More on the alleged  1979 interview between Robert Groden and Dr. Malcolm Perry. From Best Evidence, 1992 edition:

 

[…Afterword]

 

One doctor I didn’t see in 1983 was Dr. Malcolm Perry, the man who performed the Dallas tracheotomy. Shortly after President Kennedy’s body left Parkland Hospital, Dr. Perry held a news conference at which he stated—three times—that the President was shot in the throat from the front. (See pp. 71-72) The wound was “3-5 mm,” he told Humes the morning after the shooting. In 1966, Dr. Perry told me his incision through that wound was 2-3 cm. (See p. 278) In 1979, researcher Robert Groden, a consultant to the House Assassinations Committee, was present at an unofficial, privately arranged meeting when Dr. Perry was shown an autopsy photograph clearly showing the throat wound. Dr. Perry looked at the picture, shook his head from side to side, and then, on the condition that he not be quoted, gave his reaction: The tracheotomy was too large; it was not the trach he had made. He said the throat wound in the picture was “larger, expanded” and that his was “neater.’’ Dr. Perry said the head wound was not the way he remembered it either, and that the picture published in Six Seconds in Dallas (a picture prepared by Dr. McClelland and similar to my Figure 20 [left side]) was much closer. Of Dr. Perry’s reaction, Groden said: “It was one of the most vivid memories I have of this case. I knew it was important. I knew it was historic.

 

Groden first told me of the meeting with Perry shortly after it occurred. He had honored Dr. Perry’s confidence these many years, but has now given me permission to quote what Dr. Perry said in 1979 because Dr. Perry has recently told the television program Nova that he sees no discrepancy between the tracheotomy incision he made and the tracheotomy wound depicted on the Dox drawing (i.e., the artist’s rendition of an autopsy photograph showing the throat wound. See Photo 35).

 

From the 1989 book High Treason by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden:

 

[…Part II: The Medical Evidence, Chapter 2p: The President’s Head Wounds And The New Evidence Of Forgery]

 

I wanted to show the picture of the back of the Presidents head to the medical witnesses in Dallas who had seen the body. I had seen what purported to be the actual autopsy photos, and thus possessed knowledge that had been denied even to the doctors who treated the President at Parkland. In 1979, I traveled to Dallas on a trip paid for by Steve Parks of The Baltimore Sun and was the first person to show some of the Dallas doctors the HSCA tracings of the autopsy pictures. Since then, myself, The Baltimore Sun, and Ben Bradlee, Jr. of The Boston Globe have compiled the testimony of a number of additional witnesses, and the startling conclusion of their work is clear: The autopsy pictures are, fake, and hold the key to the true nature of the plot which took the life of the President. (The research conducted by the Globe and the Sun was subsequently turned over to me and placed in the JFK Library in Boston.)

 

[…]

 

In 1979, Dr. Malcolm Perry - one of the most important witnesses among the Parkland doctors - who refused to be interviewed by Ben Bradlee, Jr., was shown copies of the alleged autopsy photos by Jeff Price of The Baltimore Sun. It was an emotional encounter and Dr. Perry was moved almost to tears. He said the pictures of the back of the head were not accurate.

 

In an article in The Baltimore Sun headlined "The Bullets Also Destroyed Our Confidence"55 Steve Parks wrote: "Why were the doctors at Parkland Hospital who tried to save the president's life and who declared him dead never consulted about the autopsy (conducted by military authorities), and why have the autopsy photos never been shown to these doctors? Earlier this year, during an investigation by the Sun, one doctor who had been given access to copies of the photos said the president's head wounds in the pictures were not consistent with what he recalled seeing that day 16 years ago." This was Dr. Malcolm Perry.

 

[…]

 

The Sun published the fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry hotly denounced the picture, but the Globe, although they did not interview him, said that he supported the autopsy photograph. They did not print the denial or any reference to this doctor. In any event, the Sun's intensive interview with Dr. Perry was conducted in front of witnesses, and the results corroborated the testimony of every other witness who had been interviewed up to that time.

 

The Assassinations Committee interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978, but did not show him the autopsy photographs. Perry told the interviewer that he had looked at the head wound and that it "was located in the 'occipital parietal' region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing."' It does not make sense that Dr. Perry and the only other two Parkland doctors (Jenkins and Carrico) the Committee interviewed would have somehow changed their observation that the back of the head was missing—for The Boston Globe.

 

In addition, the testimony of Dr. Perry to the Warren Commission, and his extensive first-hand experience with the wounds, makes any later retraction attributed to him not credible.

 

From the Baltimore Sun, 11/18/1979, The bullets also destroyed our confidence by Steve Parks:

 

[…] Why were the doctors at Parkland Hospital who tried to save the president's life and who declared him dead never consulted about the autopsy (conducted by military authorities), and why have the autopsy photos never been shown to these doctors? Earlier this year, during an investigation by the Sun, one doctor who had been given access to copies of the photos said the president's head wounds in the pictures were not consistent with what he recalled seeing that day 16 years ago.

 

From a 1981 report on interviews with medical witnesses by Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe:

 

[...] Perry declined to be personally interviewed by The Globe, but, like Carrico, did send written replies to questions in two separate letters. In the first letter, Perry said that while he gave only a "cursory glance at the head wound...not sufficient for accurate descriptions." the autopsy photograph "seems to be consistent with what I saw." In his second letter, Perry simply reiterated that he did not make a careful examination of the head wound, and that in his opinion, the only person qualified to give a good description of the wound was Dr. Clark.

 

From the Boston Globe, 6/21/1981, Dispute on JFK assassination evidence persists by Ben Bradlee:

 

Some Warren Commission critics and other researchers have erroneously cited this drawing as representing the Dallas doctors' and nurses' sole view of the head wound.

 

Actually, according to Globe interviews, they are not unanimous in their opinions or recollections. Five of the doctors and nurses agree with McClelland on the drawing and strongly assert that the wound was in the back of the head; four other doctors say that the tracing of the autopsy photograph shown them by The Globe is "consistent" with their recollection of the head wound.

 

Two doctors lean toward this official view. while five others tend toward the McClelland view that the wound was in the rear of the head, but 'all short of giving it a blanket endorsement.

 

Of the six doctors who said that they agree or tend to agree with the official tracing showing no gaping wound extending into the occipital region, five have, at one time or another, gone on record as saying that the wound did extend into the occiput.

 

From an early draft of a chapter for Harrison Livingstone’s 1992 book High Treason 2:

 

How can Groden narrate the Zapruder film and not be able to answer the questions "What is that coming out of his face?" when the President is struck in the head with a bullet? "I don't know," he says.

 

Since he was my partner, I know that his M.O. is denial. Now you see it, now you don't. He has for a long time played a shell game with this evidence. At times I was shown different views of the back of the had. In one of them, there is clearly a line of small black crescents, a half an inch long and a half an inch apart all the way around where he says there is a matte line--just as though a can opener had been operating there. I ask him what that is--"I don't know" he responds. Sometime later he hauls out a picture of the back of the head again, and I can't find the crescents. "Where are the crescents?" "I don't know. You imagined that. There aren't any."

 

Well, Mark Crouch saw them too.

 

In 1979, Steve Parks and I saw both a color set of photographs and a black and white set at Groden's house. Later the black and white set seems to have disappeared. He says he never had black and whites, but David Lifton and numerous others saw them. Groden doesn't seem to have them anymore. Maybe he sold them.

 

He claimed never to have the Stare of Death picture, but both Lifton and myself recorded at different times having seen this unique photograph.

 

Groden says that he personally interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry, an interview I set up, but Perry, Jeff Price, the reporter, and Steve Parks, the editor from the Sun, deny that Groden was allowed inside the interview. His pictures were not shown to Perry. The Sun (and most if not all newspapers) would never allow an outsider along on any personal interview, anyway.

 

And Groden has begun telling a colossal lie: That he discovered the conflict between the X-rays and the photographs and wrote a memo to someone on the Committee about it. How come his finding is not in his long memorandum which they published- -giving him total freedom?

 

Nothing in between. No painting. Lately I have found this sort of conflict in many of the facets of the evidence, and each time there is often an either/or situation, but no third possibility, no other ground to go, unless you look for it real hard. And now I am finding them, and for those who have co-opted this case, the answers I am coming up with seem to me to work a lot better.

 

From High Treason 2:

 

[...p. 121, Chapter 4, Parkland Memorial Hospital]

 

Perry denied, in a letter to me, saying to anyone that the cut in the photographs was larger than he had made it. “I’ve neither verified nor challenged the accuracy of any photos.”36

 

[...p. 160, Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence]

 

Dr. Crenshaw told me that the cut that Dr. Malcolm Perry made was much smaller and that he never would have made such a cut. The original report I had in 1979 from an interview I arranged but was not present for with Dr. Perry indicated that the cut was not the one he made. Dr. Perry will not dispute the photograph showing a two-inch cut, which Audrey Bell38 and all other Parkland witnesses-some of whom were filmed39-now have told me is accurate. Perry himself indicated to me that the photograph is accurate, though I admit the manner in which he did so was greatly convoluted and mysterious.

 

[...p. 336, Chapter 15. The Autopsy Photographs and Evidence of Forgery]

 

The incision is not as large as some critics have made it out to be. I had previously been misled into thinking that it was quite a bit large than what Dr. Perry had done, and that therefore someone had cut it open farther in probing for a bullet. But after talking to all of those Dallas witnesses who remembered it and to whom I showed these photographs, I cannot believe that it was enlarged. Without exception, everyone said that what is seen in the picture is accurate. Dr. Perry strongly denied that he had ever questioned the picture or even been asked about it, since the whole purpose of the Baltimore Sun visit I organized was to question him about the Back-of-the-Head pictures.

 

From an open letter by David Lifton responding to a 5/19/1992 episode of the MacNeil/Lehrer report on PBS:

 

In 1979 Dr. Perry saw for the first time a copy of the Bethesda autopsy photograph showing the large wound at the front of the throat. He responded by shaking his head from side to side, expressing great-surprise, and stating that this was not his tracheotomy incision, this was not the way he left the wound. The wound depicted in the picture was "larger, expanded"; his incision was "neater." Then, in a single word, Dr. Perry said a mouthful: Dr. Perry said he had left the wound "inviolate". (Dr. Perry used the word 'inviolate' on at least one previous occasion and in a similar context: in 1963, within days of the assassination. In a conversation with fellow Parkland doctor David Stewart. Perry expressed puzzlement that the tracheotomy he performed should have caused any confusion at the Bethesda end of the line. He told Dr. Stewart: "I left the wound inviolate".)

 

From Groden’s 1993 book The Killing of a President:

 

[...p. 77, The Medical Cover-Up Begins, The Throat Wound]

 

Dr. Malcolm Perry (above) described the original throat wound as “a very small injury [3 to 5 mm], with clear cut, although somewhat irregular margins of less than a quarter inch, with minimal damage surrounding it on the skin.” He was adamant that it was an entry wound. When interviewed in 1979, he still maintained that the bullet had entered the President’s throat from the front, but has since refused to go on the record with this information.

 

From Groden’s 1993 documentary JFK: The Case for Conspiracy:

 

There was a wound in the President's throat, a tiny wound described by the Dallas doctors as a small neat wound of entrance no more than three to five millimeters in size. This laceration was not noted as a gunshot wound during the autopsy. At the start of the life-saving efforts in Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Dr. Malcolm Perry utilized the existing bullet wound in the President's throat and added a small three-quarter inch horizontal slit through the bullet wound in order to insert a tracheal tube. This operation is called a tracheostomy. However, by the time the autopsy began, that small neat wound of entrance became a gaping wound nearly twenty times its original size as shown here.

 

Because of the mutilation of the President's throat the autopsies did not even know that there had been a bullet wound in the front of the President's neck. It was not until the morning after the autopsy was completed that Dr. Humes one of the autopsies spoke by phone to Dr. Perry in Dallas and learned for the first time that there had been a bullet wound in the president's throat. This notation was written by Dr. Humes as he spoke to Dr. Perry. By this time, the President's body had already been prepared for burial and could not be retrieved for further study.

 

Dr. Perry and all of the other doctors who related any information about the wound on the day of the assassination said that the wound was one of entrance. For the first few hours following the assassination, we heard the truth. The official story that was released around the country was that the President had been shot from the front, that the bullet entered his throat and ranged downward into the body and did not exit. In spite of the fact that all the doctors who saw the President's throat wound said it was one of entrance, the Warren Commission elected to ignore their testimony. That really happened to the wound in the President's neck? When the body left Dallas, the wound was a small neat wound of entrance with a three quarter inch horizontal slit through it. At the beginning of the autopsy, however, it was a large gaping wound. Where did the enlargement happen and who did it? One possible answer is that a bullet entered the President's body from the front and someone in control was aware of this. The bullet would then have to be removed before the official autopsy x-rays were taken. If a bullet were discovered coming from the front, it would destroy the pre-determined myth of a lone assassin.

 

From Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference:

 

[…] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […]

 

From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A:

 

As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...]

 

On 9/25/2021 at 5:45 AM, David Lifton said:

If Sirhan was firing blanks-- and I stress "if" --that's all one needs to know. Whatever the remaining details, Sirhan's firings blanks (again, if that is so) would constitute major evidence of a serious (and well designed) plot in the RFK case.  DSL (9/25/21 -2:45 AM PDT)

 

Some witnesses described a big long flame shooting out if the barrel, apparently too long to be consistent with the type of gun and ammo in the official story.

 

Other than that, the "blanks" thing is largely based on logic rather than direct evidence.

On 3/3/2018 at 12:29 PM, David Lifton said:

Sandy:  I'm going to explore the matter of the steno tape, as discussed in the previous lengthy post. I am also going to obtain a copy of the Nashville Banner story, which marks the first time that Dr. Stewart ever spoke publicly on this matter. Pat V is checking the  Dave Stewart filmed interview, and I am retrieving certain memos that I wrote back in 1989, after the extraordinary experiences we had with both Stewart and Groden.  None of this will happen overnight, but I'll see what can be done.

Any progress in digitizing that Stewart/Groden stuff?

23 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

he has been asked about the temple wound. Jones said that Dr. Porto told him that he (Dr. Porto) had seen a temple wound and put a finger in it. But Jones said he did not see the wound. 

Jones also said that after his deposition, Spector told  him that they had witnesses who said they thought there was a gunman on the grassy knoll but that the WC did not believe them. Spector then asked Jones not to mention it.  

In the ARRB interview, or in another interview?

 

BTW this is from the ARRB interview:

 

I'd like to start out -- and that's the last major part that I hope to play in this discussion. I'd like to start out, if we could -- and maybe just start with Dr. Jones and then just go down the room -- of first where you were in trauma room No. 1 and what kind of view you had of President Kennedy in trauma room No 1, Dr. Jones.

DR. JONES: I was on his left side below the arm looking to my right I could easily see the neck wound I could not see in much detail the posterior wound, but did not see any flap of skull or anything laying out to the right side I saw relaxation of the facial tissues & perhaps of the hair, and I remained on the President's right side during the entire resuscitation attempt.

MR. GUNN: Did you ever go around and observe the left side?

DR. JONES: Left side. Excuse, I was on the left side.

MR. GUNN: Okay.

DR. JONES: Was I saying right side?

MR. GUNN: So all of your view was of the left side?

DR. JONES: All my view was from the President's left side.

MR. GUNN: Okay. Did you ever go around and observe the right side of the -

DR. JONES: I did not go around to the right side.

MR. GUNN: Could you observe any posterior wound on -- of the head from the left side where you were?

DR. JONES: At one point after we had completed the insertion of the chest tubes, IV, and tracheotomy, I looked up over the top of the President's head and from that view was all that I saw. But with him flat on the table, I could not appreciate the size of that wound but did not see a lot of skull or brain tissue on the table, some maybe, but not just a tremendous amount and certainly did not see a flap turned on the right side.

MR GUNN: Were you yourself able to identify any cerebellum or cerebrum tissue on the table?

DR. JONES: If there was I thought -- from my vantage point, I thought that it was a very small amount.

MR. GUNN: And were you able to identify one form of brain tissue versus another?

DR. JONES: No -

MR GUNN: Okay.

DR JONES: - but did see the very small wound which I thought was an entrance wound to the head. That was pretty clear.

Come on, this dude dies and 1 month later his website no longer works? That website was actually useful. I know McAdams in the search results has confused new truth-seekers in the past, but his website was good for some things.

Old link down. New link: https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/ds3q7h/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_contents/

 

Version 2.0 coming soon too.

On 11/24/2020 at 8:53 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Great work!

Dr. Jones is still working but he has declined to make any further statements. he said the last piece he wrote in 2014 in American College of Surgeons publication is his final statement on the matter. he consistently declined to participate in any further conferenes or respond to any more questions.

We have been trying to contact Dr.Porto who has moved back to his native country. I had an extensive interview with Dr. Curtis who said his supervisor Dr. Walker saw a temple wound. He also said the Dr. Kemp lifted up the JFK's head to show the senior doctors who had come into the room (but not treating JFK) why he had determined JFK's wound was not survivable.

Specter interviewed the doctors before deciding whose testimony to take. This was no doubt to screen out those whose testimony would not be helpful. This is probably why r. Porto was not deposed.

Specter used a number of tactics to intimidate the doctors. when those did not work, he would go off the record or would simply ignore an inconvenient response and pursue his line of quesiton. this is how one "manufactures" a record.     

Is there any primary source on that Dr. Curtis interview you can share at this time, audio, video, notes, anything?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynE73TpKO9k

Dr. Ronald Jones is still alive and kicking, I only wish somebody would've asked him about the temple wound information Jones mentioned in his ARRB interview. Dr. Jones certainly appears to believe the official story - why then did he speak of a left temple wound to the ARRB?

 

A Lie Too Big To Fail doesn't get deep enough into the report that the Police found at least one nail inside of what was previously thought to be a bullet hole. Just searching "Nail" on the RFK Mary Ferrel web page will show many documents not acknowledged in the book. 

this story is vaguely mentioned by Dr. McClelland in this clip, 52:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSFF8CzJC3g

Kritzberg also appears in The Men Who Killed Kennedy part 7.

Top 9 problems with Johnny Brewer's story: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-403276

I also noticed how Kritzberg's article came out with word-for-word duplicate sentences compared to the reporting of other newspapers, despite claiming an exclusive source in the form of a phone call with Dr. Perry.

From UPI, 11/30/1963, Battle to save president was futile, doctors knew by Bryce Miller:

 

Baxter turned to turned to Dr. Charles Crenshaw standing beside him.

 

"Take her to a lounge where she can lie down," he instructed. He wanted Mrs. Kennedy to take a sedative.

 

Crenshaw took her arm and turned her toward a small anteroom. Mrs. Kennedy turned back.

 

"Please, I would like to stay here," she said.

 

[...]

 

More doctors rushed to Kennedy's side. There were 15 in all. Besides Perry, Carrico and Baxter, there were Drs. William Kemp Clark, chairman of neurosurgery; Robert McClelland, assistant professor of surgery; M. T. Jenkins, chairman of anesthesiology; Fouad A. Bashour, associate professor of internal medicine; Adolph Giesecke, clinical associate in anesthesiology; Paul C. Peters, assistant professor urology; Dr. Ronald C. Jones, senior resident in surgery; Charles Crenshaw, surgery resident; Gene Akin, anesthesiology fellow; Don Curtis, oral surgery resident, and Kenneth Salyer, surgery resident.

 

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Or the science.

The 9/11 Truth research is, basically, Newtonian physics.

Hardly a "conspiracy theory."

It would be cool if a video essayist made an actually unbiased video about the history of the truthers. It's not every day that a group of internet conspiracy theorists legitimately embarrass the U.S. Government's own scientists. For example, digital scans of the original blueprints of WTC 7 were acquired via FOIA, and those showed shear studs securing the girders and other structural elements which NIST themselves admit to taking out of their computer model. They just pretended like those parts of the building never existed, even though there is historical evidence that they did, and the only way to study WTC 7 is by starting with the historical evidence.

😀 Afterwards will you be putting all of these into one file?

More direct evidence of a cover-up. From ABC's 20/20, April 1992: with Dr. Charles Crenshaw and Dr. Charles Baxter:

 

Q: It seems almost incomprehensible that a team of highly intelligent, highly-trained doctors could be standing over the President of the United States and see wounds that, you say, came from the front, and yet the official government story is it came from the back, and wait this long to break the silence.

 

Crenshaw: Intimidation, fear, and career-mindedness.

 

Q: Those are the factors?

 

Crenshaw: Exactly. But again, you have to understand the time in 1963. The people that were with this country were telling you what to do, how to do it, and I think the feeling was we went along to get along.

 

Narrator: Now semi-retired, Dr. Crenshaw has written a book breaking nearly thirty years of silence.

 

Q: Could these what you call "conspiracy of silence" had been out of plain old fasioned patriotism among the doctors?

 

Crenshaw: No question about that. And Dr. Baxter had wanted no one to say anything because he was worried about commercialisation.

 

Dr. Charles Baxter: Well, I made a statement that any one of us in the school or in the hospital that ever made a dime off of anything they said about the assassination, I would try to see that their medical career was ruined.

 

Q: You felt that strongly?

 

Dr. Baxter: Yes. I don't know how many emotions were in that statement, but I felt like it was one that needed to be said.

 

Dr. Crenshaw: That's the reason I waited so long. I waited until I felt I'm at the end of my career, I don't fear my peers 'cause I think they believe it too.

 

On 9/4/2021 at 5:44 PM, Micah Mileto said:

What "journal entry" found online? This is the part of the case I've been trying to gather everything on. I'm trying to make a 2.0 of the "discussing torso wounds" thing I made before., and I'm trying to make an ultimate medical evidence folder to share online.

 

 

 

From the online journal Eve's Magazine, 2013, 50 Years from that Fateful Day in Dallas... by Martin J. Steadman:

 

The meeting with Dr. Perry occurred the evening of December 2. Fred and I were joined by Stan Redding, a first-class crime reporter for the Houston Chronicle. I’d taken a liking to Redding as soon as I met him; he was my kind of reporter. Speculation and suspicion and insinuation were never part of his game. He was interested in facts, only facts. But he was a keen political observer as well as a seasoned police reporter. It was no secret in Texas that the President and the First Lady had come to their state because Texas polls showed Kennedy was in trouble for re-election in 1964. Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater held a comfortable lead, despite the fact Vice-President Lyndon Johnson was a Texan. And the Goldwater edge in the polls also applied to other states in the South and Southwest at that time. Stan Redding spoke softly when he allowed an opinion, but I’ll never forget what he said: “Those three bullets shot Barry Goldwater right out of the saddle.” He was noting that Texan Lyndon Johnson was now the President, and Senator Goldwater would be matched against a man of the South in the new polls. How bright was Redding’s political crystal ball in November 1963? Johnson led Barry Goldwater in the first wave of new national polls, and Johnson buried Goldwater in November 1964, in a landslide.

 

Our meeting with Dr. Perry was after dinnertime at his home, and I remember a little girl playing with her toys on the living room floor as the three reporters and her father talked about how he tried to save a President’s life. She was oblivious to the gravity of the conversation, playing quietly with her toys throughout.

 

Dr. Perry had become a controversial figure in the assassination story--to his dismay. With the President lying on his back on a gurney, fighting for breath in his dying moments, Dr. Perry tried to create an air passage with an incision across what he believed to be an entrance wound at the front of Kennedy’s neck. The President was pronounced dead soon after, but the doctor’s incision at the throat had forever foreclosed a conclusion that the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound.

 

Late that Friday afternoon, the Parkland Hospital officials held a news conference for the hundreds of reporters who had descended on Dallas. Dr. Perry spoke of his efforts to save the President and his belief that his incision was across an entrance wound. The controversy didn’t erupt until government officials in Washington later said all three shots at the President had been fired from a sixth floor window of a building behind the President’s limousine.

 

So little more than a week later, three reporters were speaking quietly to the surgeon at the center of the dispute. As far as I know, it was the first and only such private interview with Dr. Perry. None of us in his living room that night took out a notebook or a pencil. It was a conversation with a clearly reluctant surgeon who had done his best in a crisis and who had agonized about it since.

 

Dr. Perry said he believed it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean, with no edges. In the course of the conversation, he was asked and answered that he had treated hundreds of gunshot victims in the Emergency Rooms at Parkland Memorial Hospital. At another point he said he was a hunter by hobby, and he was very familiar with guns and ammunition. He said he could tell at a glance the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound with its ragged edges.

 

But he told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said.

 

When he was finished, there was only one question left. I asked him if he still believed it was an entrance wound. The question hung there for a long moment.

 

“Yes,” he said.

 

Ultimately Dr. Perry appeared as a witness before the Warren Commission. In substance he testified that he realized he had no proof the bullet hole in the President’s neck was an entrance wound, and he conceded that the Bethesda doctors who autopsied the President would know better because they had all of the forensic evidence and he had but a fleeting recollection.

 

I can’t fault Dr. Perry for his testimony before the Warren Commission. Surely it occurred to him there was no point in holding out for a belief that couldn’t be proved. And just as surely, this 34-year-old surgeon with an exemplary record and a brilliant future knew his life would be forever shadowed by conspiracy theories that relied heavily on a bullet fired from the front. He testified only as he most certainly had to testify. But I’ll never forget what he said to three reporters that night in Dallas.

 

The interview in Dr. Perry’s living room was the most memorable moment, but there were other disturbing bits and pieces of information from my time in Dallas.

42 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Micah,

     The scientific research of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is very substantial, and quite convincing to anyone with a basic knowledge of physics and chemistry.

     The World Trade Center skyscrapers were, obviously, demolished by explosives on 9/11.  That is now a well established scientific fact.

     So, why do most people in the U.S. still not realize that fact?

     The answer is that the perpetrators of 9/11 have aggressively controlled the mainstream and social media in the U.S. for the past 20 years to suppress and mis-characterize all of the damning evidence about the 9/11 op.  This includes a wide array of websites that surface at the top of Google searches about 9/11, with skillfully-crafted names like, "Rational Wiki, 9/11 Myths, Metabunk," etc.  They are the 9/11 equivalent of disinformation websites like Mcadams.edu in the JFK assassination field.

     And, as in the case of the bona fide JFK assassination researchers, the 9/11 Truth researchers are independent, poorly-funded, non-government scientists and scholars who have been blacked out of the mainstream media and denigrated on government-funded social media as kooky conspiracy theorists.

     The most striking recent example of this was the orchestrated U.S. mainstream media attack on Spike Lee for interviewing the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in his new HBO documentary.  It was like something out of Stalinist Russia or Orwell's 1984.

     The M$M also completely blacked out any coverage of the University of Alaska engineering study that debunked the Bush-Cheney NIST Report on 9/11.

     The U.S. M$M has also blacked out any stories about Cheney, Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, and the Project for a New American Century for the past 20 years, and their 2000 PNAC strategizing about needing a "New Pearl Harbor" event to mobilize popular U.S. support for military interventions in Central Asia and the Middle East.

The Project For a New American Century

https://www.911review.com/motive/pnac.html

Not denying any of that. But, there are more people on forums actively discussing the evidence surrounding JFK on 11/22/1963 than there are for 9/11.

Just now, John Butler said:

Somebody should look into the Las Vegas massacre.

There used to be quite the number of Youtube videos on Vegas, but then Google was Google and a lot of that content is either lost or forgotten now. Blackstone Intelligence did this amazing short film interviewing homeless people in the underground Vegas tunnels, but that was deleted.

Why does the JFK assassination seem to STILL TO THIS DAY have a robust community of people who research and discuss the primary sources and hone their skills, while it seems like very few people in the world are spending an equal time on other issues like 9/11, etc?

Non-JFK conspiracy theories popular today are mostly just style over substance.

Hard seeing some of the woke crowd making fun of truthers, as if the drama surrounding 9/11 truth is anything compared to the painful situation with qanon or the anti-vaxxers.

13 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

There is a part of this article I don't think anyone has touched on yet : The suggestion is that Perry was called during the Autopsy or very soon after (before the autopsy conclusions certainly). It is not in dispute that the Surgeons spent time trying to fathom out where the low wound on the head came out (Boswell, Ipsey for two). It always struck me as odd they didn't leap to the conclusion it was through the Trach wound. The article may suggest they had already been told about Perry's statement that the Trach wound was an entrance point. They were thus initially forced to try and find an alternative exit, and then forced to bully Perry.

I touched on that,  here is a link: https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/ds3q7h/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_contents/

 

parts 8-27 deal with the claim that the pathologists couldn't identify a bullet wound in the throat until after the autopsy.

On 5/24/2021 at 10:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I really don't have to describe this article. 

Except, as one will see, I owe the climactic info in it to Rob Couteau and Bob Tanenbaum.

The cover up was being enacted in about 90 minutes.  That is how fast they knew, Tanebaum says it was probably an hour, and I cannot argue with that.

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-ordeal-of-malcolm-perry

Besides the KAK article, is there a primary source for the following quote:

But it was not just Moore—and it was not just a couple of weeks later. As Horne stated during that FFF conference, Nurse Audrey Bell testified that Perry told her he was getting calls that evening directing him to alter his testimony.(DiEugenio, p. 169) This is now backed up by a startling piece of evidence surfaced by author Rob Couteau. Martin Steadman was a reporter at the time of the JFK assassination. Couteau discovered a journal entry by Martin that is online. Steadman was stationed in Dallas for several days after the assassination gathering information. Some of it got in print and some of it did not. From all indications, the following did not.

One of the witnesses he spent some time with in Dallas was Malcolm Perry. Steadman was aware of what Perry had said at the press conference about the directionality of the neck wound. Steadman wrote that, about a week after the assassination, he and two other journalists were with Perry in his home. During this informal interview, Perry said he thought it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean. He then added two important details. He said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. Further, hunting was a hobby of his, so he understood from that experience what the difference was. And he could detect it at a glance.

Steadman went on to reveal something rather surprising. Perry said that during that night, he got a series of phone calls to his home from the doctors at Bethesda. They were very upset about his belief that the neck wound was one of entrance. They asked him if the Parkland doctors had turned over the body to see the wounds in Kennedy’s back. Perry replied that they had not. They then said: how could he be sure about the neck wound in light of that? They then told him that he should not continue to say that he cut across an entrance wound, when there was no evidence of a shot from the front. When Perry insisted that he could only say what he thought to be true, something truly bizarre happened. Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license.

After Perry finished this rather gripping tale, everyone was silent for a moment. Steadman then asked him if he still thought the throat wound was one of entrance. After a second or so, Perry said: yes, he did.

What is so remarkable about this story is that it blows the cover off of the idea that the autopsy doctors did not know about the anterior neck wound until the next day. Not only did they know about it that night, they were trying to cover it up that night.

 

What "journal entry" found online? This is the part of the case I've been trying to gather everything on. I'm trying to make a 2.0 of the "discussing torso wounds" thing I made before., and I'm trying to make an ultimate medical evidence folder to share online.

 

 

3 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

To my knowledge, Stone still hasn't had a public moment in the sun disputing the official 9/11 story. Which I don't mean to note as a slam against him, as it's been that way for a while. But if he's ever said anything beyond the above, I missed it. And even Spike Lee managed a paragraph or two of dissent against the official story before his documentary took a hit.

Stone's movie "World Trade Center" may or may not have snuck in references to explosives being used in the collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCt2BBqR2k