination to prevent the ups and downs of booms and depressions, yet there have been nothing but ups and downs since its formation with the British pound rarely being stable.

One thing however has been stable and that is the growing fortune of:

THE ROTHSCHILDS (1743)

A goldsmith named Amshall Moses Bower opened a counting house in Frankfurt Germany in 1743. He placed a Roman eagle on a red shield over the door prompting people to call his shop the Red Shield Firm pronounced in German as "Rothschild".

His son later changed his name to Rothschild when he inherited the business. Loaning money to individuals was all well and good but he soon found it much more profitable loaning money to governments and Kings. It always involved much bigger amounts, always secured from public taxes.

Once he got the hang of things he set his sights on the world by training his five sons in the art of money creation, before sending them out to the major financial centres of the world to create and dominate the central banking systems.

J.P. Morgan was thought by many to be the richest man in the world during the second world war, but upon his death it was discovered he was merely a lieutenant within the Rothschild empire owning only 19% of the J.P. Morgan Companies.

"There is but one power in Europe and that is Rothschild."

19th century French commentator 1