Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michael Crane

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,301

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Michael Crane

    Some humor for the only people who will get it

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Crane

    All that I got to say is that the 49ers will be in salary cap hell come time when Purdy is a free agent.

    I'm pretty sure that he is still making the league minimum on his rookie contract of $900,000 to about 50 million a year.

    If the 49ers would have won the Superbowl,I can see Brock bringing in $60,000,000 a year.

    Edited to post this.

     

    • 2022: $705,000
    • 2023: $870,000
    • 2024: $985,000
    • 2025: $1.1 million
    • 2026: Unrestricted free agent

     

     

    Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    10 hours ago, Denise Hazelwood said:

    The first interview of Custer (and thank you, Vince Palamara, for posting them) demonstrates the issues I have with how witness interviews are conducted. Instead of asking the witness what they saw, the interviewer (Tom Wilson) "tells" the witness what happened, based on the interviewee's observations of the extant Zapruder Film. There is evidence that the Z-film was altered, which the interviewer seems unaware of. In any case, in this interview, the interviewer tells the witness what his conclusions were rather than listening to the witness. That type of thing is extremely annoying. It's called "leading the witness."

    The second interview is better, but I believe by this time Custer had been influenced by, say, the Zapruder Film and his interview with Tom Wilson (Custer: "It's in the Zapruder Film.") He orients the X-ray by the sella turcica, not by memory, which I contend was added to the image later (it's not visible in the original image, but only in the "computer enhanced" image, which I contend is a composite made with the "living" X-ray, with the sella turcica and other "landmarks" aligning perfectly with the "living" X-ray but not with he un-enhanced original. Note the discord between where he indicates the front of the head to be in the "computer-enhanced" X-ray (which shows a blow-out in the front of the head) and his repeated statementss that the skull, etc., was "blown out, in back." (Eventually, he tells Vanity Fair that "These are fake X-rays.") But then, the interviewer jumps in with, "If you look at the Z-film, you'll see..." Aaaagggghh!  But basically, it's a much better interview than the first one.

     

    A transcript of Custer's ARRB deposition can be found at https://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf .

    Regarding the "suit" recollection--he does mention that once, apparently in passing. JFK was wrapped in sheets, of course. It may have been a simple mis-speak, saying "suit" when he meant "sheet"? This is where the ARRB interviewers should have followed up, but didn't. "What did the suit look like? Was he wearing a shirt? Tie? Jacket? Trousers?" That sort of thing. Which might have triggered a correction on the part of the witness, without leading him.

    What is most interesting about Custer's deposition is the recollection of a "king-size" fragment falling out of the back when the body was lifted for X-rays. This makes sense, as the nose and tail fragments found in the car don't make up even 1/2 of a Carcanno bullet. It is farther corroborated by December, 1963/January, 1964 news accounts from a leaked FBI report, which described a "bullet" being recovered from the President's shoulder during the autopsy.

    Also of interest is the discussion of missing neck X-rays that showed metallic fragments in the C3/C4 region, which would assume a downward trajectory from the back of the head. Mortician Thomas Robinson was "adamant" that he had seen a probe from the back of the head come out at the throat wound. My conclusion, given those statements, is that the throat wound was caused by the exit of a fragment that created a hole small enough to be mistaken as an entrance by the Parkland doctors. I believe the fragment was traveling on this trajectory after an internal ricochet off the back of the head. 

     

     

     

     

    Hello Denise,

    The deposition is quite long and requires alot of reading.I just kicked back and listened to it on Youtube.

     

     

     

    Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Crane

    On 2/10/2024 at 11:44 AM, Vince Palamara said:

    I interviewed Jerrol Custer twice in person: on 11/22/1991 with Harry Livingstone and Tom Wilson (the interview results are in HIGH TREASON 2 and KILLING THE TRUTH), as well as over two days in March 1998 with author and friend William Matson Law (for his fantastic book IN THE EYE OF HISTORY---I am mentioned several times in the Custer chapter). Here are 3 videos (the 11/22/1991 video is merely an excerpt- Tom Wilson freaked out when he saw I was videotaping and demanded a stop to it):

     

     

     

    The definite impression I received was that Jerrol was heavily influenced by Tom Wilson and was starting to change his story because of it (both men lived in Pittsburgh, as do I, but they lived in the very same suburb close by. Ironically, both men would pass away within a very short time of each other in July 2000). As we all know, from roughly the time of the HSCA until the early 1990's, Jerrol was firm on the matter of the back of JFK's head being gone and the x-rays and photos being faked in some way.

    By the time of his ARRB interview and his association with Wilson (just beginning in late 1991/early 1992), Jerrol started to change both the position of the head wound and to dramatize his story a tad. It is a sad story of a principal witness changing his story for money and acclaim (NOT from us- he received not a penny, BUT he did receive money from both JFK Lancer and Tom Wilson, not to mention the excitement he had over TWO of his own books he was going to release [they never saw the light of day] and his association with Wilson, who made a splash at the A.S.K. Conference in late November 1991 and on THE MEN WHO KILLED KENNEDY).

    Thanks Vince. 

    It's always nice to see a video that you have not seen yet.

    Especially for me on the medical evidence.

    Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

    I would think a person could easily make a mistake like remembering JFK wearing a suit

    But Chris,Custer says that he remembers the event too well.And since he said that he helped lift JFK out of the casket and onto the autopsy table,that's a glaring red flag.

    Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    6 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

    Michael, have you read William Matson Law's chapter on Custer in In The Eye of History?  A neglected stunning and historical book.

    In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence: Law, William Matson: 9780965658287: Amazon.com: Books

    Unfortunately, the chapter ends with his sad demise and the downfall of his family, and this.  Pgs. 278-80.

    Jerrol Custer was an enigma.  . . .  I found the man to be more than a bit of a curmudgeon.  . . .   The first time we spoke, he said, "See all these people take advantage of me.  They write books, making millions, while I'm busting my ass for pennies."  (working as a security guard, lost his position as a supervisory X-ray technician due to down-sizing.)

    "The kindest possible light I can shed on the dubious parts of Jerrol Custer's account is that he hoped to use the interview to promote the book he was working on."

     

     

    That's one book that I have not gotten ahold of yet.So,the answer would be no.

    Is Jerrol Custer off his rocker?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Crane

    I was listening to his ARRB testimony and he says that when they took JFK out of the body bag,that he was wearing a plastic bag over his head & more important,he said that JFK was wearing a suit.JFK was not wearing a suit.

    This makes me think that he didn't see JFK in the body bag at all.

    *At the beginning he says that he remembers the autopsy "Too well" (not those exact words)

    Thoughts?

    A Thought About The Spacing Of The Gunshots

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Michael Crane

    On 1/27/2024 at 3:49 AM, David Von Pein said:

    PAT SPEER SAID [BACK IN OCT. 2007 at the John McAdams newsgroup]:

    To support that three evenly-spaced shots were fired by a bolt-action rifle, he [DVP] uses Warren Commission testimony taken 4 months or more after the assassination, after the witnesses had been told by the media and their government that Oswald had acted alone. He avoids the earliest statements of the witnesses like the plague. .... This is not chaff, by any means. A competent and committed defense attorney could establish reasonable doubt on this fact alone.


    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    When thinking some more about witness Harold Norman and his comments made after President Kennedy's assassination, this thought struck me:

    The argument about the SPACING between the gunshots that Norman heard is really kind of an irrelevant and unimportant argument.

    Why?

    Because regardless of the exact number of seconds that passed between the three shots, ALL THREE OF THOSE SHOTS CAME FROM THE SAME RIFLE ABOVE NORMAN'S HEAD.

    And surely no conspiracy theorist wants to propose a theory that has TWO gunmen and TWO different rifles being fired from the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th Floor directly above Mr. Norman's head....do they?

    Therefore, no matter what the precise spacing was between the shots, per Norman's never-wavering "I HEARD THREE SHOTS FROM ABOVE ME" account of the shooting, it HAS to mean that the ONE gunman WAS able to fire those three shots from the gunman's ONE rifle in the allotted time to get off three such shots from his bolt-action weapon.

    The same argument I just made regarding Norman could also be made when it comes to many of the other Dealey Plaza witnesses, i.e., the witnesses who fall into the following category:

    I HEARD EXACTLY THREE SHOTS AND ALL OF THOSE SHOTS CAME FROM THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF THE BOOK DEPOSITORY BUILDING.

    That is to say: What major difference does it really make what the precise SPACING was between these three shots, which were ALL shots (per those witnesses in the category just mentioned) that VERY LIKELY CAME FROM THE VERY SAME GUN?

    So, given these parameters that many witnesses DO agree on (i.e., exactly THREE shots fired and all coming from ONE rear location at or very near the Texas School Book Depository Building), the "spacing" issue is largely a moot point altogether.

    David Von Pein
    October 2007

    Full-Discussion-Logo-2.png

    Related-Discussion-Logo.png

     

    The "flurry" was a result of silenced gunfire in addition to the non-silenced gunfire.

    4 shots Kennedy

    2 or 3 shots Conally

    4 or 5 missed shots

    Possible 11 +shots.

    Rob Reiner talks about two Oswalds

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    On 1/23/2024 at 9:56 PM, Ron Bulman said:

    Sorry to digress.  This takes me back to 8th or 9th grade English class.  A contemporary subjects assignment.  Watch Archie Bunker, write a report, be ready to comment.  I don't remember what I wrote or said.  Maybe, why does he call Gloria's husband meathead?

     

     

    Archie called Michael Meathead because he thought that he was dead from the neck up.

×
×
  • Create New...