Jump to content

Alen J Salerian, MD


Michael Hogan
 Share

Recommended Posts

* Who was that man later identified as the Umbrella Man who gave a reasonable explanation of his actions?

:lol:

Louis Witt was the person you are talking about (I dont know how you can bring him up without knowing his name)

And his explanation of his actions were laughable, he didnt say one thing that was on par with what TUM was seen doing in film and pictures

As odd as Witt's explanation was it isn't any where near as laughable as the theories that he was firing a dart or signaling. I note you failed to reply to Paul's points.TUM is a perfect example of the kind of absurd speculation that can be used to make assassination CT's look like crackpots.

And yes though only Witt might have gotten his joke the umbrella was considered a symbol of Chamberlain

[image]http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/umbrella.gif[/image]

PS I tried opening Michael's link and got the following error message. Was anybody able to open it?

"Error

Sorry, your request could not be processed because the format of the URL was incorrect. Contact the Help Desk if the problem persists. [sD-001]"

As for Salerianbeing an MD, he is shrink and thus apparently not especially qualified to reach the conclusions he does

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dont subscribe to the Umbrella Man/dart theory either

But I do think its an interesting theory and I did as much reading on the subject as I could years ago, and just re-read "The Umbrella Man" and "Seventy Six Seconds In Dealey Plaza" again a couple weeks ago and got a little boost about the dart theory

But I still dont think it happened that way

Dean

Len

Did you miss this post?

I didnt reply to Pauls points because I dont believe TUM had any type of weapon or poison dart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Salerian being an MD, he is shrink and thus apparently not especially qualified to reach the conclusions he does

Considering the fact that Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) on JFK HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before, then I think it is fallacious to argue that Salerian is not qualified to make these assertions in his Medical Hypotheses article:

There are three gross errors incompatible with scientific

inquiries that invalidate the postmortem

examination of President Kennedy.

1. The reported brain weight of 1500 g is incompatible

with the evidence that almost one-third of

the president’s brain tissue had been lost

because of the violent force of the head injury

and the anatomical reality of an average brain

weight of 1500 g

2. A bullet traveling downward and entering the

president’s back 6 in. below the collar line, consistent

with Newton’s second law of motion

and human anatomy, cannot exit

through the throat.

(Newton's Second Law of Motion states that “an object acted upon by a constant force will

move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”.)

3. There is written evidence signed by Commander

Humes that he destroyed part of the autopsy

records and personal notes inconsistent with

accepted ethical and judicious medical practice

The seriousness, multiplicity and diversity of

gross errors not only render the postmortem exam

worthless but suggest complicity

In fact, you don't even need to be a qualified MD, as Salerian is, to make these assertions of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Salerian being an MD, he is shrink and thus apparently not especially qualified to reach the conclusions he does

Considering the fact that Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) on JFK HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before, then I think it is fallacious to argue that Salerian is not qualified to make these assertions in his Medical Hypotheses article:

There are three gross errors incompatible with scientific

inquiries that invalidate the postmortem

examination of President Kennedy.

1. The reported brain weight of 1500 g is incompatible

with the evidence that almost one-third of

the president’s brain tissue had been lost

because of the violent force of the head injury

and the anatomical reality of an average brain

weight of 1500 g

2. A bullet traveling downward and entering the

president’s back 6 in. below the collar line, consistent

with Newton’s second law of motion

and human anatomy, cannot exit

through the throat.

(Newton's Second Law of Motion states that “an object acted upon by a constant force will

move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”.)

3. There is written evidence signed by Commander

Humes that he destroyed part of the autopsy

records and personal notes inconsistent with

accepted ethical and judicious medical practice

The seriousness, multiplicity and diversity of

gross errors not only render the postmortem exam

worthless but suggest complicity

In fact, you don't even need to be a qualified MD, as Salerian is, to make these assertions of fact.

As discussed in chapter 13b of my online book, the HSCA medical panel was also unqualified to come to any conclusions on the medical evidence. None of them had had sufficient personal experience with wounds caused by military ammunition, and there is no evidence any of them took the time to study papers and reports written by those who had such experience. Dr. Baden was later to admit he made ONE phone call to a pathologist with such experience. That's it. The one wound ballistics expert allowed to testify, Larry Sturdivan, was a statistician, testifying about tests performed on corpses back in 64 that he had no part in analyzing. He reported what he'd been told. He met with the pathology panel once, if I recall, and then months after they'd written the first drafts of their report.

The HSCA panel was also allowed to report blind...while they were given the opportunity to read many of the earlier reports and testimony on the medical evidence, there is no evidence that they did so. The papers were merely present in the room when they met. Odds are the majority of them never knew that the autopsy doctors TWICE asserted that the EOP entrance was visible in the autopsy photos, and that the photo the HSCA panel claimed showed Kennedy's forehead was originally purported to represent the back of his head.

If they'd had the proper background, and had studied all the evidence, I suspect they never would have went along with the cowlick entrance pushed on them by the Clark Panel. When it fractures upon entrance military ammunition does not leave nice little ovals with no visible scalp tears. (The appearance of the cowlick "entrance".) Nor does it cause large bone fragments ADJACENT to the exit to fly a hundred feet or so through the air. (The apparent distance the Harper fragment traveled.) No, if they'd done their homework, they would have found that 6.5mm full-metal jacketed ammunition had a reputation for creating large tangential wounds, and that the large defect on top of Kennedy's head was a wound of both entrance and exit. (As claimed by Dr. Clark, the first doctor to inspect the wound at Parkland.)

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Umbrella Man sent the flechette into Kennedy's throat. Maybe it didn't matter where it hit him; it would still have the same effect of paralysis.

Please tell me this is a joke. It's too incredible even to be part of a James Bond plot.

* How did Umbrella Man aim the device?

* What were the odds of him missing and hitting Jackie, or someone over the street?

* Was it really necessary to paralyse the President in order to assist the crack hit squad?

* Why didn't the Umbrella Man stand further up the street, so he could paralyse JFK before the first shot was fired?

* Who was that man later identified as the Umbrella Man who gave a reasonable explanation of his actions?

This list could be expanded. It's a ridiculous, laughable notion.

Paul.

1. Umbrella Man aimed the device and shot the "dart" by opening and closing the umbrella above him.

2. What were the odds of Jackie, etc., getting hit by a bullet? That didn't stop the shooters.

3. If Kennedy realized someone was shooting, he could have ducked. With the fleschette he couldn't.

4. Not too many witnesses would see the umbrella opening and closing down near the Grassy Knoll.

Even with the inserted Stemmons Freeway sign in Zapruder, we see the umbrella man moving the umbrella up and down; while the Cuban next to him signals to SS Greer, the driver, where to stop. This stopping of the limo has been removed from the Zapruder film.

5. The President died violently next to his wife and for all the world to see. Then they gave him a bum's autopsy. What's funny about it? Really, what's funny about any of it? The fleschette theory started with Fletcher Prouty, not me. And you can't say that that Cuban Exile isn't up to something evil too. How they came to be next to each other -- one paralized Kennedy and the other signaled for the limo to stop. The limo had reached the shooting zone.

Kathy C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone was firing a flechette from in front of JFK, it didn't have to have come from the umbrella, but rather a much more accurate weapon, and there's evidence that the throat wound as well as a frontal head wound was caused by such a weapon.

A bullet wound would have a distinctive entrance - round - through skin and bone, and a distinctive exit wound, large and explosive.

Both the throat wound, which has no apparent exit, and the head wound described below by Robinson, indicates that something other than a bullet struck Kennedy from the front at both the throat and the right front forehead.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...do?docId=145280

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...p;relPageId=300

Current Section: Appendix 54: HSCA staff report and transcript of its interview of Gawler's Funeral Home mortician Tom Robinson

Robinson, the funeral parlor makeup mortician, described a small, harldly noticable wound o the front right forehead, just at the hairline. This was not round, or caused by a bullet, but as Robinson described it, a bullet fragment or piece of bone, or a flechette?

Purdy: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may have beenn artificially caused, that is, caused by something other than autopsy?

Robinson: Probably, a little mark at the temple in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

Purdy: In other words, there was a little wound.

Robinson: Yes.

Purdy: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

Robinson: I believe it was on the right side.

Purdy: On his right side?

Robinson: That's an anatomical right, yes.

Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hair line?

Robinson: Yes.

Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

Robinson: Somewhere around the timples.

Purdy: Approximately what size?

Robinson: Very small, a quarter of an inch.

Purdy: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

Robinson: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have put a little wax on it.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...sPageId=1511272

Edited by William Kelly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

* Who was that man later identified as the Umbrella Man who gave a reasonable explanation of his actions?

:lol:

Louis Witt was the person you are talking about (I dont know how you can bring him up without knowing his name)

And his explanation of his actions were laughable, he didnt say one thing that was on par with what TUM was seen doing in film and pictures

Ah yes, exotic weapons.

Here's another one ..... the poison causes a heart attack.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intellig...f-assassination

And to the topic at hand ...

For more on Salerian, see thread started on alt.assassination.jfk on Nov. 18, 2009:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...737ebdb3c61489#

Folks were more interested in questioning the fella's credentials rather than his theory.

Cheers

Peter Fokes

Edited by Peter Fokes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Not too many witnesses would see the umbrella opening and closing down near the Grassy Knoll.

Even with the inserted Stemmons Freeway sign in Zapruder, we see the umbrella man moving the umbrella up and down; while the Cuban next to him signals to SS Greer, the driver, where to stop. This stopping of the limo has been removed from the Zapruder film.

Kathy C

Have you considered the possibility that the Stemmons Freeway sign wasn't inserted into Zapruder, but was strapped to Umbrella Man's back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Salerian being an MD, he is shrink and thus apparently not especially qualified to reach the conclusions he does

Considering the fact that Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) on JFK HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before, then I think it is fallacious to argue that Salerian is not qualified to make these assertions in his Medical Hypotheses article:

Ray

1) I though it was clear I made that comment in relation to his stupid dart theory someone else brought up that he was MD but I’ll play

2) Even relating to his autopsy claims since Humes conducted the autopsy with 2 other doctors at least one of whom was a bullet wound expert “it is fallacious” to point to his supposed lack of experience in the field and even more “fallacious to argue” Salerian’s expertise is comparable. The other two were Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, Chief of Pathology at Naval Medical Center and Dr. Pierre A. Finck, MC, USA: Chief of the military environmental pathology division and chief of the wound ballistics pathology branch at Walter Reed Medical Center.

3) I’ll take your work for it Humes “HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before” but he was a pathologist and was there and thus is infinitely more qualified than a physiatrist who wasn’t. “Over the years, he was president of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, of the College of American Pathology and of the Association of Clinical Scientists.” Even if Humes or Boswell hadn’t performed such autopsies before as militarily trained pathologists they’d obviously studied bullet injuries during their residencies

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/12/us/james...on-kennedy.html

There are three gross errors incompatible with scientific inquiries that invalidate the postmortem examination of President Kennedy.

1. The reported brain weight of 1500 g is incompatible

with the evidence that almost one-third of

the president’s brain tissue had been lost

because of the violent force of the head injury

and the anatomical reality of an average brain

weight of 1500 g

1) I’ve seen the claim about JFK’s brain mass made a few times but never any references, was his brain actually weighed or was that an estimate? The ‘roundness’ of the number suggests the latter.

2) What exactly is “the evidence that almost one-third of the president’s brain tissue had been lost”?

3) 1500g is an average the heaviest brain on record was 5 lb., 1.1 oz (2299) grams

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tt98.html

2. A bullet traveling downward and entering the

president’s back 6 in. below the collar line, consistent

with Newton’s second law of motion

and human anatomy, cannot exit

through the throat.

(Newton's Second Law of Motion states that “an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”.)

I agree with him on this but IIRC there is disagreement about where the entry wound was.

3. There is written evidence signed by Commander

Humes that he destroyed part of the autopsy

records and personal notes inconsistent with

accepted ethical and judicious medical practice

The seriousness, multiplicity and diversity of

gross errors not only render the postmortem exam

worthless but suggest complicity

Care to elaborate?

I’m not saying however that the autopsies were done correctly. I’m not well versed enough to say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* Who was that man later identified as the Umbrella Man who gave a reasonable explanation of his actions?

B)

Louis Witt was the person you are talking about (I dont know how you can bring him up without knowing his name)

And his explanation of his actions were laughable, he didnt say one thing that was on par with what TUM was seen doing in film and pictures

Ah yes, exotic weapons.

Here's another one ..... the poison causes a heart attack.

http://www.examiner.com/x-6495-US-Intellig...f-assassination

And to the topic at hand ...

For more on Salerian, see thread started on alt.assassination.jfk on Nov. 18, 2009:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...737ebdb3c61489#

Folks were more interested in questioning the fella's credentials rather than his theory.

"His"* "theory" is risiblely stupid,his supposed credentials** were brought up by a supporter of the theory. As Paul pointed out there would have been no way to aim the umbrella and using a tranquillizer on someone about to be shot to death would be pointless. Note that the CIA dart gun had a giant scope on it and was meant to simulate death by natural causes.

* Not really 'his' since it is an oldie

** he seems well credentialed in his field but the dart theory has littleto do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll take your work for it Humes “HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before”

Don't take my word, Len. I am relying on Cyril Wecht. Wecht repeated this in his COPA presentation last week, but he has been trumpeting this fact for FORTY YEARS and nobody (e.g. Humes) has ever contradicted him. It is an established fact that Humes (ditto Boswell) had no more experience autopsying gunshot wounds than you or I do.

but he was a pathologist and was there and thus is infinitely more qualified than a physiatrist who wasn’t.

Stop kidding yourself Len. THis guy wasn't qualified to perform this autopsy, and ANYBODY, including Dr. Salerian, is qualified to say so.

“Over the years, he was president of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, of the College of American Pathology and of the Association of Clinical Scientists.”

Nice quote from the New York Times, which has been misleading Americans about the assassination from day one, continuing down to the present day.

Bet you a pint that all these "honors" were bestowed on Humes AFTER the JFK autopsy, and therefore are just red herrings in the present discussion.

Care to elaborate?

I understand that Doug Horne will elaborate on ALL these issues IN GREAT DETAIL in his book, which includes the ARRB interview with Humes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My approach to TUM and RM is firmly that neither should have been there, period. Witt is simply not believable when he tried to impersonate UM. Witt did not look like UM , nor did his explanation match what really happened that day. The notion that someone keeps an umbrella for 12 years is absolutely laughable. That is all that needs to be said about UM and RM.

Pushing the dart theory will always, in my opinion as well, discredit the whole UM/RM aspect of the assassination, or even the entire truth of the matter.

It is plausable; and seems very likely that UM provided some kind of low-tech signal to the shooters, and RM seems to signal with his raised arm. Why in the world would these people be there, with an umbrella and do these kind of actions if they were not part of a murder that was going on a few feet away?

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My approach to TUM and RM is firmly that neither should have been there, period. Witt is simply not believable when he tried to impersonate UM. Witt did not look like UM , nor did his explanation match what really happened that day. The notion that someone keeps an umbrella for 12 years is absolutely laughable. That is all that needs to be said about UM and RM.

Pushing the dart theory will always, in my opinion as well, discredit the whole UM/RM aspect of the assassination, or even the entire truth of the matter.

It is plausable; and seems very likely that UM provided some kind of low-tech signal to the shooters, and RM seems to signal with his raised arm. Why in the world would these people be there, with an umbrella and do these kind of actions if they were not part of a murder that was going on a few feet away?

Why does the dart have to come from the umbrella?

Why can't it come from a very sophisticated gun somewhere to the front and right?

Both O'Donnell's recollections of Knudsen't photos of a small entrance wound above the right eye at the hair line confirms mortician Robinson's testimony that he closed such a wound with wax.

As for the identity of the Umbrella Man, the Witt testified under oath that he used the umbrella to make a political and hisoric statement - and neither his position there nor the umbrella were a coincidence, but totally intentional.

Do you think JFK got the message he was trying to telegraph?

How about LeMay's "Appeasement at Munich"?

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take your work for it Humes "HAD NEVER PERFORMED AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM before"

Don't take my word, Len. I am relying on Cyril Wecht. Wecht repeated this in his COPA presentation last week, but he has been trumpeting this fact for FORTY YEARS and nobody (e.g. Humes) has ever contradicted him. It is an established fact that Humes (ditto Boswell) had no more experience autopsying gunshot wounds than you or I do.

but he was a pathologist and was there and thus is infinitely more qualified than a physiatrist who wasn't.

Stop kidding yourself Len. THis guy wasn't qualified to perform this autopsy, and ANYBODY, including Dr. Salerian, is qualified to say so.

"Over the years, he was president of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, of the College of American Pathology and of the Association of Clinical Scientists."

Nice quote from the New York Times, which has been misleading Americans about the assassination from day one, continuing down to the present day.

Bet you a pint that all these "honors" were bestowed on Humes AFTER the JFK autopsy, and therefore are just red herrings in the present discussion.

Care to elaborate?

I understand that Doug Horne will elaborate on ALL these issues IN GREAT DETAIL in his book, which includes the ARRB interview with Humes.

And indeed Doug Horne does elaborate in great detail.

In a nutshell, Humes and Boswell were two of the few to be required to testify before the ARRB, and did so under oath and on the record, but they went first, and after they were done, others testified, some not under oath, but respectfully and believabely.

With the testimony of multiple specialists, it became apparent that there were two different, official examinations of the brain for the official autopsy report, of which there are three known versions, and further analysis revealed that the two different brain exams were of two different brains, at least one of which was not JFK's. This is a certified scientific fact.

Given the facts that neither of the two autopsy doctors had ever conducted an autopsy that involved a gunshot wound, Dr. Pierre Finck, an Army Colonel very familiar with gunshot wounds, was called in, but not until the last minute.

According to Horne's analysis, within the first hour the body arrived at Bethesda, a Navy doctor, probably Humes, performed surgery of the head, removing bullet fragments, which were placed in a test tube sized glass vial that was seen by Robinson the mortician, and enlarging the front entrance wound so it would appear an exit.

According to the report of the FBI agents on the scene, when he began the autopsy, Hume noted that there had been "surgery" to the head, which Horne interpets as an attempt to defray attention from the fact that he himself had performed this pre-autopsy surgery.

When Finck arrived, a half hour after the official autopsy had begun, after the intenstines and brain had been removed, he immediately began looking for an entrance wound to the head, which had been obliterated by the pre autopsy surgery.

Years later, when the issue began to heat up in 1967, Finck was recalled from Vietnam, where he witnesses hundreds if not thousands more gun shot wounds. Back in DC he was shown X-rays and autopsy photos, but wrote in his report that although he signed off on the affidavit that they gave him saying that the extant x-rays and autopsy photos don't change the conclusions of the autopsy report, he was disturbed by the fact that there were no photos of the entrance wound to the head that he had requested and knew once existed.

According to Horne's analysis, the pre-autopsy surgery, beginning the autopsy before Finck arrived, the second brain exam of a brain that wasn't JFK's and the 1967 affidavit were all aimed at fooling Finck about the direction of the fatal shot(s) to the head.

The two FBI agents (Sibert & O'Neil) were also duped, kept in a waiting room with two of the morticians while the pre-autopsy surgery was conducted.

But after making these pretty clear determinations - that two brains were examined, a pre-autopsy surgery performed, and the autopsy begun before Finck arrived, all in order to fool him, the FBI agents and other witnesses, Humes and Boswell were not recalled to testify a second time and resolve these issues because the ARRB were a bunch of pansies.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...