Cliff Varnell

E. Martin Schotz The Waters of Knowledge versus The Waters of Uncertainty: Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_issue/schotz.html <quote on, emphasis added> THE MALIGNANT NATURE OF PSEUDO DEBATE Perhaps many people think that engaging in pseudo debate is a benign activity, that it simply means that people are debating something that is irrelevant. This is not the case. I say this because every debate rests on a premise to which the debaters must agree, or there is no debate. In the case of pseudo debate the premise is a lie. So in the pseudo debate we have the parties to the debate agreeing to purvey a lie to the public. And it is all the more malignant because it is subtle. The unsuspecting person who is witness to the pseudo debate does not understand that he is being passed a lie. He is not even aware that he is being passed a premise; it is so subtle that the premise just passes into the person as if it were reality. This premise -- that there is uncertainly to be resolved -- seems so benign. It is as easy as drinking a glass of treated water. But the fact remains that there is no mystery except in the minds of those who are willing to drink this premise. The premise is a lie, and a society which agrees to drink such a lie ceases to perceive reality. This is what we mean by mass denial. That the entire establishment has been willing to join in this process of cover-up by confusion creates an extreme form of problem for anyone who would seek to utter the truth. For these civilian institutions -- the media, the universities and the government-- once they begin engaging in denial of knowledge of the identity of the assassins, once they are drawn into the cover-up, a secondary motivation develops for them. Now they are not only protecting the state, they are now protecting themselves, because to expose the obviousness of the assassination and the false debate would be to reveal the corrupt role of all these institutions. And there is no question that these institutions are masters in self protection. Thus anyone who would attempt to confront the true cover-up must be prepared to confront virtually the entire society. And in doing this, one is inevitably going to be marginalized.</q>

Avoid conclusion prior to investigation. Seconded.

Lifton pioneered the pre-autopsy surgery theory, did he not? The Horne/Lifton Scenario, call it. What kind of bullets leave shallow wounds in soft tissue? There is no chain of possession for the improperly prepared extant autopsy photos. The fragment left a 7mm X 4mm hole in the jacket then fell out of the wound and was not recovered. From SS SA Glen Bennett’s 11/23/63 statement: At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder... </q>

Q: Have the extra-cranial X-rays been altered? Dr. Mantik: No one has ever suggested this, and I have had no reason to believe so. Why is this an issue at all? After all, the radio-opaque dye from the myelogram is still visible.

The Lifton Scenario cannot be ruled out. But the question remains — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue? In this scenario a piece of glass entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst a bunch of blood vessels, hairline fractured the right transverse process, and left an airpocket overlaying the right T1/C7 TPs. Check. So what caused the hairline fracture and the air pocket at T1? Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the neck x-ray. Do bullets fall out of wounds? Were these bullets of a caliber that would leave a shallow wound in soft tissue?

This is analogous to the military cover-up of the JFK assassination? This is hysterical. Literally. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/ARRB_Medical_Interviews.html Saundra Kay Spencer developed photographs from the autopsy of President Kennedy on the weekend following the assassination. She worked at the Naval Photographic Center in Anacostia, in the "White House lab." Her liaison to the White House was Robert Knudsen, and she worked with Vince Madonia. Ms. Spencer, never before interviewed in association with this case, was shown the autopsy photographs held in the National Archives. She told ARRB Chief Counsel Jeremy Gunn that those photographs were not the ones she developed, based both on the content of the pictures (hers were "clean" and unbloody) and the type of film used (color positives as opposed to color transparencies). She appears to have processed photos which were taken after cleanup of the body, but these photos are not to be found in the official record nor the public domain. Neither the Warren Commission nor the HSCA interviewed Spencer — no wonder. https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/Spencer_6-5-97/html/Spencer_0002b.htm Anyone who studies the case for longer than 10 minutes realizes there was a military cover-up of the JFK assassination. Unless Pat can identify who developed the Fox 5 photo there is a broken chain of possession. Add that to the pile of deficiencies racked up by Pat Speer’s pet evidence.

And the court of public opinion may feel skepticism toward testimony from military men acting under orders. We’re supposed to pretend that Humes & Co weren’t gang-pressed into the cover up? Some cite the conclusions of the HSCA that the photo in question is of especially poor quality and “more confusing than informative.” Saundra Kay Spencer is on record as having developed the extant autopsy photos. In her 6/4/97 ARRB testimony she stated: <quote on, emphasis added> Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy in addition to what you have already described? A: Just, you know, when they came out with some books and stuff later that showed autopsy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in—you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones that I had worked on. <quote off> So the woman on record as having developed the autopsy photos denies having developed them. The autopsy photos are worthless. How would they know it disproved the SBT? They were making up the cover-up on the fly. So what if one element of the cover-up contradicts another?

Seconded

I think we live in different material universes. Good luck in yours.

I find yours amusing. Lemme get this straight — a bullet strikes JFK in the back to the right of T3 on a downward angle, then without hitting anything solid the bullet immediately changed course to run a couple of inches alongside the spine to T1 where it hairline fractures the right T1 transverse process, somehow leaves an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 TPs, then changes direction again to move forward to damage a couple of inches of trachea and exit his throat leaving a small exit wound a dozen medical pros thought was an entrance. Do I have that right?

“Strongly suspect” So the dozen throat entrance wound witnesses all got it wrong. Check. Ah, which allows you to arbitrarily dismiss all witness testimony inconvenient to your pet theory. Good show, Ben. How does that support a Single Bullet creating both the back and throat wounds? Allowing you to arbitrarily dismiss anything that doesn’t fit your pet theory. How does that establish a Single Bullet creating the back and throat wounds?

A dozen witnesses to JFK’s throat entrance wound. Compiled by Denny Zartman, with Vincent Palamara's 2015 book "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" as the source. Dr. William Clark: "Dr. Kemp Clark...said that there were two wounds, a traumatic wound in the back of the head and a small entrance wound below the Adam's apple..." Pg. 1 Dr. Robert McClelland.: "this [the neck wound] did appear to be an entrance wound." ... "Dr. Robert Mc Clelland ... told me afterward that they still believed it [the neck wound] to be an entry wound." Pgs. 7-8 Dr. Marion Jenkins: saw an entry wound on JFK's neck; would let their 1963 observations stand. Pg. 13 Dr. Charles Carrico: "small penetrating wound of ent. neck" Pg. 14 Dr. Ronald Jones: "The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient." ... "compatible with an entrance wound ... I would stand by my original impression." Pgs. 15-16 Dr. Gene Akin: "this [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound..." Pg. 17 Dr. Paul Peters: "...we saw the wound of entry in the throat..." Pg. 19 Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "There were two wounds to the President that we observed at parkland. The first was a small and neat entrance wound to the throat..." Pg. 22 Dr. Charles Baxter: The wound in the neck was "no more than a pinpoint. It was made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound." Pg. 24 Dr. Joe Goldstritch: "...I realized how impossible it would have been for the neck wound I saw to have been an exit wound..." Pg. 44 Nurse Diana Bowron: "...the entry wound in his throat...looked like an entry wound." Pg. 33 Nurse Margaret Hinchliffe: "...a little hole in the middle of his neck ... About as big as the end of my little finger...An entrance bullet hole---it looked to me like...I have never seen an exit bullet hole---I don't remember seeing one that looked like that."; "...it was just a small wound and wasn't jagged like most of the exit bullet wounds that I have seen." ... "She also insisted the President had an "entry" wound in his throat." ... "Throat wound---Definitely an entrance wound. Resented Arlen Specter trying to get her to say it might be an exit wound..." Pgs 35-36

Same talking point, isn’t it? Bullet hits JFK in the back and exits his throat. No matter what the evidence shows.

Lone Nut lite. I knew it...

Always draw a conclusion first, then work backward finding anything to prove it. Meanwhile... From the Sibert & O’Neill FBI report on the autopsy.: <quote on > During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with his finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger. </q>

Ben, you’re not hustling the SBT, are you?

A Secret Order, Hank Albarelli, pg: 14 <quote on> [D]uring WWII George Hunter White and a number of other [Federal Bureau of Narcotics] agents assigned to the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), precursor to the CIA, worked very closely in New York City with Port Security and the Office of Naval Intelligence on what is now commonly called Operation Underworld. This was the top-secret project that involved freeing infamous gangster Charles "Lucky" Luciano from prison in return for his, and the Mafia's, assistance with security at America's ports and the Allied invasion of Italy. All the FBN agents assigned to work on Operation Underworld went on to become covert operatives of the CIA, and would become involved with Projects MK/ULTRA and MK/NAOMI. <quote off>

In regard to Finck’s probing of the wound?

Humes probed the wound with his little finger. Then Finck showed up and used a proper probe. Jenkins gave a detailed description of the probing. The bullet holes in the clothes prove there was no wound at the base of the neck, plus the witnesses etc. Irrelevant. Jenkins described it — that you cannot process this is your problem. Because they wanted it traced back to the Soviets. MKNAOMI briefed the FBI on exactly that.

The HSCA Photographic Panel said they might not be admitted. Excuse me? My favorite talking point is the clothing evidence, which you pretend doesn’t exist. The clothing evidence outweighs all of that, corroborated by 15 eye witnesses. That’s not what the HSCA photo experts said. So, Pat, show us how you bunch many inches of fabric above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar.

HSCA Vol. 7 (emphasis added) (quote on) Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that: 1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality. 2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view. 3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks. 4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of theexamination. In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence. In fact, under ordinary circumstances, the defense could raise some reasonable and, perhaps, sustainable objections to an attempt to introduce such poorly made and documented photographs as evidence in a murder trial. Furthermore, even the prosecution might have second thoughts about using certain of these photographs since they are more confusing than informative. Unfortunately, they are the only photographic record of the autopsy. Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity. These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy, but another decedent deliberatelymutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a macabre proposition might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution. (quote off) I prefer the truth Gaeton Fonzi presented on that day in the summer of ‘66 when the clothing evidence gave Arlen Specter a nervous breakdown. No, we can’t have multiple violations of autopsy protocol no matter what Pat Speer thinks it proves.

Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T4. Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department atBethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit: (quote on) Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just under the scapula and next to it. (quote off) The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3. SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound “in the soft part of that shoulder,” consistent with the testimony of Boyers. SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound in the back was “the hole that was in his shoulder.” Kellerman expanded on this for the HSCA witha diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3. Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth, pg 721). Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183). Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw "what appeared tobe an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's High Treason 2, pg 206). This consistent with T3. Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit (KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3. Total of 15 T3 vicinity back wound witnesses — hallucinations, Pat?

The Fox 5 photo was singled out by the HSCA as of especially poor quality. There’s no indication that’s JFK in that photo. It wasn’t written according to autopsy protocol, for reasons cited above. No, Pat, you did no such thing. The contemporaneously recorded accounts contradict the 3 year old recollections of military men acting under orders to lie. You pretend the clothing evidence doesn’t exist. You ignore the accounts of Bennett, Hill, Sibert, O’Neill, Robinson, Jenkins and yes, Burkley. Burkley’s death certificate was properly filled out and signed off as Verified, just like the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil. Your case requires Humes and Boswell to be unfaltering tellers of truth, material in protocol violation preferred over material that followed protocol —and a movement of JFK’s clothing that’s insane.

I didn’t make anything up. You put the back wound at T1. You rely on autopsy material that violated multiple protocols. That isn’t the issue. The part of the face sheet written in pencil puts the back wound in the location of the bullet holes in the clothes. You cite the measurements written in pen (a violation of protocol) which use two moveable landmarks (2 more violations) and in the mastoid measurement used a cranial landmark for a thoracic wound (protocol violation grand slam!) The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars — that’s T3. You say 2+ inches of both shirt and jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the top of the back. Dealey Plaza photos show a normal amount of shirt collar visible at the back. The jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of his neck. Yout “home experiment” failed to involve the jacket collar, right? Show us how multiple inches of fabric bunch up above the top of the back without pushing up on the jacket collar. <cue Jeopardy theme>

James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to David Lifton: (quote on) I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs. (quote off)