Alen J Salerian, MD

[Len Colby]

Bill, Since you seem intent on demonstrating your incompetence in relation to JFK research...

Prof Fetzer,

Could I remind you about the requirement of this Forum not to question others abilities with respect to research.

iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297

If you dispute data or conclusions, then by all means dispute such... but please do it in a fashion that remains within our rules.

Thank you.

The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.

Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.

Amazing Hogan repeatedly criticized Evan's moderation of the PC section now that Evan admonished someone he is squabbling with Hogan says what a good job he did there.

BERNICE

WHY DO TYPE YOUR POSTS IN ALLCAPS? DON'T YOU REALIZE IT MAKES THEM HARDER TO READ AND THUS MORE LIKELY TO BE IGNORED?

LEN

[Michael Hogan]

The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.

Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.

.....THANKS FOR YOUR POST..AND BRINGING THE SUBJECT UP FOR DISCUSSION..TAKE CARE....;B

Glad you could see the sarcasm in my post, Bernice. The key word was "thrived."

[Jack White]

The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.

Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.

Amazing Hogan repeatedly criticized Evan's moderation of the PC section now that Evan admonished someone he is squabbling with Hogan says what a good job he did there.

BERNICE

WHY DO TYPE YOUR POSTS IN ALLCAPS? DON'T YOU REALIZE IT MAKES THEM HARDER TO READ AND THUS MORE LIKELY TO BE IGNORED?

LEN

I believe she does so because she has a bit of arthritis in her hands and all-caps makes it easier for her to post. I believe we'll need to see some evidence, preferably with citations, for your contention that all-caps "makes [posts] harder to read and thus more likely to be ignored."

And btw, they're right about the double standard applied for the member who is more or less constantly insulting and abusive.

Good day everyone

Most of my life, instead of my HANDWRITING using cursive script, I have always PRINTED

USING ALL CAPS. My handwriting was very difficult to read; my printing was easy to read.

I could print all caps MUCH FASTER, so did better on school tests. ALL CAPS if properly used

is easier to read in the same size font, because capital letters are larger than lower case

letters. Headline writers often use ALL CAPS to get attention, since it is easy to read.

As a lifelong art director, I was considered an expert in the proper usage of type. I always

used whatever was most suited to the job.

I do not understand the internet myth that ALL CAPS is harder to read or the equivalent of

shouting. These opinions are held by the uninformed.

Jack

[Dean Hagerman]

The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.

Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.

Amazing Hogan repeatedly criticized Evan's moderation of the PC section now that Evan admonished someone he is squabbling with Hogan says what a good job he did there.

BERNICE

WHY DO TYPE YOUR POSTS IN ALLCAPS? DON'T YOU REALIZE IT MAKES THEM HARDER TO READ AND THUS MORE LIKELY TO BE IGNORED?

LEN

I believe she does so because she has a bit of arthritis in her hands and all-caps makes it easier for her to post. I believe we'll need to see some evidence, preferably with citations, for your contention that all-caps "makes [posts] harder to read and thus more likely to be ignored."

And btw, they're right about the double standard applied for the member who is more or less constantly insulting and abusive.

Good day everyone

Most of my life, instead of my HANDWRITING using cursive script, I have always PRINTED

USING ALL CAPS. My handwriting was very difficult to read; my printing was easy to read.

I could print all caps MUCH FASTER, so did better on school tests. ALL CAPS if properly used

is easier to read in the same size font, because capital letters are larger than lower case

letters. Headline writers often use ALL CAPS to get attention, since it is easy to read.

As a lifelong art director, I was considered an expert in the proper usage of type. I always

used whatever was most suited to the job.

I do not understand the internet myth that ALL CAPS is harder to read or the equivalent of

shouting. These opinions are held by the uninformed.

Jack

I started writting in all caps around 8th grade

I have chicken scratch handwritting and if I didnt write in all caps it would be impossible for anyone sans my wife to read anything I wrote

[William Kelly]

Apart from page 101 and 110, where two different times are given for conducting the paraffin test, which, as Wood reports, was positive for his hands but negative for his cheek, and page 114, where the House Select Committee is mistakenly referred to as "The Senate Committee", neither of which is non-trivial, all we have here is a list of claims based upon what Hogan thinks is the case without any demonstration, citation, or evidence that he is right and Wood is wrong. Page 47 offers a nice illustration, where Roger Craig's testiimony has been substantiated by film that shows Oswald walking across the street to the Rambler. So how can Hogan and you, for that matter, be so cocksure that Wood is wrong and you are right? The opposite, in my opinion, is overwhelmingly more likely to be the case.

How do you explain this?

On page 44 of MIDP: Deputy Roger Craig, also in the photo, is pictured looking at the man and the station wagon. The Hertz sign, on the top of the Book Depository,

shows the time at 12:40 PM

.

On page 47 of MIDP: This momentary sighting also dovetails with the observation of sheriff's deputy Roger Craig, who also sees a Nash Rambler station wagon, also driven by a dark-complected man, about

fifteen minutes after the shooting

, heading west on Elm.

I've been looking all over the Internet. Could somebody post a photo of Deputy Roger Craig and the man and the station wagon -Nash Rambler? It was taken by Jim Murray, a freelance photographer, I believe.

Kathy C

Kathy,

Do you think we can start another thread for that, as this one is about Dr. Alen J. Salerian, MD, whose recent paper on the assassination is interesting, and who has begun a correspondence with Prof. Fetzer, so he's reading this stuff, and I think we have him hooked and he could even join the forum and the conversation if John Simkin asks him?

I think what you are discussing is important, it just belongs somewhere else, a place that we can retreive it again when we want to. There's probably already a thread devoted to the Rambler and Craig with Pix, but I don't know.

Thanks,

BK

[William Kelly]

This article by Alen J. Salerian MD is relevant to Doug Horne's forthcoming book:

Dr. Salerian in Medical Hypotheses:Volume 71, Issue 4, Pages 475-624 (October 2008)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=P...80feabfa5a26f09

Alan Salerian believes that "President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison," which paralyzed the President and rendered him

"immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull."

http://www.historicalevidence.net/?p=60

He also posits that it was a smiling Lucien Conein in Dealey Plaza, captured in a photograph. A.J. Weberman has offered evidence that it was not Conein.

Also:

"On November 22, the first exhibition of Dr. Alen Salerian's paintings will happen in a private venue in honor and remembrance of President John F. Kennedy and his ideals. His assassination on the date in 1963, has been the backdrop and catalyst to this emotionally sweeping visual homage the painter calls JFK: Symbols on Canvas.

Created in less than a year 'These 80 works took over my life because as I read more about that period in our history, my hand was driven to explain the inexplicable loss all people felt when that great statesman and his hopes were extinguished.' Public exhibitions are being planned, but for a glimpse of the collection browse our gallery below:"

http://www.historicalevidence.net/?p=33

Thanks for the heads up on that Michael,

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...a719003efec6724

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The evidence

Alen J. Salerian

Washington Center for Psychiatry, 5225 Wisconsin Avenue # 104, Washington, District of columbia 20015, USA

Received 29 May 2008;

accepted 1 June 2008.

Available online 20 August 2008.

Summary

This paper proves that President Kennedy's postmortem examination is a sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine and Newton's second law "an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force". We review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.

http://www.historicalevidence.net/oswalds-...e-death-of-jfk/

San Diego, CA, March 21, 2009 – Noted Washington psychiatrist Dr. Alen J. Salerian presented a lecture titled "The Double Murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald Are Not Good for America: The Evidence" at the 27th Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry in San Diego.

Dr. Salerian's presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy's medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton's Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.

2. President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby's testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate's Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.

3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.

4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact: Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762,

BK: Has anybody actually read this paper?

HAS ANYBODY READ THIS PAPER?

[Michael Hogan]

The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.

Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.

Amazing Hogan repeatedly criticized Evan's moderation of the PC section now that Evan admonished someone he is squabbling with Hogan says what a good job he did there.

BERNICE

WHY DO TYPE YOUR POSTS IN ALLCAPS? DON'T YOU REALIZE IT MAKES THEM HARDER TO READ AND THUS MORE LIKELY TO BE IGNORED?

LEN

Colby again demonstrates why he is widely regarded to be one of the more intelligent members of the Education Forum.

His insightful contributions and precise writing skills have been a welcome addition to the JFK Assassination Debate.

[Bernice Moore]

The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.

Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.

Amazing Hogan repeatedly criticized Evan's moderation of the PC section now that Evan admonished someone he is squabbling with Hogan says what a good job he did there.

BERNICE

WHY DO TYPE YOUR POSTS IN ALLCAPS? DON'T YOU REALIZE IT MAKES THEM HARDER TO READ AND THUS MORE LIKELY TO BE IGNORED?

LEN

[/color then ...]len why are you ??? as i have explained on the f now a few times i have osteo in my neck arms hand spine etc..it is therefore much easier for me to try to type with caps lock on...i shall do so this way in future all small letters perhaps this will be more acceptable..and will not bother some people...and i will then also not be asked any further to explain...wanna bet i will in the future be asked why all small letters i would not be surprised.. ...b..

Colby again demonstrates why he is widely regarded to be one of the more intelligent members of the Education Forum.

His insightful contributions and precise writing skills have been a welcome addition to the JFK Assassination Debate.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Len Colby]

Sorry Bernice I did not know about your osteo. IMO typing lowercase in Word (or a similar program) would be the best solution it automatically converts 'i' and 1st letters of sentences and many proper nouns to caps,it underlines the others as well common initials (fbi,cia) and you can correct with a mouse click.

BERNICE

WHY DO TYPE YOUR POSTS IN ALLCAPS? DON'T YOU REALIZE IT MAKES THEM HARDER TO READ AND THUS MORE LIKELY TO BE IGNORED?

LEN

I believe she does so because she has a bit of arthritis in her hands and all-caps makes it easier for her to post. I believe we'll need to see some evidence, preferably with citations, for your contention that all-caps "makes [posts] harder to read and thus more likely to be ignored."

And btw, they're right about the double standard applied for the member who is more or less constantly insulting and abusive.

Good day everyone

Most of my life, instead of my HANDWRITING using cursive script, I have always PRINTED

USING ALL CAPS. My handwriting was very difficult to read; my printing was easy to read.

I could print all caps MUCH FASTER, so did better on school tests. ALL CAPS if properly used

is easier to read in the same size font, because capital letters are larger than lower case

letters. Headline writers often use ALL CAPS to get attention, since it is easy to read.

As a lifelong art director, I was considered an expert in the proper usage of type. I always

used whatever was most suited to the job.

I do not understand the internet myth that ALL CAPS is harder to read or the equivalent of

shouting. These opinions are held by the uninformed.

Jack

So Jack, why don’t you write your posts in all caps? Did you ever putout any ads with more than a handful of words in all caps. Why do you think newspapers, magazines and books use all caps in Headlines and titles but not regular text?

I Googled capital letters readability and found 12 applicable hits 11 stated ALL CAPS reduces readability.

1) Schriver, Karen in Dynamics in Document Design, page 274:

"When text is set in all capital letters, reading speed is slowed about 13 to 20 percent. Reading speed is optimal when uppercase and lowercase letters are used. When extra emphasis is needed, bold has been found to be a better cue than uppercase."

http://www.stcsig.org/usability/topics/readability.html

3) White space is the empty areas of a page. It adds contrast and provides a place for you eyes to rest. White space is not wasted space. For this same reason, stay away from all capital letters. Capital letters are usually the same height and width. This creates a block effect reducing the white (negative) space around letters. Instead, use a combination of lower and upper case letters because it increases the amount of white space around the letters.

http://infomotions.com/musings/waves/readability.html

4) Rather than reading individual letters, according to some studies, we read words and groups of words, and recognition depends a great deal on what we have become used to. An example of this is our ability to read words that are set in upper and lower case, even if the bottom half of a word is missing. We recognize the shape of the word, not the individual letters. This is why it is not a good idea to set text type in capital letters: words appear to us as horizontally-oriented rectangles, and we are forced to stop the flow of our reading to decipher words in all caps. Text made up of typefaces with very large x-heights tends to exhibit some of the same problems as words that lack the visual outlines we are used to seeing.

[image]http://www.bastoky.com/images/Readability.gif[/image]

http://www.bastoky.com/Readability.htm

5) Lengthy passages written in all capitals can very difficult to read. EVEN A SIMPLE EXPLANATION OF WHY USING ALL CAPITAL LETTERS IS NOT ADVISABLE CAN QUICKLY TURN INTO A BLUR OF LETTERS OVER TIME. Ahem. Capitals do have their place in electronic communications, especially as headers and titles, but most readers prefer to see electronic text as a form of typewritten material, with familiar upper and lower case fonts. The use of all capitals can negatively affect a reader's reading speed or an editor's proofreading ability.

http://www.wisegeek.com/why-should-i-avoid...nline-forms.htm

6) The problem with ALL CAPITAL LETTERS

The capital letters of a given font are usually the same height and width as one another. Setting your text in all capital letters creates a block effect that makes the words more difficult to read. This is particularly true when the text is bold. The result is a block that is uninviting and difficult to process. This block effect makes it more difficult for the reader to differentiate between words and characters. Upper and lower case typography reduces this block effect and makes the reading and processing of information easier.

According to Karen Schriver in her book Dynamics in Document Design, "When text is set in all capital letters, reading speed is slowed about 13 to 20 percent. Reading speed is optimal when uppercase and lower case letters are used."

http://www.adobe.com/devnet/livecycle/arti..._design_02.html

7) Typing sentences or phrases IN ALL CAPITALS is rarely a good idea. It may make sense under some circumstances, but only rarely. Lengthy segments of capitalized content are more difficult to read (see the Web Style Guide - external link by Patrick Lynch and Sarah Horton).

http://www.webaim.org/techniques/fonts/

8) READABILITY

Readability refers to the ease with which a reader can scan over paragraphs of type. In other words, how easy it is to read! While legibility is basically dependent on the typeface design, readability is dependent on the manipulation or handling of the type. A highly legible typeface can be made unreadable by poor typographic design. Factors which affect readability include: line lengths, point size, leading, typeface selection, spacing, type alignment, and background.

RULE ONE - AVOID CAPITALS

Ninety-five percent of what we read is in lowercase letters. Not only are we much more used to reading them, but they also assist us because they create a recognizable shape (coastline). Words in capital letters have no distinctive shape (or coastline).

[image]http://www.cmullis.com/cg/docs/typog_stuff/coastline.jpg[/image]

http://www.cmullis.com/cg/typography.html

9) Don't use all capital letters: Using all capital letters decreases readability. While sometimes used for design purposes, it tends to lead to higher levels of eyestrain and eye fatigue because there is too little differentiation between the letters, and the eye does not get a visual breather. At best, only use capital letters for key words or titles. Capitalize the first letter of each word in a heading instead of all of it, although bold type is recommended as a more effective alternative [6].

http://otal.umd.edu/UUPractice/elderly/

10) Lowercase letters are much more legible than uppercase letters. There is no difference in legibility between headlines set in all lowercase and those set in Uppercase/Lowercase.

Display lines set in all capital letters are difficult to read. Body copy set in all caps is totally illegible.

Words set in all caps are read letter by letter. Reading is approximately 15% slower in words set in all caps.

http://planetoftheweb.com/components/promos.php?id=182

11) Do not use capital letters. THEY ARE HARD TO READ AND SLOW THE READING PROCESS EVEN FURTHER.

http://www.flinders.edu.au/online-communic...y-usability.cfm

12) Words that are all capitals are most difficult to read because they have the exact same height, width (mostly), and volume.

http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/03/18...web-typography/

Only one disagreed but even it states that ALL CAPS slows down reading

2) Sentences entirely in capital letters are another piece of sometime wisdom. They’re supposed to be hard to read. That may be right sometimes, but not always. Have you ever seen a comic book? Hard to read? Surely not. (Comics are traditionally done with upper case in the speech bubbles.)

[…]

The idea that passages in all upper case are harder to read than those predominantly in lower probably stems from the observation that passages in all upper can be slower to read than those in all upper. Slower is not the same as harder, as slower is only an issue where speed of reading is of significance, and will be of no or minimal significance in very short passages such as you find in a comic strip.

Note that even the sole dissenting author besides admitting that all caps are slower to read says they might also be harder to read “sometimes, but not always” and are less significance “in very short passages such as you find in a comic strip.”

Edited December 19, 2009 by Len Colby

[Dean Hagerman]

Colby again demonstrates why he is widely regarded to be one of the more intelligent members of the Education Forum.

His insightful contributions and precise writing skills have been a welcome addition to the JFK Assassination Debate.

[William Kelly]

Robin Ramsey, in the new, on-line edition of Lobster, mentions that he chose a new typeface because the print version was not good for reading on-line.

I don't know about reading CAPS, to me it's like TELEGRAPHING A MESSAGE, a now obsolete form of communication that was once vital.

Like green is more pleasing to the eye than black, and now we have green boards instead of blackboards, I'd like to know what typescript is easier to read on line?

That said,

Do you think we can bring this thread back around to Dr. Alen J. Salerian, MD?

I think there may be more to this guy than meets the eye.

Thanks,

BK

[William Kelly]

Thanks Dean, Hogan's sense of humor is so dry I almost missed that.

Robin Ramsey, in the new, on-line edition of Lobster, mentions that he chose a new typeface because the print version was not good for reading on-line.

I don't know about reading CAPS, to me it's like TELEGRAPHING A MESSAGE, a now obsolete form of communication that was once vital.

Like green is more pleasing to the eye than black, and now we have green boards instead of blackboards, I'd like to know what typescript is easier to read on line?

That said,

Do you think we can bring this thread back around to Dr. Alen J. Salerian, MD?

I think there may be more to this guy than meets the eye.

Thanks,

BK

[Bernice Moore]

Thanks Dean, Hogan's sense of humor is so dry I almost missed that.

Robin Ramsey, in the new, on-line edition of Lobster, mentions that he chose a new typeface because the print version was not good for reading on-line.

I don't know about reading CAPS, to me it's like TELEGRAPHING A MESSAGE, a now obsolete form of communication that was once vital.

Like green is more pleasing to the eye than black, and now we have green boards instead of blackboards, I'd like to know what typescript is easier to read on line?

That said,

Do you think we can bring this thread back around to Dr. Alen J. Salerian, MD?

I think there may be more to this guy than meets the eye.

Thanks,

BK

good lord please do..you have the floor...b

[William Kelly]

International Center For Evidence Based History History, Researched and Defined

http://www.historicalevidence.net/category/jfk-assassination/

San Diego, CA, March 21, 2009 – Noted Washington psychiatrist Dr. Alen J. Salerian presented a lecture titled "The Double Murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald Are Not Good for America: The Evidence" at the 27th Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry in San Diego.

Dr. Salerian's presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy's medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton's Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.
   
2. President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby's testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate's Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.
   
3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.
   
4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.
   

The relatively brief journey of the Kennedy presidency can be better understood by a careful analysis of Bundy's footprints. Of course the path may lead to Allen Dulles, the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

In the spirit of evidence based history, we should all thank Dulles, who left copious handwritten notes titled "Confessions" made public by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke (1). The Dulles strategy was plain to dictate foreign policy independent of the White House. A U.S. president could distinguish himself only by letting the American public think he was in support of Dulles. Before Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower did yield to Dulles, although he bitterly protested with his farewell speech, "The dangers to American democracy by the military industrial complex.(2) A few year later, and soon after Kennedy's death, Harry Truman would voice similar concerns about secret allegiances threatening our democracy (3).

One gift of immense importance is rumored to be Dulles' ability to dictate strategic decisions unacceptable to the executive powers he was attempting to influence through indirect means; thereby, his target, boss, foe, enemy or friend would end up doing precisely what Dulles had wished him to do through complicit, often well-coordinated, chess-like moves forcing his adversary to eventually practice the Dulles foreign policy. Or Dulles' adversary would be neutralized or destroyed.

A good example of Dulles' destructive power was evident in the Bay of Pigs disaster.

James W. Douglass, the author of "JFK and the Unspeakable," writes: "Four decades after the Bay of Pigs, we have learned that the CIA scenario to trap Kennedy was more concrete than Dulles admitted in his handwritten notes. A conference on the Bay of Pigs was held March 23-25, 2001, which included ex-CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars and journalists. News analyst Daniel Schorr reported on National Public Radio that, "from the many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents" he had gained one new perception of the Bay of Pigs:

"It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell, had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict. It appears that they never really expected an uprising against Castro when the liberators landed as described in their memos to the White House. What they did expect was that the invaders would establish and secure a beachhead, announce the creation of a counter-revolutionary government and appeal for aid from the United States and the Organization of American States. The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead. In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed."

Even if President Kennedy had said "no" at the eleventh hour, the whole Bay of Pigs idea, the CIA, as it turned out, had a plan to supersede his decision.

Another well-documented aspect of the Bay of Pigs was, of course, General Maxwell Taylor's conclusion of the military operation. General Taylor, who chaired the Cuban Study Group to investigate the invasion, concluded: McGeorge Bundy's order to reverse President Kennedy's air strike was the single most important cause of the operation's failure. We know, by now, that Bundy then offered his resignation and the President declined, instead firing Allen Dulles as the director of the CIA.

Dulles' influence in international politics did not end after the Bay of Pigs. In retrospect, it is understandable that Dulles' membership on the Warren Commission was not by chance. It is equally unlikely that two Dulles pupils (the Bundy brothers) took the top jobs as National Security Advisor to the President and Undersecretary of Defense at the Kennedy White House. Both had established public service for the CIA. The incestuous connection among secret powers at times seems transparent. A good example is the McCarthy-Dulles communication regarding the Senator's demands for Dulles to fire William Bundy. The Senator claimed Bundy was a communist sympathizer. Dulles did not yield and Bundy kept his job.

The bloody events of the summer and fall of 1963 dating back to the infamous August 24 cable, to the Diem assassination and the coup d'état in South Vietnam witnessed the complicit sabotage of Kennedy's Southeast Asia policy by McGeorge Bundy and his two top aides, Michael Forrestal and Roger Hilsman. In the absence of Bundy, Forrestal and Hilsman had sent an unauthorized cable to instruct Ambassador Lodge to go ahead with a coup d'état in Vietnam. Other mishaps and conduct consistent with treason, such as a handwritten note by Hilsman suggesting open defiance of presidential orders, are all part of the bigger picture of a Bundy-led slow dismantling of the Kennedy White House. Some of these details have already been published in other articles and are beyond the scope of this article. However, in retrospect, all the secret and complicit battles lead to a major question. Did President Kennedy know of the Bundy brothers' allegiance to Dulles? Did he know of their loyalty to Dulles as he was trying dismantle the CIA after the Bay of Pigs? The brothers, of course, were to become the architects of the Vietnam War with a stronger and more formidable CIA.

Regardless of the answers, a common sense approach for democracy seems logical. Anyone working for the President and the White House or the U.S. government must disclose all his secret or not-to-secret affiliations, allegiances and obligations. Full disclosure of all past and present ties, including memberships of secret societies. History says the Bundy brothers and Dulles were all members of Yale's Skull and Bones.

A new paradigm for individual and institutional integrity must include total and unconditional disclosure of all allegiances and affiliations. No excuses, no exceptions.

Practical measures – washing hands, boiling water – may prevent catastrophic infections and save lives. Similar methods may enable us to enjoy democratic leadership in the White House without ordinary minds practicing simple crimes to silence democracy. The Bundy brothers help us understand how easy it is to harm and mislead billions for decades with infinite malignancy and yet appear so civil and sterile at the same time. For this, we must also thank them for their contributions to progress on Earth.

References

1. Douglass, J., JFK and the Unspeakable. Orbis, 2008.

2. Eisenhower, D., Farewell Address. January 17, 1961.

3. Filler, L., Editor, The President Speaks: From William McKinley to Lyndon B. Johnson. New York, Capricorn Press, 1965. Pp. 363-368.

4. Truman, H., A Threat to Democracy. Washington Post, December 22, 1963.

In this audio clip of an interview with Voice of America Alen J. Salerian, MD discusses the inspiration for his artwork – the dynamic life and tragic complex death of President John F. Kennedy. Dr. Salerian describes himself as a storyteller, not a painter. This collection of paintings formulate a story about the triumphs and tribulations surrounding President Kennedy, each a chapter in a captivating historically based novel. Together the paintings attempt to encapsulate the multifaceted impact Kennedy's life and death have had on citizens of the United States and internationally.

Audio of Dr. Salerian interviewed on Voice of America

Lee Harvey Oswald did not Kill President Kennedy: The Evidence

By Alen J. Salerian, M.D.

Published: February 17, 2009

http://www.historicalevidence.net/lee-harvey-oswald-did-not-kill-president-kennedy-the-evidence-2/

by Alen J. Salerian, M.D.

Consistent with the Warren Report, at present, the U.S. government's official belief is that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin who killed President John F. Kennedy on Elm Street at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963. Although many hypotheses have questioned the scientific validity of the Warren Report and hence Oswald's guilt, there has never been any peer-reviewed evidence of Oswald's innocence. This paper offers evidence to demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and from the moment he was arrested to his death, he was framed up as the fall guy.

We studied the evidence of Oswald's potential participation in the assassination from three separate angles. (A) Review of Oswald's previous work consistent with his services for the U.S. government. ( Review of the evidence by the Dallas city police and FBI declaring Oswald as a suspect in the assassination. © Review of forensic evidence to prove Oswald's innocence.

Review of Evidence of Oswald's Work for the U.S. Government

Several documents clearly demonstrate that Lee Harvey Oswald had worked for the U.S. government.

1. The evidence shows that Lee Harvey Oswald contracted gonorrhea in the line of duty in 1958.

2. Oswald also worked for the CIA and carried an identification card DD Form 1173, which was the same type of ID carried by U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was a civilian employee and a CIA contract agent (Dalla Municipal Archives and Records Center).

3. Shortly before his arrest in the assassination of President Kennedy, Oswald had contact with the FBI as an informer.

The Evidence That Oswald was Framed

1. Oswald was framed at the killer precisely 70 minutes after the assassination when there was no reason to make him a suspect for the assassination.

2. The Dallas police misled the public by declaring that Oswald was the primary suspect, for he was supposedly the only missing employee at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, where the evidence shows that there were at least four people missing.

The Evidence That Oswald Did Not Kill Officer Tippit

1. The ballistic evidence did not match Oswald's gun. The ballistic expert from the FBI concluded that it was not possible to determine whether or not the bullets had been fired from Oswald's weapon. No external physical evidence such as fingerprints or shirt fibers linking Oswald to the crime scene was established.

2. The ballistic evidence proved that Oswald was not the killer of Officer Tippit. Of the four bullets extracted from Tippit's body, there were three Western Winchesters and one Remington Peters. Oswald's revolver (a .38) contained six rounds of live ammunition at the time of his arrest. The four empty shells found at that time at the murder site were two Remingtons and two Winchesters and Oswald's revolver did not eject empty cases. Rather, Oswald's revolver had an automatic ejection system, whereby all six shells should have been ejected at once.

Ballistic Evidence Proving Oswald's Innocence

1. The trajectory of the bullets suggests that the bullet that struck JFK was shot from the front, consistent with a frontal entry and exit from the back according to the autopsy findings. Fragments of JFK's skull and blood splattered the motorcycle policeman who was behind the presidential limousine on the left side, again consistent with a shot with a frontal entry.

2. Paraffin tests conducted on Lee Harvey Oswald were negative on his face, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. The FBI submitted the paraffin tests to the Atomic Energy Commission's facilities in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, where Dr. Frank Dyer and Dr. Juel Emery tested them using neutron activation analysis. They concluded that the cheek testing could not be specifically associated with a rifle, therefore exonerating Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: the evidence

http://www.historicalevidence.net/the-postmortem-examination-of-president-kennedy-is-invalid-the-evidence/

Abstract: This paper proves that President Kennedy's postmortem examination is a sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine and Newton's second law "an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force". We review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.

Salerian AJ. Medical Hypotheses 2008 Oct;71(4):597-9. Epub 2008 Aug 20. The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: the evidence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18718721

Edited December 20, 2009 by William Kelly

[Dean Hagerman]

Thanks Dean, Hogan's sense of humor is so dry I almost missed that.

Michael and I may have had a little scuffle but his sarcasm and dry humor is amazing