Vince Palamara

1) JFK autopsy doctor J. Thornton Boswell debunks Gerald Posner 2) JFK autopsy doctor James J. Humes confession 3) Only known video of JFK mortician Thomas Robinson 4) Robert Groden on Dr. Perry's Reaction to JFK Autopsy Photo 5) The Missing JFK Autopsy Photos 6) Witnesses Debunk JFK Autopsy Photos 7) JFK Autopsy Photos (full set)

Just now, Vince Palamara said:

 

I don't know why the screen capture isn't showing but the video is fine.

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

They put her in the wrong position for that show. Donaldson was actually standing on the curb directly in front of the TSBD. She can be made out in the Wiegman film. 

Thanks for the info!

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Not at all. Hill and Landis both said they heard but two shots, with Hill saying that the second one sounded like an echo. Landis, for that matter, admitted in his statements that his initial impression was that the shots came from in front of the limousine. None of them supported the single-bullet theory. If anything, Hill and Landis were thinking "Damn it, perhaps the reason we didn't hear two separate shots was because they were so damned close together."

True. The looks on their faces do seem "concerned" haha!

4 minutes ago, Michael Davidson said:

Where the first woman is stood would tend to suggest the Daltex when she refers to the building being behind her 

Yes!

The looks on Hill's and Landis' faces are priceless - you know they are thinking "Win! You are &^%&ing this up!! Retake!! Retake!!"

@James DiEugenio

3 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm grateful for @Vince Palamara for posting all those references about the depth of JFK's back wound. I thought I was missing something while reading all this debate.

From what I have read, the back wound was found to be shallow. The doctors at Bethesda reported that they could feel the end of the back wound with a finger. They tried to examine it with probes with no success. They were confused when discussing it with each other. Finally they called Parkland, learned about the discovery of a bullet there, then concluded that the bullet that made the back wound fell out of JFK's back when they were doing chest compressions in Dallas.

It seems the back wound was never tracked through the body. It should be noted that the single bullet theory was not a theory arrived at by doctors, but devised by a lawyer.

We could go on and talk about the rest of the implausibility regarding CE 399, but in my opinion it's academic.

All indications are that it was a shallow wound, and if so, the single bullet theory ends there.

Thanks!

17 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

VP-

Thanks for your terrific insights into the Secret Service. 

Some people regard Ornato highly, mostly people who have worked with him for years. That could be chumminess, or genuine. Ornato was promoted through the ranks of the SS, through the Bush and Obama Administrations. 

On 11/22, it sure appears the SS was an instrumental arm of the the security state, aka in popular parlance, the Deep State or shadow government. 

BTW, former Def Secy Gates wrote in his book "Duty" that the CIA runs palace guards for any number of foreign leaders, through Africa, Caribbean and Latin America. 

It would surprise me if the CIA does not have informants, or even close ties, to the SS. 

I still lean towards considering the SS a part of the shadow government, more likely to booby trap a mercurial and errant outsider like Trump, than to work in his favor. But let's see what evolves. 

It is curious that Biden has not fired SS Director Murray, since the texts disappeared on his watch. Murray is leaving, with high praise from the Bidens, to a cushy high-paid job with Snapchat, the social media platform that has banned Trump. 

Just desserts or golden parachute? 

PS Can texts really just disappear? The federal government has been able to retrieve texts from the compliant telecom giants in other situations. Does the SS have its own telecom system? 

PPS---The story for public consumption anyway, is that texts from 10 different SS agents have disappeared.

You mentioned a few bad SS apples...but on 11/22, surely there was an institutional effort to aid and abet the day's events. 

Now, we read about the texts of 10 different agents disappearing...not a few bad apples. This suggests to me an institutional effort to remove the texts. On SS Director Murray's watch. 

 

 

 

Thanks! Please see my latest post about Russ Baker - it related directly to your interest. As for deleted texts, there are ways to retrieve them and it appears someone may still have them.

Too Secret? The Secret Service’s Long, Troubling History of Omerta (substack.com)

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thanks Vince. That's yet one more Parkland back-of-head wound witness.

Anybody who's really interested and wants to make up their own mind should read Dr. Aguilar's wound witness list. But really, there's just no question of there being a gaping wound on the BACK of Kennedy's head, on the right side. And because of that, there really is no question that at least some of the autopsy photos are forgeries.

 

And even more in depth (every known medical-related witness)- every time they said anything about the wounds in chronological order:

7 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Calling Vince P again!

OK, we have the 1/6 committee calling for the DHS Inspector General to be replaced. The DHS IG has some obligations regarding the Secret Service and the investigation into the missing texts. 

The blue team will say the DHS IG is biased, and the red team will say the 1/6 committee just wants a Donk witch-hunter in there. 

My question: In 11/22, it sure looks like the Secret Service was an essential arm of the shadow state. The hair-pin turn, the upper-floor windows unblocked, the agent told not to ride on the limo, the destruction of evidence at the autopsy, and so on. 

In subsequent decades, the Secret Service remained loyal to the shadow government, aka the Deep State, hiding or destroying more documents related to 11/22.

Now...it seems like the story-line, for public consumption, is the Secret Service had become aligned with President Trump. The Secret Service is protecting Trump, not just physically as required, but politically and legally.

This is odd, as the shadow government made no secret of its loathing for Trump, even so far as having a former CIA director pen an op-ed in 2016 for The New York Times advising voters that Trump was a national security risk and they should vote for HRC.

And of course, 50 former Deep State apparatchiks signed a declaration that the Hunter Biden laptop was just Russian disinformation, just before the 2020 election. 

Surely, the Deep State loathes Donald Trump, and is willing to lie and spread disinformation to that end. That is the indisputable record.

So what gives, with the present-day Secret Service? Did Trump, a DC outsider, manage "flip" the Secret Service to his side? I find this hard to believe. 

Are the missing texts some sort of charade? That is, they are missing, but contain info favorable to Trump, or damaging to the shadow state? 

Why hasn't Biden summarily fired SS Director Murray? Instead, Murray is exiting to get a cushy lucrative job with Snapchat, the PC social media platform. 

What is your take? 

 

 

What all this proves is what I have been stating for years (in my books, articles, conference appearances, etc.): people need to stop viewing the Secret Service as beyond reproach while having no problem feeling comfortable with casting aspersions [rightfully, I might add] at the FBI and CIA. While the vast majority of the agents (1865-2022) were/are men and women of impeccable character and heroic background, there are bad apples throughout history that have spoiled the bunch, so to speak.

I have often encountered a sort of mental barrier by some (especially non-researchers) when it comes to the Secret Service: "C'mon, Vince- these are the 'good guys', are they not?" My response is: yes, they are, in most cases; same with the men and women of the FBI and CIA. Again, all it takes are a few bad seeds. Heck, look at the NINE agents who drank the morning of 11/22/63 and the NINE agents who drank and partied in 2011 when President Obama was scheduled to visit Cartegna, Columbia. One of the 11/22/63 drinkers was Clint Hill. Three others were follow-up car agents: Jack Ready, Paul Landis and Glen Bennett. They also stayed out very late, so sleep deprivation is an issue, as well. Not only weren't these men fired or indicted, they were able to carry on as if not happened AND, in Hill's case, receive an award and a promotion!

With regard to the current/modern Trump/Biden situation, you are seeing conflicts of interest and divided loyalties. Murray "leaving" could be tantamount to JFK's first Secret Service Chief U.E. Baughman being "retired" [a.k.a. fired, the way they did it for Dulles/Bissell/Cabell during the same time period], as Baughman sided with Hoover in shockingly stating to the press that there was no Mafia and there hadn't been one for many years, a statement directly opposed to RFK and JFK both. Often times in government, one is not "fired" to retain dignity and a pension.

This is still an active/fluid situation, so more to come in the following days/weeks/months. That said, the Secret Service deleting text messages, siding with Trump, NOT siding with Biden, believing the election of 2020 was a hoax and cheering on the insurrection are causes for grave concern. I cannot wait when Tony Ornato (and others) testify to the 1/6 committee.

Here are my responses to a recent media inquiry:

-Any insight into the current scandal?

Yes- history repeats itself: in 1995, after the ARRB asked for them, the Secret Service destroyed critical JFK motorcade records. Here we are in 2022 and the Secret Service deleted important texts after they were asked for them. In 1963-1969, a Secret Service agent named Emory Roberts became a tad too close to LBJ (while also voicing concerns about JFK’s private life and failing miserably on 11/22/63, having also paralyzed the agents under him to act), becoming his appointment secretary, an unprecedented move for a still-active agent. In 2020, a Secret Service agent named Tony Ornato became a tad too close to President Trump and became Deputy chief of Staff. Ornato and several of his fellow agents reportedly cheered on the 1/6/21 insurrection at the Capital, an action that went against President-Elect Biden (the false notion that the election was a fraud).

-How does this fit into larger problems with the institution?

The agency has a history of becoming too close to a protectee and also having low regard for other protectees.

-What do you make of the agents behavior on Jan 6and the agency’s behavior in the aftermath?

I think it was atrocious and alarming. The agents should be professional and apolitical. They should also refrain from becoming too chummy and compromising their own integrity.

-What is agency’s track record on disclosure and on retention or destruction/hiding of records?

Bad. As the ARRB’s John Tunheim and Thomas Samoluk have duly noted on the documentary JFK Revisited, the Secret Service is the only federal agency to destroy records after they were asked for them and were more difficult to work with than any other agency- even the FBI sand CIA.

-What is the level of competency and skill on the part of average agents, and what do we need to know about the kind of person who works there? I know everyone likes to praise the bravery and dedication of ss, cops, military, etc – but what is the cold, hard reality?

The vast majority of the agents through history have been good and loyal men with good training and backgrounds (often in law enforcement and/or in the military). However, during the JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Trump eras, perhaps others, several agents harbored either too close emotions to the protectee or they held ill will toward them. Neither is acceptable, especially the latter. The agency needs to better screen potential agents for these kinds of feelings and beliefs. JFK agents who harbored anger at President Kennedy for his private life (the agents who spoke to Seymour Hersh and others) and political views (Elmer Moore, Forrest Sorrels) cast a dark shadow on the success of the assassination. Likewise, the agents who were too close to Trump and cheered on the insurrection—-and deleted valuable text messages—-need to be held accountable.

44 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Thank you Vince.

Clint Hill said:

• The president's head was in Mrs. Kennedy's lap, his eyes fix, and a gaping hole in the back of his skull.
• His eyes are fixed and I can see inside the back of his head.
• The doctor points to a wound on the right rear of his head.
• His eyes were fixed, and I could see inside the back of his head.
• It looked like someone had flipped open the back of his head, stuck in an ice-cream scoop and removed a portion of the brain...
• President Kennedy lay unmoving, a bloody, gaping, fist-sized hole clearly visible in the back of his head.
• The right rear portion of his head was missing.

I'd like to dedicate Vince's post to all the researchers who believe that the ~20 Parkland professionals were wrong in their early statements that the large blowout wound was on the BACK of Kennedy's head, and who can therefore believe that the autopsy photos of the back of Kennedy's head are authentic.

We again see that you are wrong. (Sorry Pat.)

 

(BTW, if anyone wonders why I feel the need to point this out, it is because I believe that the evidence for a back-of-head blowout wound is so strong -- and thus the autopsy photos tampered with -- that there shouldn't be a division among researchers on this topic. I like to see researchers unite whenever the strength of the evidence merits it.)

 

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

 The witnesses who used terms like "In rapid succession" or "almost at the same  time" are very compelling. Some just said  "The last two shots were closer together". I didn't realize those witnesses were completely at odds with the official narrative too as the first shot would have to happen around frame 96 for anyone to notice a difference in timing.
 The explanation usually given is they heard echos. But most people reported 2 to 3 shots which means they were not mistaking echos as shots or they would have reported 4 to 6 shots.  In addition I have seen only a single account of a witness reporting the first two shots as close together. If echos were an issue why would people hear an echo only on the last shot and not the first?
  I thinks those facts rule out echos altogether, at least people being fooled by echos. There were some reports of echos from the triple underpass and the buildings at Elm/Huston and Main/Huston, but they were recognized as echos. This seems to be one of those issues that has no credible explanation.
 

Well said.

The looks on Hill's and Landis' faces are priceless: "Ummm-cut! Win, redo that: there's no way Oswald could have fired the rifle THAT fast!!!"

 Greer's 2/28/78 HSCA interview.

Kellerman's 3/9/64 Warren Commission testimony

Kellerman's 8/24/77 HSCA interview

Greer's 3/9/64 Warren Commission testimony:

Unfortunately, although Landis does not believe the single bullet theory, he apparently has waffled on his initial impression of one of the shots coming from the front, as he conveyed to Blaine in THE KENNEDY DETAIL that he was "mistaken"

From page 606 of the HSCA Final Report...I WONDER IF LANDIS WAS STILL "TRAUMITIZED", BLAINE?

Landis 11/27/63 report.

Clint Hill's March 9, 1964 Warren Commission testimony- "IT WAS RIGHT, BUT I CANNOT SAY FOR SURE THAT IT WAS REAR"--?!?!?!?!?

1 minute ago, Vince Palamara said:

Even Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis are against the SBT [From Hill's last book Five Presiden (2016); Landis, also in 2016: Shaker Heights man guarding Kennedys witnessed JFK assassination (photos) - cleveland.com   ]

 

From Hill's book Five Days In November (2013)

From Hill's book Mrs. Kennedy and Me (2012)

From The Kennedy Detail (2010): Hill wrote the Foreword, contributed to the actual book itself, and did the media and book tours. The co-author, Lisa McCubbin, co-wrote his three books and became his wife:

Clint Hill's March 9, 1964 Warren Commission testimony

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

There is actually some conflict on this issue. While the thinking of Redlich among others was that the SBT was indispensable to the single-assassin conclusion, Arlen Specter himself disagreed. Since that time, moreover, a few LN books have come out (e.g. Mark Fuhrman, Robert Wagner) which argued against the SBT, but nonetheless claimed Oswald was the sole shooter. 

Few take them seriously, however. Least of all their fellow LNs. 

Even Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis are against the SBT [From Hill's last book Five Presiden (2016); Landis, also in 2016: Shaker Heights man guarding Kennedys witnessed JFK assassination (photos) - cleveland.com   ]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I don't understand the point of this thread, David, other than wasting everyone's time. You should know your arguments were all refuted by myself and others more than 10 years ago. You should know your "feelings" on this subject rely on a deliberately misleading comparison of autopsy photos, and a deliberately deceptive exhibit published by the WC.

Well, ok, maybe you don't know. So let me remind you of a few of the facts presented by myself at the 2014 Bethesda conference. Facts that have never been refuted and need to be ignored to push the SBT fiction.

1. The autopsy face sheet and the measurements provided in the autopsy report place the back wound at the level of the shoulder tips. This is at or slightly below the throat wound.

2. Joseph Ball and David Belin were assigned the task of placing Oswald in the sniper's nest window. Among the steps to reaching this task were that they needed to resolve that the back wound was lower than the throat wound on the autopsy face sheet.

3. In early March, Ball accompanied Arlen Specter on a visit to Dr.s Humes and Boswell. They asked the doctors to prepare drawings that could be used to demonstrate that the back wound was really above the throat wound, and not the reverse. Humes and Boswell then corralled Skip Rydberg into making these drawings. Rydberg would later insist they just told him to put the wound on the back of the neck and have the bullet exit the throat, and that no measurements--which would have proved the wound to have been on the back--were provided.

4. These drawings were then entered into the record by Arlen Specter as part of the testimony of Dr. Humes. 

5. Within a few weeks, Arlen Specter started having doubts about what he had just done. He knew his career could be in jeopardy. He then began begging that Dr. Humes be allowed to verify the accuracy of these drawings. 

6. Judge Earl Warren, who was in a rush to finish the report by June, and was anxious to close doors, not open them, then made the ridiculous and possibly criminal decision that Dr. Humes would not be allowed to review the photographs he'd had taken for his review. Instead, Warren himself reviewed them, and decided they were horrible and awful and that there was nothing to see. Tellingly, these photos proved the wound to have been on the back, in opposition to the drawings already entered into the record. 

7. Even so, Specter and others continued to push that the single-bullet theory be tested via a re-enactment in Dallas. 

8. Whether through his own efforts or that of Judge Warren, he was shown a photo of the back wound on the day of the re-enactment. 

9. This location was then marked in chalk on the back of the Kennedy stand-in. After the re-enactment on the street a more precise re-enactment and measurement of angles was performed in a garage. The FBI took photos of this re-enactment. The photos taken from behind show the trajectory rod pointing back from Connally's wound to the TSBD passing inches above the chalk mark on the back of the Kennedy stand-in. None of these photos were published by the commission or entered into the record. Instead, Specter and the commission chose to publish but one photo--taken from the front--that failed to show the chalk mark on the back of the Kennedy stand-in.

10. It was around this time--after he'd been shown a photo proving the wound was on Kennedy's back--that Specter began saying it was a wound on the back of the neck. 

11. The testimony on the re-enactment was also deceptive. Specter had agents say the trajectory rod approximated the location of the back wound, as opposed to entering into the record a photo showing its location. He also had them suggest the chalk mark was derived from the drawings he knew to be incorrect, and that the re-enactment demonstrated that the drawings he knew to be incorrect were accurate. He also had them say the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door, when the schematics proved it was actually 2 1/2 inches from the door. All these "errors" served to help sell the single-bullet theory Specter now had plenty of reasons to doubt. 

12. A few years later, when the face sheet was published and people began doubting the SBT, the Johnson Administration began pushing that it was government policy that the SBT be supported. At this point the autopsy doctors were shown the photos and Dr. Boswell was co-erced or forced into providing interviews claiming this review supported the accuracy of the drawings we now know to be inaccurate. The next year was Dr. Humes' turn. He was provided a script by the government on what to say on national TV and he also claimed the photos supported the accuracy of the drawings we know to be inaccurate. 

13. As a response to Tink Thompson's book and Jim Garrison's investigation, a new top secret review of the autopsy photos and x-rays was then conducted. This panel comprised three pathologists and one radiologist--all colleagues and all heavily-connected to the government. All drafts of their report were destroyed and the final draft was largely put together by a lawyer added onto the panel for undisclosed reasons. Well, this panel, of course, upheld the SBT. 

14. Within a few years, moreover, private citizens were allowed to inspect the autopsy materials. The first of these, and the only one within the first year of the materials being available, was John Lattimer. Lattimer then published an article that was widely disseminated within the medical community. It pushed that the drawings we now know were inaccurate were indeed inaccurate, because the wound in the photos was much HIGHER up Kennedy's neck than shown in the photos

12. In order to sell this point, moreover, he claimed the photos proved Kennedy was in fact a hunchback, and that a bullet entering what would appear to be his back (at T-1 or below) had actually entered into a hunch of fat resting on the back of JFK's neck around C-4. (This was completely whack-a-doodle. And yet, very few if any prominent LNs have ever denounced Lattimer for this disgusting lie.)

13. It then fell upon the HSCA FPP to study the SBT. They unanimously agreed that the wound was on the back and not the back of the neck. But they'd been pressured by Blakey who'd told them Guinn's analysis of the bullet fragments (later revealed to be junk science) had confirmed the SBT. So they tried to make things fit. They then signed off on the SBT under the proviso JFK had suddenly leaned forward while behind the sign in the Zapruder film. They were not told that the dictabelt analysis and photography panel had separately concluded that JFK was hit before he went behind the sign in the film. The HSCA, under Blakey, then pretended that the FPP had signed off the SBT, when in fact they had not signed off on the HSCA's version of the SBT. 

14. Since that time, numerous TV shows have presented simulations of the SBT...in which the back wound location and the relative positions of the men in the limo have been routinely misrepresented. 

 

Your beloved SBT is, in short, the hoax of the century. 

 

Outstanding, Pat!