Michael Crane

Tink has a convincing one (like we need it) on Youtube.

Thanks again to all.

I'm at the point where I would like to see genuine evidence against Oswald & genuine medical evidence.

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

What a load of nonsense.

11+ shots? Hilarious.

4 more and you'll be in Bob Groden's ultra-fantasy territory.

 

I guarantee you that 11 is closer than 3.

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

 

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.

Well it's new.I mean it's new to me & that is why I'm so thankful.

A flurry of shells came into the limo.

-Roy Kellerman

Nice.

Thank you.

12 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Even without zooming in, I could tell #26 was airbrushed to hell and back.

Mercy

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.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Fighting the "Ford Moved The Wound" myth is a 24-hour-a-day battle. It never wants to die the death it so obviously deserves....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

 

Specter's magic act doesn't jive.First off the angle isn't right from the 6th floor of the TSBD.

Then we look at other facts like THE BACK WOUND DID NOT TRANSIT THE BODY.

I have never mentioned this to you David,but there are some reasons that I believe that you are still here.

You have seen so much more other evidence,that you know in your heart that there was a conspiracy and a cover-up.

You are,and this is just my opinion,you are playing the role of a defense attorney.Your sole reason for being here is to try and create doubt.

You know that your client (White House) is guilty,you are just hoping to sway that one juror for a not guilty verdict.

The finest attorneys known to man,have said to you David...if you would like to be on our team....then go out there & win the battle and create doubt like a great defense attorney does and you can join our highly respected and illustrious team.

Is this reality?no,it's far from it,but that is how I look at you.

Keven,

David Von Pein could watch ex president Ford say that he moved the back wound up & still disagree with that fact.

There was no cover up in any capacity.

DVP

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.