Scott Tame

Jim, doesn't Mr. Newman address some of the suppression tactics in the appendix of the 2017 edition of JFK and Vietnam?

Phillips was referring to the Soviet Embassy in "Plausible Denial". In "Last Word", Lane has him claiming he was never in Mexico City. Assuming the above quote is accurate.

Michael and Jim

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15699&page=6

In post #87 of the above thread, Michael Hogan posts a quote from "Last Word" which may be the remark you are referring to. I think the episode from the debate was mentioned in "Plausible Denial".

Didn't David Phillips make a statement to Mark Lane during a debate about there being no evidence that Oswald was at the Embassy?

The reason the first one is posted is because Mr.Gaal couldn't find it because we were given the wrong document number.

Hate to inform you that he let you down. There's nothing there.

The 1:43 memo is actually 62 109060-58 and also contains nothing about a "lone shooter."

"I instructed Mr. Shanklin to go all out on this and find out who did it."- JEH

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=56&tab=page

Larry & Tom, I vaguely remember reading that they were executives for Bulova watch co.

I asked Mr Tame who is sure they are forgeries to post the evidence he feels supports that conclusion... the offer is open to you as well... NOT your impressions of the photos

Bob... I am literally thru dealing with those who only want to give us their IMPRESSIONS of what THEY see, as opposed to any evidence to support these conclusions...

"JUST LOOK AT IT" is not evidence...

64th generation internet images are NOT "original Autopsy materials" by any stretch...

And yet, Mr. Joseph's, it's you who has been presenting "your impressions" of "64th generation internet images" to claim that the right front of the head is missing. I think I'll take the word of a radiologist who has examined the actual x-rays over your "impressions".

... yet opinions are not analysis. and I'm tired of hearing it presented that way

You mean like your opinion that the photos and x-rays are of a reconstructed head?

Again, I cannot wait for you to explain who reconstructed the head and how they were able to eliminate the area of missing scalp in the back of the head when the morticians were unable to do it!

So Scott... I wonder again, how the xray of the huge hole at the front of JFK's skull, this UNALTERED area... was created... ??

Or on the Anterior xray.. how is it that this unaltered original shows the entire right and top portion of the skull GONE... when there was only a hole in the occipial?

What was that an xray of... if all that was happening were xrays of an intact frontal area of the skull, and the covering of a posterior hole?

Well, folks, it appears that Dave is back from his insult laden hissy fit! Very mature Mr. Joseph's! And he accuses me of being a five year old. How rich! I find it amusing that someone who has been belligerent on two different threads here accuses me of being argumentative. I'll let you be the judge.

"Be espcially nice if you actually came here and attempted to prove something..."

You can add to that list Godfrey McHugh, William Greer, Roy Kellerman and James Metzler.

Now let's get on to the photos and x-rays. To support my assertion of alteration I will direct you to this study by David W. Mantik.

http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf

I will post some relevant quotes from this study below.

"I examined the JFK autopsy materials at the National Archives (NARA) on four separate days in 1993, on two days in 1994, and on two days in 1995. This review included the photographs, X-rays, clothing, magic bullet, and two metal fragments removed from the skull."

"Shortly after the autopsy, a large white (i.e., relatively transparent) patch was

"Shortly after the autopsy--by using a simple, double exposure technique in the dark

therefore, also cannot be an original but must be a copy. The original has vanished without

"Based on 3D viewing of the autopsy photographs with a large format stereo viewer,

the scalp hair on the posterior head photographs (b & w # 15, 16 and color # 42, 43)

appears starched and flat, i.e., not naturally 3D."

"No matter how the stereo viewer is employed, the upper scalp hair on the posterior

head photographs looks starched and flat, i.e., two-dimensional. This is how two precisely

identical photographs appear when viewed in stereo. In a bizarre image over the left top of

the head, the hair extends well out into space, looking as if it had been glued into position.

When the paired photographs are reversed (left for right), or even when they are each

rotated by ninety degrees, this odd appearance of the hair persists. This is true both of the

color transparencies and of the color prints. Such a 2D effect would occur if the same

photograph (of extraneous hair) had been inserted (as in a soft matte technique) into two

slightly different views of the same pose. This conclusion that the upper scalp hair (just

where there should be a large hole, according to the score or more of witnesses assembled

by Gary Aguilar, M.D.) forms an unnatural 2D image in the stereo viewer is strikingly at

odds with the HSCA, which implied that the stereo images appeared normally 3D. By

contrast, stereo viewing of the hair on other photographic pairs in the autopsy collection

seems normal."

Just a dumb question, does everyone involved in this discussion, outside of Pat Speer maybe, pretty much agree with the Parkland observation of there being a large hole in the back of JFK's head?

I mean, let's go easy on each other, fellows. I have a sneaking suspicion we are all on the same team.

Hi Robert, Yes I do agree with the Parkland observations regarding a wound in the back of the head. I don't believe that all these people could make the same wrong description. Besides, their observations are supported by a majority of the Bethesda witnesses who also describe a wound in the back of the head.

Where Mr. Josephs and I part ways is that I believe the photos and x-rays are forgeries and he believes the wounds have been altered. Now, I don't have a problem with anyone who doesn't believe what I do. People are free to come to their own conclusions. What I do have a problem with are people who get belligerent and condescending when you don't accept their theories.

If you have to resort to name calling, it's usually because you don't have an intelligent rebuttal.

Now concerning a certain hockey bet. Do we really have to take Beiber?

Take care,

Scott

I apologize, Ray. I see how that might confuse you. Let me fix that: he says his parents saw Jackie, but is unclear whether he believes she was there.

I said that MacDonald said? I think you better go back and reread that. So by saying his parents saw her he's claiming she wasn't there?

Trying to distract peole from the fact that Dave finally had to concede that "post 8;00" witnesses saw the same wound as Parkland?

Name calling in addition to the shouting and hand waving. More classic Cinque!

. have you found a single photo or xray that looks like what McClellend or Sibert, or O'Neill, or anyone else other than Boswell drew?

Nice to see you finally concede that the so called post 8:00 witnesses (Siebert & O'Neill) describe the same wound as Parkland.

You are a moron... post an official autopsy photo/xray of the hole in the back of his head... as described by most everyone prior to Boswell....

That you can't figure out the context of the FBI's report and what Hoover was doing to his men and the USA is painfully obvious...

Talking to you Scott is like discussing it with a 5 year old.

Actually, I know 5 year olds who you can't hold a candle to... please go back to sleep or to whatever it is you do when not trolling on this forum...

============

Ray, he's all yours... but try to remember

You can't fix stupid.

Oh! Now you want me to "post an official autopsy photo/xray of the hole in the back of his head"

Do you have some type of cognitive disorder? I told you over 50 posts ago that the photos and x-rays don't match the descriptions of the Bethesda witnesses.

You seem to be having trouble keeping up. Poor thing.

. have you found a single photo or xray that looks like what McClellend or Sibert, or O'Neill, or anyone else other than Boswell drew?

Nice to see you finally concede that the so called post 8:00 witnesses (Siebert & O'Neill) describe the same wound as Parkland.

Haven't had enough, David. I was waiting for Scott apologise for mis-stating what MacDonald had said about Jackie at Bethesda.

Are you saying MacDonalds parents are liars? Oh my!

Would you PLEASE post an image of AUTOPSY EVIDENCE that supports an occipital only blow-out - which is what, to a person, each of the wintesses claim was the only wound on JFK in DALLAS.

WOW! Occipital only? Did you really expect not to get called out on that? Anybody who takes the time to read the Parkland testimonies can see that most describe the wound as occipital-parietal.

There is even a temporal-parietal description.

Now, who's "ignorance about the subject matter is obvious"?

Ray, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe. I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people who try to pass off their beliefs and theories as fact. Loudly proclaiming that this or that did not happen does not make it a fact.

Whether or not you want to believe that Siebert and O'Neill saw the body removed from the casket, you are still left with the fact that they describe the head wound in the same area as the Parkland witnesses.

With all his hand waving and shouting Mr. Joseph's want's you to believe that Siebert and O'Neill drop the casket on the floor of the ante room then immediately leave before the casket is opened. He then tries to back up that claim with the above quote. What Mr. Joseph's doesn't tell you is that on the same page of Mr. Siebert's testimony he takes the above quote from is the following exchange:

Q: Did you stay with the casket from the time that you unloaded it from the ambulance until it was opened, or was it out of your sight at any time?

A: I was there until it was opened.

Later is this exchange:

Q: Although, I'm using the term loosely, But you were - I mean, from what I understand you were saying - that you were with the casket, at least from the time it was unloaded from the Navy ambulance until the body was lifted out of that same casket - and put on the autopsy table.

A: Yes.

Q: And when the body was unwrapped, were you able to identify the body as that of President Kennedy?

A: Oh, there was no doubt.

Agent O'Neill also states in his ARRB testimony that he was present from the time the casket was unloaded until the body was removed and the head was unwrapped.

Here's another one, Ray. This guy claims that the body arrived by helicopter, was on a gurney cover by a sheet, and was placed in a grey ambulance. And to top it off he claims Jackie was on the helo too.

http://ajmacdonaldjr.wordpress.com/2013/11/10/the-arrival-of-jfks-body-at-bethesda-naval-hospital-what-i-saw/

O'Connor was either right with the time he saw the body removed, or right about what the body was wrapped in.

As the wrappings do not agree with Humes but do agree with Edward Reed, who said when he saw the body it the body was wrapped in plastic, rather than Parkland sheets, (see http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Reed_10-21-97.pdf page 28) then it would appear that he was right about the wrapping and not the time.

He also says that the personnel who brought the casket in lifted the body out of the casket, which again is not what Humes said.

Either he was mistaken or there was a lot of shenanigans going on before the official autopsy.

He could be wrong on both accounts, Ray. This isn't necessarily an either or proposition. I personnally take anything O"Connor says with a grain a salt. He's also claimed that there was no brain with the body and the throat wound looked like a blown out mess.

The decoy ambulance story is interesting, but, even if true, they've yet to prove JFK was in it. And No one has yet to explain how they got the ambulance away from Gen. McHugh at the front of the hospital and back again without him noticing.

I don't put much stock in the Israel story, Ray. No one else reports him as being there. And his claim that everyone is told to leave but he is allowed to stay is a bit much.

Hello, Ray. I think a lot of people were confused about a lot that night. There is an account from Admiral Osborne that claims the body was clothed and a bullet fell from the clothing.

There's no doubt that there's a lot of contradictory, confusing evidence to sort through.

Garry Aguilar and Kathy Cunningham do a great job of documenting the problems with the medical evidence here. Sorry it's such a long read.

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm