Michael Crane

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So there you have it, from the best witness still living...the best evidence available.

It might be possible that Richard Lipsey might still be alive.

I found him kind of hit & miss in the interview that I saw of him,but like other evidence...sometimes you need more than one persons story.

I'll look for his video.

On 4/30/2024 at 4:30 PM, Michael Crane said:

What the hell.

I'd like to promote my new book called "Meet Me In San Jose"

The sequel to my first novel.

Sounds just the Raiders guy WiFi Willie.

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

An inventory list for the photos was created in 1966. Nothing has disappeared since that time. IF "they" were to have disappeared some photos to support the single-assassin solution at that time, they would have almost certainly have disappeared the back wound photos, which proved the single-bullet theory to be incorrect, and were so problematic that both Dr. Boswell, to the press in 1966, and Dr. Humes to CBS in 1967, flat-out lied about the location of the wound in the photos. 

And yet, there the photos were, when subsequently studied by others. Heck they were so problematic that the HSCA pathology panel refused to play along, and finally came clean about the location of the wound in the photos. 

What I am saying is....

Say there were only 56 color photographs of the autopsy period.Nothing else.

What the plotters did was take away 28 of them & make 28 black & white photos of the color photos.

This way they have their choice of what photos they wanted taken out of the collection and have a total of 56.

* Just my opinion of how they could have gotten away with it.

And that's too bad.

I firmly believe that the plotters have taken the overall number of prints in the archives and have substituted the black & whites for color photographs or substituted the color photographs for black & white photographs.

What this means is the plotters exchanged 1/2 the pictures so they could eliminate the photos with the stainless steel probes and the back of the head photos,along with the bruised lung photo.

Sneaky sumbitches those plotters.

Minimum should be arrested for accessory after the fact.

4 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Am I the only one remaining who still can't see the posted images?

Let me know if you can see this & I'll post more if you would like.

I think we should send this to "America's Most Wanted"

John Walsh does a good job over there.

What the hell.

I'd like to promote my new book called "Meet Me In San Jose"

23 hours ago, Christian Toussay said:

 

Ok, the link prblm is apparently solved.

I will update all preceding threads with those new links.

 

OK, so we've seen that, just as the Ruler's Puzzle in the back-of-the-head autopsy picture, the Powell / Dillard box discrepancy is explained by forgery of the record: in the first case, it was about suppressing the occipital exit wound; in the second case, it was about suppressing the presence of a man in DPD uniform in the Sniper's Nest, about 30 seconds after the last shot.

In both case, Special FX, i.e. the inclusion in the data set of deceptive information was used: fake wet hair to hide the occipital wound, and a stack of box to hide the DPD officer.

That's one method, that we will find again in the Zapruder and Nix films.

But let us see different technique of the forgers. I am reposting below (not sure it is still accessible here) the Dillard picture:

 

 

As captioned, this is an FBI document, so the black arrow pointing at nothing intrigued me. So I decided to also processed, just in case, the Dillard picture.

 

I post below a result from that processing:

 

 

And here are two different iterations from the data bank:

 

 

 

 

So this is the fourth picture, so far, being presented here of a man wearing a DPD uniform present in the Sniper's Nest from 10 minutes before (Bronson film) to 30 seconds after (Dillard / Powell) the shooting, all this data coming from different material, different point of view and different time sequences.

That's quite a lot of corroborative data.

But the discovery of this man does not actually resolve the mystery of the FBI Arrow.

As I am about to post, I realize I can't locate the files I wanted to present about the solution to this Arrow problem....

So this is what I'll do; I will use the processed result posted here, and simply apply three settings:

- first I will light up the image as much as possible:

 

 

We can now see what appears to be coherent data where there was previously nothing.

 

- then I will apply an Auto Enhance command (basically a set of options with various combinations of light/contrast/sharpness/colour balance, whatever: I chose one) and then Scratch Removal, which is essentially a coordinated blurring tool, on the segment of the open window:

 

 

 

And here, I have added a few indications to facilitate the analysis:

 

 

 

So here, with the Dillard Picture, we find a second type of forgery: the total blacking out of unwanted data. We have already seen this in the "Assassins' Team Behind the Fence", with the complete darkness over the retaining wall and fence, and we will another striking example in Moorman.

Here again, we have indisputable evidence of Federal treachery and felony.

The results presented just above, anyhow, confirms how efficient and easy the process is: the results are simply three-steps-removed from the processed result used as a source...

I will continue with this in a day or two..

Hey,

I went to High School with that guy.

Yeah,go ahead and shut it down.

No offense meant.

I have only been able to view 1 picture on this thread,and I still need a decoder.

On 4/24/2024 at 8:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

Heck, he claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival. 

 

That might not be so far fetched.Somewhere,somehow...the Secret Service found a funeral home nearby that owned a black hearse.Wasn't the driver and the passenger wearing a white smock? I'm not saying that I believe it,but I'm not disregarding it either.I can see a hurried mortician still wearing his smock.

Damn,this case is a 1500 piece puzzle.

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 it was Joe O'Donnell. 13 years ago or so, I was reading the New York Times and came across an article about a former U.S. Information Agency photographer who had recently passed,  whose passing had ignited a scandal. 

Because his obituary had listed a number of famous photos he'd taken, when he had in fact not taken these photos. It turned out that, although he had taken some famous photos in the aftermath of the A bomb in Japan, he had been signing and selling photographic prints for decades of photos that he had not taken==all of which were Kennedy-related. An investigation followed and led to his family admitting he'd been suffering from dementia and had developed an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys. This was, of course Joe O'Donnell, one of the few people in history whose obituary led to a retraction. 

In any event, I read a number of articles on this situation, and saw that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer who'd accompanied Kennedy to Dallas, and had taken the Johnson swearing-in photos, had said he'd never heard of O'Donnell, and that, if I recall, U.S. Information Agency photographers did not interact much with White House photographers or the first family. 

Well, hell, I thought, and went back and read the notes of the interviews of the Knudsen family, and found they said they'd never heard of O'Donnell. And then re-read the notes on Horne's interview with O'Donnell, in which he reported that O'Donnell had claimed he'd performed a private showing of the Zapruder film for Jacqueline Kennedy, and that the two of them had edited the film together. 

Well, that was it, I thought, the man was obviously suffering from dementia when he claimed Knudsen had shown him some photos. But, wait, how would he have known Knudsen had claimed he'd taken some photos? I then remembered that Knudsen had written an article in which he claimed he'd taken photos...and that the HSCA had then called him in to testify and that he'd told them he'd developed photos taken by others.

In any event, I shared this info with the research community in the hopes people would stop citing O'Donnell as an important witness. And have instead witnessed men like Mantik and Horne continue to cite O'Donnell as credible, when they know full well he is not. 

Now, recently, after re-reading all of this stuff, I feel a little more charitable towards O'Donnell. We Know Knudsen developed photos. So the possibility exists Knudsen DID show O'Donnell some photos, and that O'Donnell had simply mis-remembered the nature of these photos

Possible smear campaign or good old Government character assassination?

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Hilarious. Horne's history is one of taking inconsistencies in the record and spinning them into the wildest tale possible. 

I urge you to do the research.

What did Tom Robinson tell the HSCA? That he recalled a small wound on Kennedy's temple.

What did Tom Robinson tell the ARRB? That there were two or three tiny wounds on Kennedy's cheek. 

What did Doug Horne take from his statements? That there was a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

What did James Jenkins say? That he recalled seeing a gray smear on the skull above the right ear.

What did he come to claim later? That he saw a bullet hole above the right ear.

What did Horne claim in JFK: What the Doctors saw Jenkins REALLY saw? A bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye.

 

What did Ed Reed say? He and Custer took the x-rays, developed them, brought them back to the morgue, sat down for twenty minutes, saw Humes start cutting on Kennedy to remove the brain, was asked to leave as his services were no longer required, and never returned to the autopsy. 

What did Horne take from his statements? That he came in to take the x-rays and sat down, saw Humes cutting on Kennedy to remove bones from the top of the head to phony up the x-rays, was asked to leave, and was asked to return after 20 minutes to take the phony x-rays.

 

The statements of Robinson and Reed are the pillars of Horne's theory. And yet he grossly misrepresents their statements to conjure up this theory. 

 

Now, as you know, he has few if any supporters among the upper echelon of researchers within the "community." That doesn't mean he 's wrong. But it's saying something that he has spent dozens if not hundreds of hours with Mantik in which he undoubtedly pushed. a theory holding that the largest recovered bone fragment was removed by Humes at Bethesda, and that Mantik would never embrace this, telling you, a few years back that the fragment was missing at Parkland but the hole was covered by scalp, and telling his audience in 2021, that this is pretty much what Humes saw when he first saw Kennedy's head. 

 

Now, as a refresher, here is what Horne claims Humes saw, prior to his alteration of the body...

Now I'm guessing you're siding with Horne. 

But Horne, in case you haven't noticed, is by far the most slanderous researcher of all. Virtually everyone interviewed by the ARRB, in Horne's eyes, was a coward or a liar.

Heck, he claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival. 

 

 

I know that you seen the series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" now who was that guy that seen the bullet hole in the temple? Was it O'Donnell or someone that knew a name close to O'Donnell?He was an older gentleman.

One picture it was there & one picture it wasn't there.

You have to know who I'm taking about?

Was it a Joe?

Pictures came from a Knudsen set?

18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I know that's what Horne wants us to believe...but how do you remove a hole by cutting into it? As detailed in Jim D's last book Stone asked Horne this very question, and was given some rigamarole. The bone Horne claims was cut off the head contained no bullet hole, and was inches away from were they claim the bullet entered. So why was no hole in this location observed by those viewing the body at Parkland? Or Bethesda? Or shown on the photos? Or on the A-P x-ray? 

There was no bullet hole there. This whole hole thing got drummed up when Mantik took Robinson's recollection of a small wound by the temple and started claiming he saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Robinson was asked about this by the ARRB and said it was two or three small wounds on the cheek.And yet here we are 25 years later with Mantik and Horne still claiming Robinson said he saw a hole on the forehead. 

The medical evidence is overwhelming.They probably starting cutting & searching there for a bullet.

Incision was made to remove the entrance.

I'm debating on hiring a ghost writer for a book idea I have called "Turn In Your Man Card" so,I'm just shopping around.

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, there's a lot of blithering on my part and a lot of repetition and almost certainly some mis-statements

Any particular reason for this?

3 hours ago, Robert Montenegro said:

Yeah, but then there's that whole cauliflower ear thing

Those are known as a badge of honor.

Mr.Larsen could have saved some money.

I could be way off base here & I probably am,but don't they have cameras that magicians use to use in slow motion of them catching a bullet in there mouth.

Isn't there a camera out there that could show the bullets hitting JFK in super slow mo?

9 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

If there had been a real investigation by the DOJ everyone on this forum would know about it.

Laughable!

Every bit of law enforcement,agencies or departments were LBJ's whipping boys.

6 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

 

And, after being No1 re Einsteinian krapp, i got bored & came to the jfk forums, where i am now No1 re jfk krapp.

It took me 2 years to solve the dark age of jfk. Solving the dark age of Einsteinian krapp took me 8 years.

Excellent research indeed.

Have you ever considered the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon?

Well,I have been away from the forum and did not know that.

Thanks for reposting Vince.I find this a big deal.