Andrej Stancak
-
Posts
1,261 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Recent Profile Visitors
Andrej Stancak's Achievements
Collaborator (7/14)
-
-
-
-
Rare
-
Recent Badges
Single Status Update
See all updates by Andrej Stancak
-
Milicent Cranor is not a doctor, and holds no medical degree. She worked at Rockefeller Foundation in New York, and reviewed much published literature. She is also a serious wanna be physicist, and a good writer. She was originally quite taken with my work, but at some point her views changed, in connection with her adulation of Dr. Gary Aguilar. There's a whole backstory here -- reminiscent of Billy Wilders "Lost Weekend" -- but I'd rather not go into it, because it belongs in the National Enquirer. As to the tracheotomy performed by Dr. Perry: When I interviewed Dr. Perry (in October 1966), he told me that the length of the tracheotomy incision that he made was "2 - 3 cm". (And within a day, that was exactly the same incision length provided by Dr. Carrico). Realizing the historical significance of these conversations, i immediately purchased a tape recorder, and decided to record these recollections. All of this was in Oct 1966, and in the months following. I don't remember what year it was that Milicant Cranor first got around to reading Best Evidence (first published in Jan 1981); but it was some years later that she got involved in the JFK case. With regard to the alteration of the JFK trach incision --set forth in detail in Chapter 11 of B.E. -- I don't remember exactly when Cranor first got involved, but at some point, she made it her business to try to undercut my line of analysis by arguing that trach incisions could be much larger. Much of what she wrote, after that point, became --IMHO -- an expression of her own personal nastiness, and not a reflection of a sound critique of my work. FWIW: In the aftermath of the publication of B.E. (and its selection as a Book of the Month Club selection, where it was carefully reviewed by medical experts), I received hundreds of letters, which I carefully numbered, replying to each one. At least one, as I recall, was from a medical school professor, who complemented me on the accuracy of my medical analysis. Needless to say, I stand by Best Evidence, and hope to achieve similar success --and shed important new light on JFK's assassination, via the truth about Oswald--with the publication of Final Charade. Happy thanksgiving to all! Best, DSL
-
Dear David:
thanks for your succint account of the neck inicision wound and for providing some backround on Miss Cranor's posts. I am familiar with Best Evidence, reading it twice and feeling that even that was not enough given the importance of the book. Miss Cranor's misintrepretation of the final appearance of the neck wound as being the result of a wide collar incision was outrageous and prompted me to respond. At some point, I realised that she and James DiEugenio, for some incomprehensive to me reason, disliked your work and were willing to invent most outrageous ideas to refute it. I read your chapter on the frontal wound in Best Evidence (Chapter 11) and a few more accounts (e.g., Dr. Crenshaw's book "JFK has been shot" (2013), or Dr Mantik's book on JFK's head wounds which also touched upon the neck wound), and I only saw confirmation of a 2-3 cm long incision first mentioned in Best Evidence. Also, Micah does good job in pointing to some less known bits of data pertaining to the neck and head wounds.
I look forward to reading Final Charade and wish you a lot of strength in what may be the final push to complete the book. I am not particularly active in JFK research at the moment because of my academic duties. However, I am retiring in 18 months and will have more time to do whatever can still be done in the JFK assassination case. Living in Europe and not having a real chance to speak to witnesses (and there are not too many still around), I focus on photographic evidence. A photograph is a single snapshot of events and it, therefore, cannot really explain what happened. However, I think there may be enough evidence in photographs, if linked with witness testimonies, to show that Lee Oswald could not be the assassin. That alone, if the research is sound, could be another step toward the understanding of what happened on that fateful Friday.
Best wishes
Andrej
-
11/25/21 - 4:15 PST
Hi Andrej: If you would, please send me your email address, so that I may communicate with you privately (should I wish). Please send your email address to me at: dlifton@earthlink.net. (Take care with the spelling: Again: dlifton@earthlink.net). FYI: There's considerably more information that I have, but I don't wish to publish it on the London Education Forum. Thanks. DSL
P.S. Quoting from your post: QUOTE: Miss Cranor's misinterpretation of the final appearance of the neck wound as being the result of a wide collar incision was outrageous and prompted me to respond. At some point, I realized that she and James DiEugenio, for some incomprehensible to me reason, disliked your work and were willing to invent (the) most outrageous ideas to refute it. UNQUOTE. Yes, Andrej, I agree, and this is one (of several) areas which I would like to expand upon, but in private. Thanks. DSL
-
