Michael Griffith

Some of Pat Speer’s criticisms of Dr. McClelland are downright silly. For example, he actually argues that because McClelland used the term “of the left temple” instead of “to the left temple” in his 11/22/63 report, McClelland may have thought that the large head wound was near the right temple and that he had confused his right with his left because he was looking at Kennedy upside down. 

Pat also argues that since McClelland did not specify the location of the “massive head and brain injury” in his 11/22 report, he therefore failed to indicate there was “any wound anywhere but on the left temple.” Now, come on—that is just ridiculous. A much more logical, sensible explanation is that McClelland described a frontal-bone entry wound because he believed it was an entry wound based on the fact that there was a large defect somewhere behind the frontal-bone entry wound.   

Pat pounces on the fact that a few weeks after the shooting, McClelland told journalist Richard Dudman that there was nothing about the head wound that suggested a shot from the front. 

But this was after McClelland had heard about the autopsy report. This was also after every major media outlet had been insisting since the day after the shooting, if not earlier, that all the shots had come from behind JFK, from the TSBD. 

By Pat’s own admission, when McClelland testified before the WC, he was publicly supporting the party line that the shots came from behind. Yet, he still said that the large head wound was in the right occipital-parietal part of the head and that some of the cerebellum had been blasted out: 

          I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. (6 H 33) 

If anything, the fact that during this same time period McClelland was publicly going along with the line that all the shots came from behind makes his WC testimony all the more compelling. 

Pat nitpicks over the fact that McClelland was not absolutely perfectly consistent in how he drew or demonstrated the large head wound. This is unserious nitpicking. McClelland always drew or demonstrated the wound as being clearly behind the right ear, even though his placements were not identical. He never drew or demonstrated a wound that was directly above the right ear and that did not include part of the back of the head. 

Pat makes the odd claim that Clint Hill’s description of the large head wound is “vague” and could refer to the area above the right ear! Hill, who saw the wound up close for several minutes, said the wound was in “the right-rear portion of the skull.” How could anyone infer that this could refer to a wound above the right ear? Again, come on. This is silly. The area above the right ear is not in the “right-rear portion of the skull.” It is in the middle of the side of the head, several inches from what anyone would describe as the “rear” part of the skull. 

Pat is so ideologically committed to denying the large back-of-head wound that he can’t even bring himself to acknowledge the clear meaning of Hill’s straightforward account. 

BTW, when Agent Hill demonstrated the location of the large head wound in a filmed interview in 2013, he put his hand on the right-rear part of his head, several inches behind his right ear (LINK; see also the screencap below). 

Jackie Kennedy, who held JFK’s head in her hands on the way to Parkland Hospital, told the WC that on the ride to Parkland she was trying to hold down the hair and skull on the back of her husband’s head: 

          I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972)

10 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Is it just my own biases, or is the age of BOH-wound broke? Or course, that doesn't necessarily mean the end of criticism of the medical evidence - on the contrary, I'm currently creeping up on 600 pages for a project on wounds that aren't the large head wound. And besides those issues, I've previously talked about the chest tubes, the witness evidence for neck organs being removed at the autopsy, and the feigned ignorance of the throat wound during the autopsy. Maybe the temple wounds and torso wounds are the new "woke". So maybe those issues cannot be proven scientifically - the lack of decent explanation for the witness evidence is enough to make a probably-permanent stain on history. There's already a lot of witness evidence on extra weapons, bullet holes, shells, slugs, and other evidence at the scene which does not fit the official story.

Given the historic ARRB disclosures, coupled with the 11/22/63 Parkland medical reports, Clint Hill's 11/30/63 report, the Parkland doctors' and nurses' WC testimony, the Ben Bradlee interviews, the Harrison Livingstone interviews, the fact that Dr. Finck questioned the origin of the back-of-head photos in his HSCA testimony, the mutually corroborating optical density analyses of the skull x-rays, etc., I don't see why the "age of the BOH-wound is broken."

I reject the idea that Dr. McClelland fabricated his description of the large head wound in his WC testimony. He had no conceivable motive for doing so, and his description of a large right-rear head wound aligns closely with how most of the Dallas doctors and nurses described the wound in their WC testimony.

Dr. Charles Carrico

          The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely. There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. (6 H 3)

          The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura. (6 H 6)

Dr. Malcolm Perry

          I noted there was a large wound of the right posterior parietal area in the head exposing lacerated brain. There was blood and brain tissue on the cart. (6 H 9)

          Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the President's head, specifically? 

          Dr. Perry. I saw no injuries other than the one which I noted to you, which was a large avulsive injury of the right occipitoparietal area. . . . (6 H 11)

Dr. William Kemp Clark (neurosurgeon)

          I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. (6 H 20)

          Mr. Specter. Dr. Clark, in the line of your specialty, could you comment as to the status of the President with respect to competency, had he been able to survive the head injuries which you have described and the total wound which he had?

          Dr. Clark. This, of course, is a question of tremendous importance. Just let me state that the loss of cerebellar tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance. This would have led to a visual field deficit, which would have interfered in a major way with his ability to read, not the interpretation of reading matter per se, but the acquisition of information from the printed page. (6 H 26)

Notice that Dr. Clark said that JFK lost tissue from the cerebellum, from the right occipital lobe, and from the right parietal lobe. This is not what we see in the alleged autopsy brain photos.

Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins

          Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound ; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay. (6 H 48)

Cerebellar tissue looks very different than any other brain tissue, and it is only located low in the brain behind the occiput. 

Dr. Ronald Coy Jones

          Mr. Specter. Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound?

          Dr. Jones. There was large defect in the back side of the head as the Presi- dent lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood. (6 H 53-54)

          Mr. Specter. Dr. Jones, did you have any speculative thought as to account- ing for the point of wounds which you observed on the President, as you thought about it when you were treating the President that day, or shortly thereafter? 

          Dr. Jones. With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that it would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head. (6 H 56)

Dr. Gene Akin

          The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. (6 H 65)

          Mr. Specter. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet hit his head?

          Dr. Akin. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either. (6 H 67)

Dr. Paul Peters

          Mr. Specter. What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?

          Dr. Peters. Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember—I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. 

          Mr. Specter. What did you notice in the occiput? 

          Dr. Peters. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area. (6 H 71)

Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped to clean JFK's head wound, packed the wound with gauze, and wrapped a sheet around the head to prepare the body for the casket:

          Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what?

          Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specter. And what was that condition? 

          Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad—you know.

          Mr. Specter. How many holes did you see? 

          Miss Bowron. 1 just saw one large hole. (6 H 136)

Nurse Patricia Hutton

          Just after JFK was wheeled into the ER, Nurse Patricia Hutton was asked to place a pressure dressing on the head wound because "Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head." But, she said, the pressure dressing was ineffective "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (11/22/63 statement, Price Exhibit No. 21, p. 1).

Nurse Doris Nelson

          Nurse Doris Nelson was a supervising nurse at Parkland Hospital. She got a good look at JFK's head. In 1981, in a recorded interview, journalist Ben Bradlee asked her, "Did you get a good look at his head injuries?" Nelson said she got "a fairly good look. . . . When we wrapped him up and put him in the coffin. I saw his whole head." Asked about the accuracy of the autopsy photographs that show the back of the head intact, she was incredulous, saying,

          "No. It's not true. Because there was no hair back there. There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. Some of his head was blown away and his brains were fallen down on the stretcher." (LINK)

          Bradlee even had Nelson draw the wound on an artificial skull. She put the wound in the right-rear part of the skull. Then, Bradlee asked her if the autopsy photos showed the head wound that she saw, and she said "No." Bradlee then asked her specifically about the large wound above the right ear seen in the autopsy photos. She rejected it, saying, "There was a large hole, but it was right back there" [indicating the right-rear side of the head] (LINK).

Ignoring all this, WC apologists give precedence to the one and only time that Nurse Nelson demonstrated the wound as being only on the right side of the head and not at all on the back of the head, which she did when she was interviewed by a LIFE reporter two years after she had described and drawn the wound as being in the right-rear area of the head. The reporter asked her to show him where the wound was, and she put her hand only on the right side of the head. WC apologists of course accept this demonstration and reject her prolonged interview with Bradlee where she repeatedly said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head, drew the wound on an artificial skull, and expressly rejected the head wound shown in the autopsy photos.

On 1/19/2024 at 11:51 PM, Keven Hofeling said:

Mr. Speer:

As an aside, I notice that in your "A Matter of Proportion" slide, you appear to be identifying the red spot that Michael Baden advised medical illustrator Ida Dox to enhance (resulting in her drawing it as a bullet hole) as a bullet entry. You don't accept the HSCA's upward movement of that wound as being accurate, do you?

To his credit, Pat rejects the bogus cowlick entry site (the red spot) and correctly argues that a bullet entered near the EOP. However, Pat cannot explain how an EOP bullet could have missed the cerebellum and the rear part of the right occipital lobe. Unless the gunman fired from a helicopter hovering above the TSBD, there is no way the bullet could have avoided smashing through the cerebellum, and of course a number of witnesses, including a neurosurgeon, saw substantial damage to the cerebellum. 

Pat is in this predicament because he won't even admit that the autopsy brain photos are clearly fraudulent. The preposterous brain photos show a virtually intact brain, a brain with a single long laceration on the right side and with no more than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing. They also show a virtually undamaged cerebellum, the only damage being a small sliver of tissue hanging down from the bottom of the cerebellum.

This is clearly not JFK's brain. For one thing, the skull x-rays show, as Dr. Fred Hodges noted, "a goodly portion" of the right brain missing. Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar have confirmed this. Dr. Mantik confirmed it with optical density measurements. We also know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces. 

Let's read what the FBI's Robert Frazier said about the blood and tissue he found just on and in the limousine when he examined the car early in the morning on 11/23/63:

          We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area. ("Shaw Trial Proceedings," 2/21-22/1969, volume 29, pp. 8-9, HSCA record number 180-10097-10181) 

Again, this was not counting the blood and brain matter that was splattered onto the follow-up car's front hood and windshield, onto Agent Kinney's clothes, onto the windshields of the two left-trailing police bikes, and onto police officers Hargis and Martin's clothes. 

On 1/21/2024 at 9:26 AM, Fred Dent said:

(I'm new, so please go easy on me...)

After spending hundreds of hours in the JFK vortex as an earnest student of the assassination, there is one question that I cannot seem to find an answer to:

If JFK was shot in the neck/throat from the front, why is there no exit wound in the back of the neck?  Because the neck is a relatively small section of our anatomy, it seems that a bullet would easily pass through and create a visible exit wound.  However, there doesn't seem to be much discussion around this topic that I can find in my searching and reading of the case.  

Perhaps this has been addressed by other researchers.  If so, I would appreciate being pointed to any discussions or articles related to this topic.

Fred Dent

A few points:

-- Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the doctors at Parkland Hospital described a
laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the small wound at the anterior surface of the neck, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158).

-- Autopsy x-ray tech Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments in the neck (Deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, ARRB, Transcript of Proceedings, October 28, 1997, pp. 168-170). Custer noted that when he drew attention to the bullet fragments in the C3/C4 area during the autopsy, he was told to “mind my own business” (p. 169).

-- The greatly enlarged tracheotomy wound could indicate that fragments were retrieved from beyond the throat wound during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery documented by Doug Horne, former chief analyst of military records for the ARRB. 

-- Some have suggested that the missile that hit the throat may have been a fragment of glass from the bullet that struck the windshield. 

-- The throat wound was small (3-5 mm), roundish, and, most important, punched inward. Nurse Henchliffe told the WC that the throat wound looked like an entry wound, and that in all her years as a nurse and having seen many gunshot wounds, she had never seen an exit wound that looked like the throat wound.

On 12/22/2023 at 12:04 AM, Cory Santos said:

1-Diem assassination. 
2- Chicago attempted assassination of JFK.    
If the Diem assassination was actually related to the Chicago attempt, I think it probably was, I want to know where certain people were on those days to compare with their whereabouts on 11-22-63.  Let’s start with LeMay and work from there.   It should prove or disprove some things.  

I think the idea that Diem's assassination was related to the Chicago attempt is pure fantasy. Even most of the South Vietnamese generals who took part in the coup against Diem did not know he would be killed--in fact, they joined the coup on the condition that Diem would not be harmed. When they learned that Big Minh and a handful of other plotters had had Diem executed, they were furious. This fury led to the January 1964 coup that overthrew Big Minh and his junta.

On 12/19/2023 at 5:00 AM, Cory Santos said:

Very interesting interview.   
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/hess-discusses-nixons-reaction-to-the-kennedy-assassination/

This interview is more evidence that contradicts the outlandish theory that Nixon was one of the plotters or that Nixon knew of the plot and did nothing to stop it. 

30 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael Griffith,

I removed your political post.

My point was to show that when it comes to the JFK case, the refusal to release the records has been bipartisan, that it has not just been judges and politicians from one party who have tried to block the release of records, but judges and politicians from both parties.

On 1/17/2024 at 4:12 PM, Denny Zartman said:

Why do some conspiracy theorists accept the X-rays and autopsy photos as genuine? There seem to be a few CT folks on the forum that appear to automatically accept them (and the Zapruder film) as being completely authentic. Is there no legitimate reason to approach them with at least some amount of skepticism?

Well, let's be clear about one thing from the outset: Very few conspiracy theorists still believe that the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine/accurate, especially the autopsy brain photos (which are brazenly contradicted by the skull x-rays). 

The Zapruder film is a different matter. There are many WC skeptics who still believe the Zapruder film is the original film. 

As for why a few conspiracy theorists still believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine, I think one reason they believe this is that you can make a strong case against the lone-gunman theory even if you assume the autopsy materials are genuine, ala Dr. Joe Riley. For example, the existing autopsy materials show two separate wound paths in the brain, one cortical and the other subcortical. The x-rays show pretty clear indications of a frontal shot. The x-rays also show a substantial amount of missing frontal bone and a clear gap between the triangular fragment and the missing parietal bone, a fact that the autopsy doctors and the HSCA FPP erroneously and fraudulently denied. Etc., etc., etc.

I think that many WC critics still believe the Zapruder film is the original for the same reason that a few critics believe the autopsy materials are genuine, i.e., that you can make a powerful case against the lone-gunman theory with the existing Zapruder film. By even the most ultra-cautious, conservative analysis, the film shows reactions to four shots. I believe that the plotters were unable to edit the film enough to remove all evidence of multiple gunmen, and that the edited version was unacceptable to them, which is why the film was suppressed for so long--the film was not shown to the American people until 1975. 

Regarding the flimsy, dubious case against Oswald in the Walker shooting, I quote from Dr. Gerald McKnight’s section on the shooting from his book Breach of Trust:

          Belmont was accurate when he told Katzenbach that Oswald had never been a suspect in the Dallas police’s investigation into the Walker case. All of the Dallas police’s witness testimony pointed to two or three conspirators with cars using a high-powered rifle and steel-jacketed ammunition. Oswald did not drive and had no known access to a car, his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was not high-powered, and the ammunition he allegedly used to kill Kennedy was copper-jacketed.

          The bullet the Dallas police recovered from Walker’s home had passed through the center wood strip of the outer screen of the general’s study, through a copper weather strip, and penetrated an inside masonry wall reinforced with solid tin and metal lathing, finally falling onto a pile of papers in the adjoining room. Because the bullet was completely mutilated and deformed by such obstruction, the Dallas police claimed they had run no ballistics test on the recovered slug. . . .

          Whatever weapon was involved in the Walker shooting incident, it was highly unlikely that a 6.5-mm bullet fired from Oswald’s rifle could have penetrated a cinder block, as did the projectile recovered from Walker’s house. During his first appearance before the Warren Commission, Robert A. Frazier, the FBI’s chief firearms expert, repeatedly stressed that Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano had a “very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet weight”. . . .

          What Eisenberg carefully avoided and Frazier did not volunteer were the results of the FBI’s spectrographic analysis of Q-188. A week before Frazier appeared before the Commission, Eisenberg met with him and Agent Henry H. Heilberger to review the FBI lab results for the Walker bullet. Eisenberg could not have been encouraged by what he learned from Heilberger, the one who ran the tests. Heilberger concluded in his report (PC-78378) that the lead alloy in the Walker bullet was different from the lead alloy of the two large bullet fragments recovered from under the left jump seat of the presidential limousine. (pp. 48-50)

          In 1979 Walker was watching a televised session of the House Select Committee on Assassinations when Robert Blakey, the committee’s chief counsel, held up CE 573 as a visual aide to augment his narrative on the firearms evidence in the Kennedy assassination.

          Walker, a thirty-year career army officer with extensive combat experience in World War II, and with more than a passing familiarity with military weaponry, was stunned. According to Walker, what Blakey represented as the bullet fired into his home bore no resemblance to the piece of lead the police had recovered, which he had held in his own hand and closely examined. (p. 52)

McKnight also deals at length with the highly suspicious “discovery” of the alleged Oswald note, the absence of Lee and Marina’s prints on the note, the eyewitness testimony that two men were involved and that neither looked like Oswald, and the pressure that was applied to Marina.

On 12/24/2023 at 12:31 AM, Ron Bulman said:

Was he real?  Yes.  More on his background later.  For now, did he have any established connections with known US intelligence persons?  Yes.

"White's first meeting with Gottlieb took place in Washington DC in early May 1952 . . . White actually invited Gottlieb to New Haven to observe narcotics work up close.  Gottlieb's flight into New York's Idlewild airport on June 9 was met by Pierre Laffite, White's "special employee' at the time.  On the drive to Connecticut Gottlieb was intrigued to hear Laffite tell about his involvement in the FBI's attempts to solve the January 1950 robbery of over $1.2 million from the headquarters of the Brinks armored car company in Boston . . . "he was a natural story teller  said Gottlieb, able to make every detail come alive without invention...a fascinating person".  Pgs. 409-410, A Terrible Mistake.

"In June 1952, according to a letter by George White, the CIA officially recruited Laffite as a "special employee" after he was summoned to Washington, DC, to meet with CIA officials Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and James Jesus Angleton."  Expecting to be there only a day he was held over to meet Security Chief Sheffield Edwards, Frank Wisner and Richard Helms.  Gottlieb later:  "I'm not sure he exists in the epistemology of the CIA.  He gives a whole new meaning to the label 'spook'."

"There would be dinners with Angleton, who would become a close friend . . ."  Pg. 95, Coup In Dallas.

There is a lot more to this.  In the Congo when Lumumba died, as was Gottlieb.  Visiting Martino in prison in Cuba, knowing him seven years before that.

I just hope that a new book is written about the Lafitte datebook, one that is not laced with egregious tar-brush attacks on conservative political figures and their supporters. 

12 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Just realized that of course there would be no shell at the Walker scene. As Oswald only fired one shot he did not work the bolt for a second shot. And by not working the bolt for a second shot, he ejected no shell at the scene. 

The shell remained in Oswalds rifle as he ran away from the scene. 

I wonder what became of that shell. One would think Oswald would have liked to keep it as a keepsake seeing how he had kept a diary as a keepsake detailing how he planned to kill Walker, until Marina made him get rid of that keepsake diary. But obviously no such shell turned up among Oswalds possessions after the assassination. So maybe Oswald ditched it in the bushes along the railroad track where he hid the rifle. 

It would be worth going along that track with a metal detector to see if that shell could still be found today. 

Sigh. . . .

A few facts, facts that have been known for years:

-- Walker himself insisted that the bullet in evidence looked nothing like the bullet that he examined at the time of the shooting.

-- FBI spectrographic testing found that the lead alloy in the bullet was different from the lead in the bullet fragments found in JFK's limo.

-- Guinn's bogus NAA finding regarding the Walker bullet has been debunked.

-- The Walker bullet was fired from a high-powered rifle, a rifle powerful enough to enable the bullet to go through brickwork. The Mannlicher–Carcano rifle was not that powerful--it was a rather low-velocity weapon--and there is no evidence that Oswald had access to a high-powered rifle.

-- Two men were seen leaving the shooting scene, and neither of them resembled Oswald.

-- The alleged Oswald note smells to high heaven. The finding of the note alone raises strong doubt about its authenticity. The police and the FBI thoroughly searched Ruth Paine’s home twice, once on the afternoon of the shooting and again the next day, and failed to find the note. Also, the note was undated, did not mention Walker, and said nothing about a reason for a potential arrest. Moreover, two of the three handwriting experts consulted by the HSCA declined to identify the note's handwriting as Oswald's handwriting. And, none of the seven fingerprints on the note belonged to either Lee or Marina.

Personally, I could never feel shamed by anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory. Similarly, I could never feel shamed by someone who believes that Elvis did not die in 1977 but faked his death and lived a secret life for many years thereafter. 

Given all we now know about why the SBT was conjured up in the first place, given the release of clear photos of the tie and what those photos show (e.g., no hole through the tie and no nick on the edge of the tie), given the hard physical evidence of the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt, given the ARRB releases about the absolute and positive determination during the autopsy that the back wound had no exit point, given Dr. Mantik's CT scan of a JFK-like torso showing no path from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through bone, given that the Zapruder film indisputably shows that JFK was hit before Z190, given the demolition of Guinn's NAA fraud, given that three of the Dallas doctors revealed that the throat wound was above the tie knot, and given the recent Knott Laboratory 3D laser SBT analysis, etc., etc., there is just no excuse for still believing in the SBT. 

On 1/14/2024 at 12:13 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

I am talking about forum members who shame theories and the people who believe  them, only because they themselves find the theories to be farfetched.

I am NOT talking about those people who present substantial evidence rebutting a so-called farfetched theory. But I AM talking about those 1) who shame a theory off-the-cuff, or 2) who explain why they find the theory to be farfetched, but offer no substantial evidence against it, or 3) who claim the theory has been rebutted when in fact it hasn't.

Here are some offenders I can think of:

@Jonathan Cohen

@Jeremy Bojczuk

@Robert Charles-Dunne

@Michael Walton

I know of people who won't post on certain topics because of the shaming they know they will get in response. This is the reason that shamers should be ashamed of themselves.

Anyone who still believes in the single-bullet theory is in no position to shame anyone, especially after the release of close-up photos of the shirt and tie, after the demolition of Guinn's NAA, and after the the Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis of the SBT. 

Quote

@Jeremy BojczukPresidential body-snatchers, long-term doppelgänger projects, gunmen hiding in papier-mâché trees on the grassy knoll, photo-alteration vans in Dealey Plaza: this stuff does not feature in a reasonable person's account of how the world works. It really doesn't! Reasonable people would not recognise such things as part of the world in which they live. They would regard them as far-fetched, maybe even as fantasies invented by crackpots.

Reasonable people will recognize this paragraph as a mix of strawman polemic and a denial of documented facts. 

We could literally fill hundreds of pages with real-life cases of innocent suspects who were wrongly convicted because the police and/or prosecutors used faked evidence, altered evidence, and/or planted evidence. 

FYI, it is an established fact that the CIA ran long-term imposter projects. 

"Presidential body-snatchers"? Well, we now know that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda long before its official arrival time, and that it arrived in a cheap metal military shipping casket, not in the ceremonial casket into which it was placed in Dallas. 

Personally, I've never mentioned or seen references to "photo-alteration vans" in Dealey Plaza. Photo alteration probably occurred elsewhere. There are technical anomalies and impossibly fast movements in the Zapruder film that no anti-alteration apologist has yet been able to explain, not to mention the absence of events in the film that numerous witnesses described (such as the limo stop/marked slowdown). 

How many times have governments been caught using fake photos for propaganda/disinformation purposes? Did you miss the news about the CIA's frequent use of fake photos in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s? How many thousands of cases of fake passports that fooled government customs personnel do you want to talk about? 

It is almost comical that WC apologists, and a few misguided WC critics, act like photo fakery and photo alteration only happen in fiction movies and spy novels. 

In fact, in some criminal cases, eyewitness accounts are given years after the fact but are still viewed as credible and reliable. 

In the case of the large back-of-head wound, we have written same-day accounts from several doctors. We have Agent Hill's 11/30/63 report in which he mentions seeing the wound and notes that he saw JFK's head three times on the day of the shooting, once for several minutes on the back of the limo, again at Parkland Hospital, and again at Bethesda (where he was specifically asked to view the wounds). We have extensive WC testimony from Parkland doctors and nurses who saw the wound. We have recorded private interviews with medical and non-medical personnel who saw the wound either at Parkland or Bethesda. We have the HSCA interviews in which numerous Parkland and Bethesda witnesses recalled seeing the wound. And, we have the ARRB interviews in which a number of witnesses, including several new ones, recalled seeing the wound or recalled seeing the wound in autopsy photos that were excluded from the official collection. 

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Similarly, numerous threads have been started claiming some ethnic group was behind the assassination. These mostly target Jews. This topic is hard to navigate because most would agree that Israel's possible involvement is within bounds. 

I think most rational, educated people, especially those who know anything about Israel's early history, would agree that "Israel's possible involvement" is an absurd, fringe, far-fetched proposition that is well beyond the bounds of respectable discussion. 

57 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Okay. That's seven witnesses describing something in reports written hours after the fact, and after they'd discussed this something amongst themselves and others. How consistent are they, really, with both each other, and with the so-called McClelland drawing supposedly depicting what they saw? And how well do they stand up? 

Carrico: Carrico did not identify a precise location for the wound in his initial statement, and later disavowed his claim of seeing cerebellum, by admitting he never even looked at the back of JFK's head. Carrico's words do not support that occipital bone was missing.

Perry: Perry said the wound was on the right posterior cranium, which is certainly in line with how the wound in the photographs might be described by someone viewing it from above, with the patient on his back. As he did not mention cerebellum, moreover, there is nothing in his report that is controversial, or indicates the shot came from the front. Perry's words do not support that occipital bone was missing. 

Baxter: Baxter's description of the wound as temporal and occipital indicated it was on the side of the head, at the rear, presumably forward of its location in the McClelland drawing. This suggested a frontal entry. Apparently, Baxter realized this mistake because he changed the words to temporal and parietal in his testimony, and observed that a "temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side." Well, this would seem to be a reference to the "wing" of bone seen in the photographs, the photographs he had not seen. Of course, no such wing existed on the President at Parkland, according to the back of the head crowd, and no such wing is depicted in the McClelland drawing. In sum, then, Baxter's words do not support that occipital bone was missing. 

Clark: After the first few weeks, Clark refused to comment on what he saw, outside of his telling the Warren Commission what he saw was consistent with a shot from behind. He did however speak to the press in the 80's to denounce conspiracy theorists, and he also teamed up with single-assassin theorist John Lattimer to conduct experiments helpful to Lattimer's cause. In his initial press conference, and his subsequent Warren Commission testimony, Clark discussed the possibility the wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. So...it's hard to say what Clark believed at the end. If I had to guess, I'd say he was comfortable with the Oswald did it solution, but continued to feel the large wound was a tangential wound, and kept this silence because well, he didn't want to stir up a hornet's nest. 

McClelland: McClelland mentioned but one head wound in his report, a wound of the left temple. Although he later claimed the wound he saw was essentially the wound as described by Clark, we have reason to doubt this was his original recollection, seeing as he told Richard Dudman within days of the shooting that there was nothing about this wound to suggest a shot from the front. 

Bashour: Bashour said nothing of significance regarding the head wound in his report. 

Jenkins: Jenkins essentially disavowed his report, claiming he was mistaken about the cerebellum, and the wound's being occipital. The thought occurs that he was following the lead of others when writing his report, and then came to believe they were wrong. In any event, his initial report supported what back of the head devotees want to believe, and his subsequent words crushed them, to the extent even that many came to believe he was a deliberate xxxx, or even part of a plot. 

And that's it. Not one doctor writing a report on the Presidents wounds on 11-22-63 described the wound as an occipital wound, and publicly stuck by their description after it became clear their description was controversial. 

There is no there there. A bunch of people at a ball game said the runner was safe, and agreed he was out after watching the replay. Except for two: one who wouldn't commit to safe or not safe after the runner was called out, and another who originally said he couldn't tell, but then said he was safe after talking with the others, and then refused to accept the replay, while claiming it was deceptive. 

As usual, you are being very selective in your choice of witnesses and statements. 

How about the nurses who saw, and in one case handled, a large back-of-head wound? How about the morticians who saw, handled, and filled a large back-of-head wound? How about the federal agents who saw a large back-of-head wound (even though they thought it was an exit wound from a shot from the rear)? How about the funeral worker who felt the edges of the back-of-head wound as he helped put the body in the casket? How about the other witnesses at the autopsy who saw a large back-of-head wound (Karnei, Reed, McHugh, Canada, Ebersole, Stringer [first interview], Custer [first interview], etc.)? How about the autopsy photographer and the autopsy photo lab technician who said they saw autopsy photos that showed a large back-of-head wound? How about the newsman at Parkland who saw a large back-of-head wound? How about the 11/22/63 Parkland reports that mention a right occipital-parietal wound? 

Why do you suppose Finck questioned the authenticity of the back-of-head autopsy photo? What about the brazen contradiction between the skull x-rays and the brain photos regarding the amount of missing brain (much of the right brain missing vs. only 1-2 ounces of brain missing)? 

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

From Chapter 18d: 

 

Since those rejecting the possibility the Parkland doctors could be mistaken about the location of Kennedy's head wound cite Professor Elizabeth Loftus in support of their position, a short discussion of Professor Loftus' research is in order.

First of all, here's their argument... On Table 3.1 of Loftus' 1979 book Eyewitness Testimony she presents a chart demonstrating memory accuracy in relation to saliency or importance. This shows that when it came to salient details, (what was determined after the event to be most frequently discussed or noticed) the recollections of the eyewitnesses to the event used as a test were 98% accurate, while the recollections of the details that were less widely noticed were only 61% accurate.

Well, this suggests (at least to those citing this chart, e.g. Dr. David Mantik, Dr. Gary Aguilar) that it would be extremely unlikely for so many witnesses to be mistaken as to the location of Kennedy's head wound.

But there are a number of problems with this conclusion. To begin with, this chart was based upon a 1971 study by Marshall et al (that was published in the Harvard Review) in which the "witnesses" were shown a short film, and then interviewed immediately thereafter. The interviewers had previously shown the film to another group of witnesses, who had listed what they had noticed in the film. And this list helped the interviewers determine what was "salient." The interviewers then asked the new group of witnesses a series of multiple choice questions, and from this they determined that the new group of witnesses was 98% accurate on the salient points.

The problem, of course, is that this study bears no resemblance to what happened with the Parkland witnesses.

1. The Parkland witnesses were not bystanders observing everything as closely as possible in anticipation they would be tested on it, but participants in a fast-moving and traumatic event.

2. The Parkland witnesses' first recollections as to the wound location were not given immediately after leaving Trauma Room One, but an hour or more afterwards, on up to 30 years or more afterwards.

3. There is no reason whatsoever to assume the precise wound location was a "salient" detail. The salient details in the study cited by Loftus, after all, were determined by pre-screening the film and noting what details were most often listed. There is no reason whatsoever to assume the precise location of the head wound would have been one of the details most listed by those watching a film of the President in Trauma Room One.

Now that might sound a bit silly. One should consider, however, that no one at Parkland Hospital had a clue where the shots came from, or where the limousine was on Elm Street when the shots were fired. As a result, there is no reason to believe the exact location of the President’s head wound was of interest to them, and should be considered a salient detail. So...what was a salient detail, then, if not the exact wound location? Well, one such detail was whether or not the wound was a survivable wound. The witnesses, after all, were 100% consistent on that point. They all said "no."

And that's not the only point on which they were consistent. While recollections of the exact location of the President’s head wound varied from being on the top of his head to being at the very back of his head, all the witnesses remembered clearly and correctly that the wound was not on his face. It seems likely then that the main focus of everyone’s attention was the President’s face.

Now, this realization--that the witnesses were focused on Kennedy's face--helps support what we've already discussed regarding rotation and perception. The witnesses were mentally rotating Kennedy's face while looking at his wounds and this led to some confusion as to the exact location of the head wound beyond that it was in his hair in back of his face.

Or not. We will almost certainly never know exactly why so many doctors got it wrong. But it's enough to know that mistakes of this nature are actually quite common, and of no surprise whatsoever to the cognitive psychologists tasked with studying such mistakes.

Don't believe me? Well, then, let's go back to Loftus. Yep, when I finally got around to reading Elizabeth Loftus' book Eyewitness Testimony for myself--as opposed to reading summaries of her work by those claiming it supported the accuracy of the Parkland witnesses--I realized just how WRONG it was for anyone to claim her work supports the accuracy of the Parkland witnesses.

Sure, there's that chart citing a 1971 study in which witness recollections were 98% accurate on salient points when taken immediately following the viewing of a film, but what about the rest of the book? What about Loftus' own studies?

Well, on page 54 she cites the negative effect of time on memory. She then proceeds to cite a number of studies in which certain kinds of behavior add to this decay. On page 55, she cites a 1927 incident in which a newspaper reporter misreported the substance of a college lecture, where the teacher then tested his students on the lecture, and found that those who'd read the incorrect article made many more mistakes than those who'd relied solely upon their attendance at the lecture. The teacher had discovered, to his dismay, that reading something that isn't true about something someone had witnessed for oneself could negatively impact one's memory of that event.

And that's just the beginning. Loftus then proceeds to cite a 1975 study of her own in which subjects were shown a film of a car making a right turn without coming to a stop at a stop sign, and causing an accident. Half the subjects were then asked the approximate speed of the car when it ran the stop sign, with the other half being asked the approximate speed of the car when it made its right turn. All the students were then asked if they'd seen the stop sign. 53% of those reminded of the stop sign in a preceding question claimed they'd seen the sign, while only 35% of those not reminded of the sign in a preceding question claimed they'd seen the sign. Well, this shows how the questioning of a witness can inadvertently "enhance" their memory.

And not just for the better. For another 1975 study she showed forty subjects a short videotape of a student demonstration. At the end of the tape, she handed out some questionnaires in which she asked half the students the sex of the leader of "the four demonstrators", and the other half the sex of the leader of "the twelve demonstrators." A week later the subjects returned to answer additional questions. At this time, they were asked the number of demonstrators they'd observed. The correct answer was eight. Even so, those who'd been asked the "four" question recalled seeing an average of 6.4 demonstrators (an apparent compromise between the four they'd been asked about and the eight they'd actually observed), and those who'd been asked the "twelve" question recalled seeing an average of 8.9 (an apparent compromise between the twelve they'd been asked about and the eight they'd actually observed).

This tendency to compromise was further studied in 1977. In this study, the subjects were shown a series of slides depicting a car accident. They were then asked a series of questions about the slides. One of the questions dealt with the color of a car passing the accident. This car was actually green. Half the subjects were asked about the blue car driving past the accident, with the other half being asked the same question, but without being told the car was blue. The subjects then engaged in another activity. When they returned to the study, twenty minutes later, the subjects were shown a color wheel containing thirty color strips and asked to match these to ten objects they'd observed on the slides. Those who'd been asked about a blue car "tended to pick a blue or bluish-green as the color that they remembered for the car that passed the accident. Those not given any color information tended to choose a color near the true green. Thus, the introduction of the false color information significantly affected the ability of subjects to correctly identify a color that they had seen before."

On page 58 she cites another of her studies in which subjects were shown a series of slides depicting a car accident. (I think we can presume these were the same slides used in her earlier study...) Half were then asked if another car passed as the car stopped at a stop sign, with the other half being asked if another car passed as the car stopped at a yield sign. (There were, in fact, two different sets of slides, one showing it stop at a stop sign, and one showing it stop at a yield sign.) In any event, when shown slides a bit later in which the car was by one of the signs and asked if they'd seen this slide before, 75% of those who had been asked--but 20 minutes earlier--about the sign which they'd been shown answered affirmatively. Now, that's no surprise. But, here's the shocker: 59% of those who had been asked--but 20 minutes earlier--about a sign they had not been shown also answered affirmatively when shown a slide of that sign. This, to be clear, was a sign they had not been shown, but they claimed to recognize anyway, twenty minutes after being asked a question in which the nature of the sign--stop or yield--was misrepresented. Now, the control question for this study suggests that 25% of those shown an image of a sign they'd been shown will fail to recognize it. And this in turn supports that 25% of those claiming to have seen a sign they'd not been shown would have claimed they'd seen it even if they'd never been asked a misleading question. But this still suggests that 34% of the subjects were led to recall seeing something they'd never seen... from being asked a question that suggested they'd seen it.

Loftus then cites a similar study in which her students served as subjects. She showed them a film of a car racing down a country road. Some of them were then asked about a barn on the side of the road. A week later, all of the students were asked if they recalled seeing a barn in the film. 17% of those asked about the barn the week before recalled seeing a barn, while only 3% of those not asked about the barn the week before recalled seeing a barn. No barn was shown in the film. It follows, then, that 14% of the students were fooled into thinking they saw a barn just by being asked about it.

She then cites another less scientific study involving her students. In this one, her students staged a fake theft, in which a woman left her bag unattended in a crowded place and a man pretended to steal something out of her bag. The woman then returned to her bag and cried out that a tape recorder had been stolen. She and a friend then took the phone numbers of a number of witnesses. A student posing as an insurance agent called a week later. Well, more than half the witnesses claimed they saw the supposedly stolen (but actually non-existent) tape recorder, with some of them describing it in great detail.

She then cites another study involving saliency, to which those citing her book should have referred. This one is from 1977, by Dritsas and Hamilton. For this study subjects were shown films of industrial accidents, and then asked a series of questions--some deliberately misleading--about the films. Well, to no one's surprise, they found that salient or central items or events were recalled more accurately--and were less likely to be altered by misleading information--than peripheral items. But look at these numbers. The subjects were but 47% accurate on peripheral items. Even worse, their recollections of peripheral items could be altered via misleading information 69% of the time. Now let's see how they fared on central items. The recollections of the subjects on central items were but 81% accurate. (That's a far cry from the 98% suggested by the study depicted in Loftus' Figure 3.1). More telling, though, is this. 47% of those correctly recalling a central item or event recalled it incorrectly after receiving misleading information.

This all leads up to the largest study cited by Loftus, this one involving 600 subjects. For this study, she once again showed the subjects a series of slides involving a stop sign or yield sign, and once again asked some of the subjects a subsequent question in which they were given misleading information about the sign they'd been shown. But for this one, she asked some of the subjects what they saw immediately after viewing the slides, and asked some of them the same question one day, two days, or even a week later.

The results were staggering. While those questioned immediately after viewing the slides--and not asked any misleading questions regarding the sign shown in the slides--correctly selected the slide they'd been shown 80% of the time, those questioned a week later--and asked a misleading question about the sign shown in the slides--correctly selected the slide they'd been shown but 20% of the time.

Our memories are fragile. They are subject to change within moments of their creation, based upon subsequently received information. They also erode with time, and grow more subject to change as time goes by. The reception of misleading information can not only compromise our memories, where we remember things partly as they were and partly as we've been told they were, but lead us to recall seeing things we never saw, and remember things that never happened.

But who am I to blather on? Here is Loftus' own summary of her findings, as published in her memoir, Witness for the Defense (1991): "As new bits and pieces of information are added into long-term memory, the old memories are removed, replaced, crumpled up, or shoved into corners. Memories don't just fade...they also grow. What fades is the initial perception, the actual experience of the events. But every time we recall an event, we must reconstruct the memory, and with each recollection the memory may be changed--colored by succeeding events, other people's recollections or suggestions...Truth and reality, when seen through the filter of our memories, are not objective facts but subjective, interpretive realities."

As a result, I'm forced to reject the primacy of the Parkland witnesses. Their statements have been erratic from the get-go, and have only grown more erratic over time. Those holding them up as a "smoking gun" in the JFK case both misrepresent the location of the wound described by the bulk of these witnesses, and the consistency of these witnesses as a whole. There's just no "there" there.

Of course, this is a double-edged sword. The memories of those deferring to the accuracy of the autopsy photos twenty-five years after the shooting are not necessarily more credible than the memories of those claiming they saw cerebellum, and that's it. While the one group is seemingly more malleable, the other is seemingly less reasonable. It's impossible to say who is right based upon words and words alone.

So that's a choice I choose not to make.

The autopsy photos, x-rays, and autopsy report are consistent with the recollections of the Dealey Plaza witnesses. And for me that is enough...

To read this post, one would never guess that suspects are charged and convicted based solely or mostly on eyewitness testimony all the time. It happens every day in our courts. In most cases, many if not the majority of the witnesses did not give their accounts immediately after the event but anywhere from half an hour to an hour to several days or even weeks after the fact. 

I would like to see a study where dozens of witnesses independently make the same egregious mistake in describing a wound when they have clear reference points to which to associate the wound. We're not talking about a few people, but at least over two dozen who supposedly could not tell the difference between a wound above the right ear and a wound in the back of the head that included part of the occiput.

We're talking about nurses and morticians who handled the skull, for crying out loud. We're talking about a federal agent who saw the wound three times in one day, the first time being from just a few feet away and for several minutes. We're talking about a funeral home worker who held JFK's head in his hands while he helped put the body in the casket and who could feel the jagged edges of a large wound in the back of the head. 

14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Most of the Parkland doctors were, however, unquestionably WRONG (i.e., mistaken) about the location of JFK's large head wound, and the autopsy photos and X-rays provide the undeniable proof that those Parkland physicians were wrong, and as such they all (for some inexplicable reason) experienced a "Mass Mistaken Observation" (for lack of a better phrase).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Back Of JFK's Head (Part 1)

So your argument is that dozens of people independently, and in three different locations, actually saw a large wound above the right ear but for some inexplicable reason mistook it for a large wound that was 3-4 inches farther back on the head and included part of the occiput, even though some of them actually handled the head or saw the wound up-close for several minutes, including the morticians who reassembled the skull after the autopsy. I don't see how anyone can truly, deep down, believe this. 

We now know that Dr. Finck questioned the authenticity of the back-of-head photo in his HSCA FPP testimony. We know that one of the FBI agents at the autopsy (Francis O'Neill) said the back-of-head photo looked "doctored" and did not show the head as he remembered it. We know that Saundra Spencer and Joe O'Donnell told the ARRB that they saw autopsy photos that showed a large hole in the back of the head.

We also know that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent because the skull x-rays show a large portion of the right brain missing, whereas the autopsy photos show only 1-2 ounces of tissue missing (as Bugliosi foolishly and gladly acknowledged). We further know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto at least 16 surfaces. 

I find it much more logical and easier to believe that a handful of autopsy photos are fraudulent than to believe that dozens of people, including doctors and nurses and morticians, independently mistook a large wound above the right ear for a large wound in the back of the head. 

13 minutes ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Michael, I think you have misinterpreted @Chris Bristow's comment. The following is his comment to which you were responding:

By "skeptics," Chris meant JFK researchers who accept the evidence of JFK's back-of-the-head wound, not the WC skeptics.

I think you misspoke. The only skeptics who accept the large back-of-head wound are WC skeptics. WC apologists universally reject the back-of-head wound. WC skeptics accept it.

Anyway, your posts are great. Keep them coming! If anyone is getting "headaches" from your posts, they are getting them because their brains are trying to break free from the lone-gunman brainwashing that has chained them down all these years.

On 1/2/2024 at 8:43 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

A new article by John Armstrong shows how the FBI altered DPD dispatch records to change the time of the shooting of J.D. Tippit from 1:10 PM to 1:16 PM, giving Oswald just enough time to walk nearly a mile from his rooming house to 10th & Patton.

https://harveyandlee.net/DPD/Transcripts.html

No WC apologist has yet offered a rational, credible explanation for why Tippit was so far out of his area when all other police officers had understandably been ordered to head to the downtown area. 

Even the 1:16 shooting time requires that we believe that Tippit's killer somehow walked past 10th and Patton before Tippit arrived, then inexplicably turned around and started walking west before Tippit arrived, and then turned around again and resumed his eastward heading, i.e., away from Tippit's car, when he saw Tippit's car approaching. 

19 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

For the love of god, can someone please stop this guy from posting pages and pages of the same stuff over and over again?

Requested DENIED. Resubmit in 90 days with triplicate forms.

Be advised that you must answer the first question on the form before you can complete the rest of the form. The first question reads, "Do you still believe in the single-bullet theory?" Warning: Checking the Yes box will gray-out the rest of the form, and you will be sent links to (1) the overhead CT image that proves that no bullet could have gone from the back wound to the throat wound without smashing through the spine, and (2) the recent Knott Laboratory 3D laser analysis that proves that a bullet exiting JFK's throat could not have caused Connally's back wound. 

15 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

I've been reading up on the documentation regarding how the CIA went about recruiting a cuban exile named Augustin Guitart in New Orleans in 1963 to act as a cut-out for his uncle Rene Guitart who was still living in Cuba. I've been using this as an example to understand the procedure by which the CIA recruits an agent/asset (though i'd imagine the procedure is different for the CIA depending on whether they are recruiting the agent/asset on U.S. soil or in a foreign country.)

From what I understand it would seem that if the CIA wanted to hire an agent/asset the process goes as follows:

1 - Counterintelligence: C/I must be notified about the proposed agent/asset so that C/I can run a background check on the individual. I presume the local C/I department inside the DDP is first consulted and then the overall C/I department led by Angleton is consulted next. C/I first gives what is known as a “Provisional Operational Approval” based on initial file checks and then a few months later when more checking is done they give full “Operational Approval”.

LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=225782#relPageId=71

2 - Central Covers Staff: Central Cover Staff are also notified regarding the proposed agent/asset. Central Cover Staff are required to "maintain an accurate register of current nonofficial cover activity" and the officer using the agent/asset is required to notify the Central Cover Staff when subject is activated. I presume this means that if the agent or asset is to have a cover, then the Central Cover Staff must be notified of this cover. I’m not sure if the Central Cover Staff would actually provide the cover or just keep a record of the various covers being used and it would be the DOD (Domestic Operations Division) that would be the ones who actually provide the covers (at least when it comes to domestic covers). I presume not every agent or asset needs a cover so the Central Cover Staff might not necessarily be brought into the process for every agent or asset ( @Tom Gram I know you were interested in the Central Cover Staff as you said on this thread https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28027-guy-banister-and-the-cia/page/15/#comments So maybe you know more on this issue than me.)

LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=225782#relPageId=73

3 - Funding: I presume some funding department must be consulted as to how much and how often the agent or asset will be paid. Not sure where this funding department is or what it’s called.

4 - FBI Liaison: Apparently for some potential agents/assets the CIA must notify the FBI of the CIAs intent to contact the individual. Taking the example of the recruitment of Augustin Guitart, the FBI were notified: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=225782#relPageId=89 

5 - CCS/NC: Does anyone know what CCS/NC is? Apparently they must first be contacted about a potential recruitment of an agent or asset as stated here:

6 - Office of Security: Apparently the Office of Security are contacted during the procedure. This can be seen in the top right hand corner of the below document:

LINK: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=225782#relPageId=87

The above outline shows why Angleton often seems to be involved in everything. He is the ultimate boss on who is allowed to be recruited by the CIA as an agent or asset as he must make sure that it is safe to recruit that person and that they don’t pose a security risk to the Agency or their personnel or other agents/assets.

Am I missing any other steps? I’m sure I am. At some stage there would have to be a document check, such as a check to see if there was a 201 file. I presume C/I would do this as part of their background check on the individual. 

Also i'm not sure how the procedure would differ if the CIA was recruiting an asset/agent inside the U.S. vs outside the U.S. I'd imagine if it is outside the U.S., then the FBI maybe don't need to be notified?

Gerry, your handler has asked me to advise you that you're sharing too much information about CIA recruiting operations. He also asked me to pass along that it would be a shame if your scheduled promotion were delayed or revoked. Remember: I'm just the messenger here.

And then there was Parkland Hospital nurse Patricia Hutton. She said nothing about seeing a large wound above the right ear, but she did see a large wound in the back of the head.

Nurse Hutton saw JFK's body moved from the limo onto a hospital cart, and then she helped to wheel the cart into the ER and witnessed the efforts to save JFK's life. She was asked to place a dressing on the head wound, but she said this did no good "because of the massive opening on the back of the head" (Price Exhibit No. 21: Activities of Pat Hutton on Friday, November 22, 1963, MD 99, p. 2). She added that the President was "bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head."

Are we to believe that she could not tell the difference between a large wound above the right ear and a large wound on the back of the head?

How did all the morticians fail to see the obvious wound above the right ear that we see in the autopsy photos?

Mortician Tom Robinson said nothing about a large wound above the right ear. Robinson said he saw "a large, open wound in the back of the President's head" (ARRB meeting report, 6/211/96, MD 180, p. 2). He provided a diagram of the wound and put it in the occiput (MD 88, p. 5). Robinson gave the same description to the HSCA in 1977 (HSCA interview transcript, 1/12/1977, MD 63, p. 2).

Mortician John VanHoesen said nothing about a large wound above the right ear. VanHoesen said there was a hole "roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head" even after the skull was reconstructed (ARRB meeting report, 9/25/96, MD 181, p. 4). He explained that the hole was covered with a sheet of plastic "to prevent leakage."

Mortician Joe Hagan said nothing about a large wound above the right ear. Hagan said that JFK's head was "open in the back." Gesturing to the back of his head, he said that "all of this was open in the back." The ARRB meeting report notes that he gestured "to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head" (ARRB meeting report, 5/17/96, MD 182, p. 5).

Were all these medical personnel legally blind and/or astonishingly ignorant of basic anatomy? Are we to believe that they looked at a large wound above the right ear and somehow imagined that it was 3-4 inches farther back on the head? Is it just an amazing coincidence that after getting a close-up, prolonged look at JFK's large head wound en route to Parkland, and after seeing the wound twice more that day, Agent Clint Hill said the wound was in the right-rear part of the head? 

And is it an even more amazing coincidence that the Parkland nurse who cleaned JFK's head and packed the large head wound with gauze, Diana Bowron, said the wound was in the back of the head? Could she not distinguish between the right ear and the back of the head while she was cleaning the wound and packing it with gauze?

I've never really cared a great deal about the identity of the shooters. I'm much more interested in the identity of the plotters and in the identity of those who knowingly participated in the cover-up.

On 1/1/2024 at 5:48 AM, Michael Griffith said:

You are simply ignoring the plain meaning of what Hodges says after this. Yes, he begins by referring to the autopsy report's description of the wound, but then, as we've seen, he says that some of the color photos show the small wound in the occiput. Let's read again:

          Although not readily detected on the x-rays, a small round hole visible from intercranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site [ok, so he has just cited the autopsy report]. The appearance is in keeping with colored photographs showing a large compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the right occipital region.

What don't you understand here? He stops citing the autopsy report after the first sentence and then refers to color photos showing a small wound in the right occipital region. The autopsy report says nothing about color photos showing a small wound in the occiput, so this is obviously based on Hodges' own observations. Let's continue:

          The x-rays and the photographs are diagnostic of a gunshot wound in which the bullet struck the right occiput leaving a portion of itself flattened against the outer table before penetrating the bone, producing a small hole of entry largely obscured on the x-ray by the more extensive havoc caused in the brain and anterior skull represented by extensive fractures, missing bone, disrupted soft tissues and gas within the cranial cavity. 

So according to Hodges, the x-rays and photos are "diagnostic" of a bullet that "struck the right occiput." Synonyms of "diagnostic" include "characteristic," "typical," and "symptomatic." Here, too, the Hodges is not citing the autopsy report, since the autopsy report does not make this statement about the x-rays and the photos and does not mention a fragment flattened against the outer table. 

BTW, all three of the ARRB forensic experts, including the forensic radiologist, said they saw no cowlick entry site on the skull x-rays. 

Another autopsy witness who confirmed the EOP entry site was Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, noting that the entry wound was near the hairline: 

KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound [the large wound on the right-rear side of the head--see below], right here.
SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear [Specter's/viewer's right] about the lower third of the ear? . . .
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?
KELLERMAN: The little finger.
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
KELLERMAN: Right. (2 H 81) [/quote]

During his HSCA interview, Kellerman drew a diagram that the put the entry wound about 2 inches below the exit wound and well to the left of the right ear (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10). 

Kellerman also saw a large wound in the right-rear part of the head. In the segment preceding the above-quoted testimony, Kellerman said the large wound was in the rear portion of the head, to the left of the right ear: 

Mr. KELLERMAN. He had a large wound this size. 
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. 
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. 
Mr. KELLERJIBS. Yes. 
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? 
Mr. BELLERMAS. Right. This was removed. 
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, “This was removed,” what do you mean by this? 
Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed. 
Mr. SPECTER. All right. 
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right 
in here. 
Mr. SPECTER. When you say “removed,” by that do you mean that it was 
absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? 
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. (2 H 80-81)

In his WC testimony, Kellerman also noted that he told Agent Clint Hill that he wanted him to see the wounds and that he "pointed out the wounds to Hill" (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 7). This is noteworthy because in his 11/30/63 report, Agent Hill confirmed this and twice noted that the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head: 

          As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely; Part of his brain was gone. . . .  
          
          At approximately 2:45 a.m., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC Kellerman to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull. (Statement of Special Agent Clinton J. Hill, United States Secret Service, 11/30/1963, pp. 3, 5-6, in CE 1024, pp. 742, 744-745)

So Hill saw the same wound that he observed for several minutes en route to Parkland that he saw in the Bethesda morgue when he was asked to view JFK's wounds, and that wound was in the right-rear part of the skull.  

Kellerman's HSCA diagram also showed a large wound in the back of the head (HSCA interview summary, 8/29/1977, p. 10).