Michael Crane

Man,there are 30 guests browsing over there but the last post was 5 days ago.

Not good  😞

On 1/21/2024 at 3:47 PM, Pat Speer said:

Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette. 

 

 

IIRC) Custer also said that the head wound was so large,that he could put two hands together inside it.

18 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Excuse my naivete but ... what are we supposed to see in the above video regards this Duncan MacRae fellow?

 I've been viewing it for 5 minutes now, studying every person besides Nickleson and Nick Cage like a "Where's Waldo" challenge and so far I just don't get it. Is the big guy behind JN and NC somebody of interest? Or the super short guy next to JN? JN is only 5 ft. 10 in. ... so that guy must be just 4 ft. .

And why does Jack Nickleson so often wear dark sunglasses in a semi-darkened theater?

Why was this MacRae fellow booted from our forum?

You do see clapping don't you?

Clapping is showing a person appreciation & a way of thanking them.

Thank you kindly.

I remember Duncan from here.

Please help.

Is the JFK Deep Politics forum still crackin?

Lots of photos and x-rays are missing.

16 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I didn’t particularly want to post this since it’s pretty graphic, but it’s kinda hard to articulate what I think I’m looking at in a text description. Forgive the crappy markup I did it on an IPhone. 

The location of the “hole” seems to correlate fairly well with the back wound photo Greg posted, but the “scalp flaps” in that photo appear to be folded over and covering some of the damage toward the back of the head. 

The alleged “instrument” is just something I saw that looked out of place, but it’s not nearly as noticeable in the other TOH photos so it could be an anomaly of some sort. Or I could just be hallucinating. 

Is my interpretation of this photo reasonable? Not reasonable? Totally insane? 

There was two autopsy witnesses that said that this head rest was not on the autopsy tables at Bethesda,but there was a chalk block instead,that hair looks way too long,and why is it so damn dark in this photo?

Can anybody guess?

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So you think all the photos are fake? 

No,but I would have to see each and everyone of them to give an opinion.

Some of the pictures in the morgue are quite drastic.

I hope that they are not accurate.

On 1/15/2024 at 5:23 PM, Pat Speer said:

Okay, let's be specific. As the wound at the top of the head in this photo correlates with the wound as seen in other photos, do you think this photo was forged to match the other photos, or that they are all forgeries? 

Sorry for the delay Pat,

Over the years,I have heard people comment and show how this picture has been forged/photoshopped. Knowing what I know after all of these years...this picture don't even come close to passing my eye test.My goodness,I'm honestly surprised that it is in the collection.

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat I have trepidation contesting you on your ground, but I wonder if you have dealt adequately with the Canal argument. You say there was missing scalp where the wound was and "as no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction". 

But according to Canal, morticians have a workaround for situations of missing scalp (bold and underlining is added):

"When there is a traumatic head wound, such as the one Kennedy suffered, it is standard procedure among morticians to hide the injury by 'undermining' the scalp and then stretching it over the affected area. Undermining the scalp is as unpleasant as it sounds, and morticians don't ordinarily talk about it freely, as it is something of a trade secret. The process involves separating the much more pliable top layers of the scalp (which include the hair follicles) from the bottom layers, which include the muscles that attach the scalp to the skull and other tough tissue. After the procedure is finished though, the 'stretchability' of the scalp is dramatically increased. And that is precisely the procedure that was performed on President Kennedy...

"A number of experienced morticians were interviewed in addition to Karnei. All of them confirmed that the rear scalp indeed could have been stretched that much after undermining. Indeed, during his 1996 ARRB deposition, Dr. Humes testified that 'we were able to close it [the scalp] by undermining and stretching and so forth.'"

You say the no pre-restoration gaping wound visible in the back of the head is supported by other photos such as the one showing the entrance wound in the upper back:

Could this photo of the back wound photo be a clue (notice the very top)? https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg 

You quote Stringer and Humes as saying no photos were taken after partial reconstruction had begun.

But Canal has quotations saying differently. Stringer did say that to the ARRB, but Canal says he interviewed Stringer in 2011 in which Stringer wrote him, "I may have taken some pictures after midnight, but I just can't remember, it's been too long." Dr. Kernei, 1977 HSCA, "they took a lot of photographs at different times." Stover: "It seems to me that the photographer, and I guess it was Mr. Stringer at the time, came back in. I think he wasn't satisfied with some of the shots and decided he wanted some more ... the pictures weren't taken all at one time..." Van Hoesen: "periodically, more pictures were being taken..." 

The descriptions are of harrowing pressure, din of voices and lights and movements of people at that autopsy and then the cleanup and reconstruction, with Stringer finally getting to sleep at 4 am that night. How hardline do you want to be on the sayso of witnesses ruling out timing of photos taken in the same venue the same night--photos that are agreed to have been repeatedly taken at different times with no one keeping exact track? 

Hagen: told ARRB 6/18/96 that when he arrived the autopsy was almost over, he waited ca. 20 minutes in the gallery until the autopsy was concluded. The body was being "cleaned up" and photos "were being taken".

Rudnicki, HSCA 1978, personnel took photos throughout the autopsy.

Lifton said he had interviews with Godfrey McHugh in Nov 1967 in which, according to LIfton, "he gave vivid descriptions of what seemed to be reconstruction, carried on in his presence while photographs were being taken" (Best Evidence, 658).

Custer, ARRB, 10/28/97, "Photographs were being taken all the time".

Jenkins quoted in Law, In the Eye of History (2004, 94), "This photo [BOH] must have been taken later."

Would it be possible for you to reread the Canal article--its only 17 pages printed out--and comment after reading if you still remain unchanged in holding that it cannot have happened, or that it can be said with confidence that it did not happen? (https://www.washingtondecoded.com/files/canal.pdf). I know you have taken heat from people, much unfairly in my opinion, but the heart of the problem seems to be both the photo alterationists on this site, and you, BOTH for different reasons reject the BOH being a genuine photo after partial reconstruction. They reason from a bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore the BOH photo was tampered with or there had been covert body alteration. You reason from the bedrock premise that it is a pre-reconstruction photo, that therefore there never was any part of a gaping wound visible from someone looking at the back of Kennedy's head (nothing gaping other than that one forward flap at the right side in the BOH photo). Many people think your argument flies in the face of massive testimony from multiple doctors. You make an argument for harmonizing the testimonies with the BOH photo arguing that a number of doctor witnesses' perceptions were in error (because the head was upside down distorting perception and other phenomena in the studies you cite).

Wouldn't it be simpler to apply your same criticism of witness fallibility to the memory statements that no photographs were taken after the morticians started to work, especially since Stringer himself is reported to have said otherwise at another time?

This is from the summary of the interview with mortician Thomas Robinson to the ARRB: 

"Robinson said that Ed Stroble ... had cut out a piece of rubber to cover the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak; the piece of rubber was slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head, and Robinson estimated that the rubber sheet was a circular patch about the size of a large orange (demonstrating this with a circular motion joining the index finger and thumbs of his two hands). He said the cranium was packed with material during reconstruction, but that he did not believe it was plaster-of-Paris; he said it was either cotton or kapok material used in conjunction with a hardening compound. The rubber sheet was used outside of this material to close the wound in the area of missing bone. The scalp was sutured together, and also onto the rubber sheet to the maximum extent possible, and the damage in the back of the head was obscured by the pillow in the casket..." (https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md180/html/md180_0004a.htm)

Isn't it "obvious" the BOH photo is probably from that later time of that night, whether not anyone directly said so in these memories from decades later? Unless one is going to go photo alterationist or discount too many witness testimonies? (My reasoning; please enlighten if I'm being naive?)  

The photo is a forgery IMHO.The photographic panel was corrupt or a picture of a manipulated/photoshopped picture was taken.

16 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well, he didn't stop the car and turn around to see if JFK was hit yet.

But, he also didn't jump over the seat to cover JFK at the sound of the first shot, as he should have been trained to do.  A sound I believe he later stated he recognized as gunfire.

Both of them remind me of Abraham Bolden's assertions that some SSA's were not that committed to protecting JFK.

Well,that damn Kellerman also pulled off some stunts at Parkland & in the autopsy room that I don't agree with.

I can't prove that it was Kellerman in both,but I sure am leaning that way.He was probably under orders from above himself...but oh well.

Not that many onlookers on the left or to the right to slow down and let the president give them a good look and or a wave.

I personally think that Kellerman is just as guilty as Greer when everything is said and done.

Oh man,

I can remember driving by an accident scene where the crash victims were still on sight.You could actually see the one guys foot turned completely the opposite way.There were also big giant blood clots that had hardened.This accident wasn't even close the president of the United States,and there is no way that I could ever forget how that twisted ankle/foot looked,especially after the guy looked at me straight in the eye.I could only imagine the trauma if it was the president of the United States.You just don't forget that stuff IMHO.

Let's go....time is ticking.

22 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Kathy has retired, for reasons unbeknownst to me.  I hope she is well, she helped me get back on the site when my laptop died and I had lost my password.

I was asked by Mark and Sandy to become an administrator, as a result.  I felt unqualified regarding my technical expertise, which I still do.  Though I consider it an honor to become so given the origin from John Simkin, James Gordon and more.  

You sir, seem a bit provocative in your nature, argumentative, a good reason to resign from having to deal with such.

But, a reason not to as well.  Four complaints in four days by you, about others.  Reason to wonder about motives?

He's basically a polluter,antagonizer & disrupter.

Keep it coming Keven,

I pick up little pieces of the puzzle with your posts.

Damn them unaltered JFK X-rays.

:-)

This poor guy has got a bat in his skull.

Sorry for the delay Pat.I'm not on this site as much as others.

Yes,I will dismiss them.Bowron was up close and had longer looks,but I also include others people testimony that corroborates nurse Bowron.There is entirely too much evidence at Parkland not to convince me.

All that dooky that happened after Parkland only complicates matters.

Paul O'Connor,James Jenkins & Richard Lipsey were three witnesses (along with Humes) that seen JFK's head first from when the towels were removed from his head.And you know as good as I,what O'Connor said about the condition of the head.

Too many witnesses seen JFK head wound at different times.That is why there is so much discrepancy between them.

37 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I feel Robinson's recollection makes the most sense.

In my viewing of the Z film when slowed down, I saw an unusual and grossly uneven lifting of the top of JFK's skull in the micro-second of the bullet impact which imo clearly was depicting the breaking apart of the upper skull as Robinson described it's condition when he examined that area.

I still don't understand how anyone can see the Z film, and not see a blowout of skull bone above JFK's right ear. A huge "flap" which when blown out revealed pink tissue underneath.

It also looked to me that the enormous pink blood and tissue cloud that sprayed 6 ft high came from that blown out flap area.

Closest eye-witness to JFK's head shot ( just 10 feet away? ) was Bill Newman.

His description of JFK's right-side skull blowout matches the Z-film imo.

Hello Joe,

Let's try going over some things ok?....ok

It is a known FACT that nurse Bowron who literally washed JFK's hair had NO time manipulate any evidence,that's the bottom line.Along with other Parkland personnel observations.

Any other observations/evidence including the Zapruder film had time AFTER Parkland to be altered and or munipulated.

I know which one I'm going with.

Sandy,

While I'm thinking about it...this is a discussion forum and I would like to expand on my opinion.

JFK's body was brought in one time in a shipping casket and placed onto the autopsy table.

There were more casket entries,but they did not contain JFK.

The caskets...The bronze and the mahogany were brought to the morgue and placed in the cold room.

I'm not 100% certain that the mahogany casket was placed in the cold room.

I do speculate that the FBI entry and the MDW Honor Guard entry only brought the casket so far then were turned/held back as in denied access to the main room (didn't see JFK/ put on table)

It's my firm belief that the autopsy attendees in the gallery were let into the actual morgue (with tables) after JFK was placed on the table.

8 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This is a Lifton/Horne theory that I -- after looking at the witness statements -- agree with.  I am not an expert on it and have forgotten who saw what, so I cannot defend it myself. Horne certainly could. And you can read what he has written on it if you want.

As I said, the body was brought in twice. There are corroborating witnesses to both entries, so there is no question that that happened.

The CASKET was actually brought in THREE times, and there were witnesses to all three entries. The men who carried the caskets in each time were different! As I recall, the military casket was brought in by the men-in-dark-suits who delivered it (at 6:30 PM). The decorative bronze casket was brought in by some of the techs and some other guys, Secret Service I believe (at something like 7:30 PM). The casket had to have been empty because the body was already inside the autopsy room at the time. But those carrying the casket thought the body was in it. The casket was left in the ante-room, and none of its pallbearers saw it being opened.

That casket had to have been secretly removed, including the body, because the third entry DID have witnesses who saw it being opened (at a little before 8:00 PM IIRC). This time the Honor Guard brought it in.

You likely would disagree with Lifton and Horne on this. But you would lose a debate with Horne. He knows all the testimony, and with help from Lifton's theory was able to reconcile all the conflicting, but corroborated, statements.

 

Sandy,I believe that yes,there were 3 casket entries,but they were not brought in next to the autopsy table.

The shipping casket was however brought into and sat down next to the autopsy table.

The other two were brought in and left in the cold/anterior room.

*Anybody that seen more than one casket entry and put on the autopsy table would scream bloody murder!!

**Jenkins finally opened up his mouth and without a doubt...would have described the body being put onto the autopsy table more than once.

*** I'm certainly curious of your witnesses to all 3 casket entries and actually taken out of the bronze casket?

****Once again,these are just my opinions....not facts.

Well,your last sentence said brain photos so...

I'll have to go back,because I believe that he said that he did not take those kind of views? Basilar views or whatever the hell kind of views they call them?

Patrick,Patrick,Patrick...

You are aware of the ARRB deposition of the photographer that said the photos in the archives are not his right?

Stringer right? or was it somebody else? I have no files saved on anything.It's all from memory.I do have some threads saved on a different forum that I can refer to about certain subjects.