Denny Zartman

When I told you eight doctors saw cerebellum, your response was that four of them changed their minds. When I told you Dr. Clark said he saw cerebellum, your response was that Clark changed his story and was aligned with Lattimer.

Eight of the doctors reported seeing cerebellum. You choose to believe their retractions, even though you know perfectly well many witnesses were pressured to change their stories to confirm with the official story of one lone shooter from behind. When did this happen? According to what I've read in January 1994 interviews with David Naro, Clark said "the lower right occipital region of the head was blown out and I saw cerebellum. In my opinion the wound was an exit wound... a large hole in the back of the president's head... blown out" - JFK From Parkland To Bethesda - Vince Palamara - Pg 3 So, believe you over my lying eyes?

@Pat Speer I truly wish I could understand your position, but with every post you make it seems to make less and less sense to me. Perhaps it's my fault, but I have to say that in my opinion your arguments are unconvincing. I have to wonder why you are so devoted to them when, in my view, they seem so completely at odds with the record. You seem to routinely reject witness statements that are made long after the fact, yet you also seem to reject witness statements that were made on the same day/week/month/year. It seems you cherry-pick which witnesses you choose to believe and when. You also seem to think that we should trust you, (someone who as far as I am aware has no medical experience and who did not see the body as it was between the shooting and Bethesda) over the medical professionals who were actually there and who saw the body in color and in three dimensions as it was when arriving at Parkland. Doctors Clark, Perry, McClelland, Jenkins, Carrico, Peters, Crenshaw, and Baxter all reported seeing cerebellum. Yet you choose to reject their observations in favor of some who changed their stories. How could it be a hoax if eight doctors all mentioned seeing cerebellum? When Dr. Malcolm Perry changes his story for Gerald Posner to say he saw no cerebellum, he still says the wound was in the "occipital/parietal area." Perry also wrote to @Vince Palamara that Dr. William Kemp Clark was the doctor examined the head wound the most, and that Dr. Clark was also the most qualified to do so. Dr. Clark said both the day after the JFK assassination in 1963 and then again in 1994 that he saw cerebellum. He didn't change his story. The montage of pictures from Groden's Death Of A President clearly shows multiple people all locating the wound on the lower right rear of the skull. Yet from what I've seen, you have argued they are showing the wrong location because old people can't reach up to the top of their heads or something. So, are they all infirm, or all mistaken, or all in on a hoax? When added to the 2D illustrations that witnesses have marked and even marking the location wound on a 3D skull model, as in @Keven Hofeling 's post above, you still reject it and call it a hoax. Perhaps you are the one who is mistaken on this? I read all your posts and go over them again and again, and I just don't find any good reason to believe you over the medical professionals who saw Kennedy's body in person.

I started reading it yesterday. It's good. It's much like a detective story. I'm only 8% into it. It's a pretty long book, but she writes in a straightforward style and it's an easy read so far. My first impression is that people curious about the Harvey and Lee theory would find it interesting.

Just as an aside, I 100% believe that's Bill Shelley in the leafleting photo.

Was this note retained and independently translated, or are we trusting Ruth Paine's translation?

My pleasure, I try to contribute what I can, though it isn't much. Thanks everyone for all your hard work and continuing research.

The Secret Service had Ruth translate the note? Am I reading that right?

"I'm the hiphopottomus, my rhymes are bottomless..." Thanks, Joe!

A dishonest reporter does a disservice to truth and to history.

The doctors said they saw cerebellum. Why should we believe you over them?

Three points: 1. RFK Jr. is not going to be the president. It's time to understand and accept this. He does not appeal to liberals and conservatives are going to drop him like a hot potato once they understand he believes in climate change. 2. The perpetrators of the cover up that's been ongoing for 60 years did not leave a self-incriminating smoking gun in the vaults for any future President Tom, Dick, or Bob to reveal to the world. 3. If you have no experience in education you cannot go to the local elementary school and become the principal. If you have no experience in medicine, you can't go to the local hospital and become head surgeon. If you have no experience in restaurant management you can't go to the local Wendy's and become the general manager. But, for some reason, in the United States of America many folks are A-okay with the presidency being an entry-level job. If RFK Jr. really wanted to engage in public service and make Americans lives better why hasn't he ever run for political office? He has no experience being a senator, he is no experience being a congressman, he has no experience being a governor, he's not even been a mayor. He declined being appointed to a government post - a total "gimmie" that would have required zero campaigning. What is a voter supposed to take away from that fact when it comes to his true desire to make people's lives better? It would be great if he became the president and revealed all the answers to the JFK assassination, but in reality he would still also have to do the actual job of president. The last President we had who had had no political experience whatsoever was a disaster. Let's not repeat our mistakes in our desire for answers that aren't going to be there in the first place.

@James DiEugenio Not everyone on this forum is interested in RFK Jr's presidential bid.

This post is not appropriate for this section. Had Ben Cole posted it, it would be moved and he would have received a temporary ban. This favoritism and arbitrary rule enforcement does not look good when the forum is also begging for money.

Good post.

I agree with @Sean Coleman , the first edition of Crossfire is what I would recommend if someone unfamiliar with the JFKA wanted to read just one book on the subject. The revised edition is good as well, but I feel the original would be a lot more accessible for most readers.

Trump knows the shocking truth about the JFKA. He won't share what he knows because that information is classified and we all know how much Donald Trump respects classified information. So why is he sharing that he knows something shocking at all? Why do we respect and give even a minute of our time to someone who goes halfway about a secret? Either keep it or reveal it. "Tee hee, I know something you don't know" is childish bullshit.

If he's not threatening a judge or intimidating a witness he can say whatever he wants to say. I resent you trying to feed us the baloney that he can't. There are no gag orders on him regarding the JFK assassination. He defamed E. Jean Carroll, and after losing in court he went right out on CNN and defamed her again. The point is that if he's got something he wants to say, he's going to say it. This thread is just begging for trouble, you know. Biden, the lifelong government stooge won't release JFK info. Such a bad man. Trump, the independent outsider and the mortal enemy of the Deep State also wouldn't release JFK info. Poor guy is being oppressed. Are we going to give Biden the benefit of the doubt, too? Maybe he's facing an impeachment inquiry because they're trying to silence him about the JFKA.

Do you not believe the doctors who said they saw cerebellum?

No one believes this theory except you.

I agree with you, Joe. I've been reluctant to share my opinion on Landis here, primarily because Landis's account elicits an emotional response from me, and I don't want my emotions to color an attempt to evaluate the basic truth of his claim. I'm relieved to see someone that shares my view.

It seems Landis claims to have placed the bullet near JFK's feet, not into his neck. So are we still using Hall as support for Landis's story?

Hey @Vince Palamara , these clips are valuable. Thank you for sharing. Where are they from?

According to Landis, Clint Hill's cigarette lighter was on the seat as well. But I'm guessing Hill's alleged warning to Landis about going public with this story disproves that it was just an innocent incident of Hill's pockets emptying out all over the scene of the crime by accident.