Jump to content

Alen J Salerian, MD


Michael Hogan
 Share

Recommended Posts

There's also a Youtube of Salerian that I will post when I get the chance. - BK

International Center for Evidence Based 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did that flechette make it through the windshield?

No.

Who fired it,

Black Dog Man @ circa Z190.

See: Presence of a Possible Gunman on the Grassy Knoll

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

(emphasis mine)

(quote on)

The photographic evidence panel also noticed that in the first Willis photo, which shows

the person standing behind the concrete wall, there is visible, near the region of the hands

of the person at the wall, "a very distinct straight-line feature," which extends from lower

right to upper right...

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

(quote off)

People who innocently go to watch the President drive by do not "disappear the

next instant," much less carry around objects with "a very distinct straight-line feature."

from what distance and velocity?

Less than 100 meters, and the fact that the projectile hit soft tissue without

exiting indicates a velocity on the lower side, doesn't it?

If you put a bullet in my shoulder and another in my throat,

No bullets were found.

I'd be pretty immobilized and speechless, too.

Please review Gil Jesus' breakthrough analysis -- "Was JFK Trying to

Cough Up a Bullet?"

I find this analysis corroborated by the testimonies of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and

Rosemary Willis' sister Linda -- all of whom describe JFK as pre-occupied with his throat.

Jackie said he had a "quizzical" look.

Are you going to have a "quizzical" look on your face if a FMJ hits your throat?

No, I don't think so, either.

JFK was clearly reacting to throat trauma and became paralyzed within 2 seconds.

If one nicked my spine, I might not even be able to pull my wife down to safety.

There was a hairline fracture of the T1 right transverse process -- hardly an

immobilizing injury.

The bullets were not integral to the killing. JFK was for all intents and purposes

a dead man by Z255. They hit him in the throat with a blood soluble paralytic.

They had to account for the contingency that a winged JFK might duck down out

of the line of fire.

Even if the shot from the front misses the back shot from the Dal-Tex would do:

they hit him in the back with a blood soluble toxin.

Hey, this isn't my theory. It was the general consensus of the autopsists

the night of the autopsy.

From the signed 1978 affidavit of autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet.

A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was

discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a

"plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the

same kind of bullet.

From the signed 1978 affidavit of autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert:

I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection with the back

wound and becoming frustrated during their search. They probed the wound

with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a metal probe. They concluded that

the wound went in only so far and they couldn't find the bullet. It was my

impression that both Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of

the bullet through the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of

the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to

a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following discussion among the

doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI

Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]Killion. I asked if he could furnish

any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely

fragmentize...

"Ice bullet" = "completely fragmentize" = blood soluble

The head shots were integral to the cover-up, not the killing.

Why bother with a flechette to the throat, which might have struck his face or

clothing, and been witnessed by people?

The plotters took no chances. They paralyzed the target before moving

in for the kill. Scorpion logic.

Why not put it in the back or neck from above?

They did! The back wound was probed and found shallow, consistent with a blood

soluble round. The neck x-ray shows a bruised lung tip, the aforementioned hairline

fracture of the right T1 transverse process...and an airpocket overlaying C7 and T1.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket and no bullet? A blood soluble round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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."

Deniers of the Conspiracy often say “name someone behind it"

I am naming Allen Dulles as one who was as close to it, and near to the top as anyone involved. I bet he laughed when Kennedy fired him.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where was the flechette at Parkland?

As much as I feel that the person that I believe is TUM is perhaps the only man (outside of Gordon Liddy) willing and able to fire an umbrella flechette gun at a moving president in a public street at broad noon, I don't believe that this happened at all, and I think that the flechette story is a dodge and an obfuscation.

I absolutely half-agree!

Yes, poor Louis Witt. Too bad the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical Research

Community has such a bloodlust for turning witnesses into perps.

Of course, Louis Witt was a poor witness because he was too busy fiddling with his

"Chamberlain" umbrella to observe Kennedy getting hit. Compare his statement

to the HSCA with Rosemary Willis' HSCA statement.

Louis Witt: I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street),

somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up

and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward,

walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements;

I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length

of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

From the HSCA report "Presence of Possible Gunman on the Grassy Knoll":

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

(emphasis mine)

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Rosemary Willis corroborates Louis Witt. UM is a major rabbit hole, folks. DCM

sat down next to him because DCM wasn't sure if Witt was a civilian or a

redundant signalman and was probably startled by UM more than anything.

Many people have accused Witt of lying because photos show him standing with the

umbrella open as the limo passed. But note that he speaks of "that length of time"

his view was blocked, which was during the sequence where JFK was shot.

Just because Witt got his umbrella open in time to see Kennedy doesn't mean

he actually noticed JFK get hit.

I hate it say it, gentle reader, but the John F. Kennedy Assassination Critical

Research Community fell for the Helms/Colby grift, otherwise known as the

"limited modified hangout."

To witt:

Yes, the CIA had weaponry that fired darts. This was not a revelation, since

it had been described in a mass market book in 1965:

CIA SPECIAL WEAPONS AND EQUIPMENT by H. Keith Melton (forward by

Richard Helms), pg 22:

DART GUN

The dart gun is a single-shot pistol firing a .03-caliber, mass stabilized

projectile...made of iron particles and the tranquilizer M-99 formed together

with a blood/water soluble bonding agent... If left in the body, the dart

dissolves and becomes unidentifiable on X-ray.

An adjustable shoulder stock is available as an accessory (must be obtained

separately) for operations requiring ranges up to 100 feet.

A .03-caliber dart -- what the "umbrella dart system" would handle -- did not

create JFK's 5mm throat wound.

The CIA had more powerful weaponry that fired rounds "about the size of a .22",

had ranges up to 100 meters, and had a variety of delivery systems, according

to William Colby and weapons-developer Charles Senseney in their 1975

Church Com. testimonies.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

Rosemary Willis identified two "conspicuous" persons in Dealey Plaza. The

innocent one gets the lion's share of attention!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

The HSCA identified a "very distinct straight-line feature" in the region

of Black Dog Man's hands.

Rosemary Willis described BDM as having "disappeared the next instant."

I think it responsible speculation to say that Black Dog Man was a likely shooter!

Why is poor Louis Witt so often accused of treason and murder?

Senseney let this slip:

Senseney: Yes, an M-1 projectile could be fired from a cane; also

an umbrella.

Sen. Baker: Also an umbrella...

Umbrella darts don't leave 5mm entrance wounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you put a bullet in my shoulder and another in my throat,

No bullets were found.

I'd be pretty immobilized and speechless, too.

Please review Gil Jesus' breakthrough analysis -- "Was JFK Trying to

Cough Up a Bullet?"

I find this analysis corroborated by the testimonies of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and

Rosemary Willis' sister Linda -- all of whom describe JFK as pre-occupied with his throat.

Jackie said he had a "quizzical" look.

Are you going to have a "quizzical" look on your face if a FMJ hits your throat?

No, I don't think so, either.

JFK was clearly reacting to throat trauma and became paralyzed within 2 seconds.

If one nicked my spine, I might not even be able to pull my wife down to safety.

There was a hairline fracture of the T1 right transverse process -- hardly an

immobilizing injury.

The head shots were integral to the cover-up, not the killing.

Why bother with a flechette to the throat, which might have struck his face or

clothing, and been witnessed by people?

The plotters took no chances. They paralyzed the target before moving

in for the kill. Scorpion logic.

Why not put it in the back or neck from above?

They did! The back wound was probed and found shallow, consistent with a blood

soluble round. The neck x-ray shows a bruised lung tip, the aforementioned hairline

fracture of the right T1 transverse process...and an airpocket overlaying C7 and T1.

What kind of round leaves an air pocket and no bullet? A blood soluble round.

I'm going to just dash off this bit tonight, then perhaps revisit later:

I concede certain rhetorical flaws - yes, no bullets were found for the back and throat wounds, etc.

But --

If you're going for one possible scenario (among several possible) of pinning this on Castro or Moscow, with either a lone commie dupe or a conspiracy team shooting, why go through such complexity to paralyze the man, when all you need to do is put some surgically-alterable fatal wounds in him?

Was it bureaucratic, to keep technical division types at Langley happy? Really - who ordered this? Guys who hated Kennedy for not letting them poison Castro's cigars?

I don't believe it was technically possible or feasible to put a flechette neatly and invisibly in the throat. Anybody who does has to account for technology, position and street slope, necktie nicks and collar holes (those, that is, not ascribed to Ashton Gray's poison syrette thread). Oh, and the possibility of both misses and hits to the clothing or face noticed by witnesses. They did need invisibility here, right? Or else, Greer may just as well have done it.

And, if no throat bullet at Parkland, why no throat flechette in its place? Was the throat bullet too deep to be found at Parkland, then removed after Dallas, at or before Bethesda?

The empty back wound location would have been a far better option for an invisible poison-pill shot, as Cliff suggests - assuming that the muscle would have transmitted the toxin fast enough. Could they count on any body location transmitting enough dosage in the very few seconds necessary?

This may be one place where Prouty's experiential knowledge overreached, and spawned HSCA disinfo, repeated down to our day.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to just dash off this bit tonight, then perhaps revisit later:

I concede certain rhetorical flaws - yes, no bullets were found for the back and throat wounds, etc.

But --

If you're going for one possible scenario (among several possible) of pinning this on Castro or Moscow, with either a lone commie dupe or a conspiracy team shooting, why go through such complexity to paralyze the man, when all you need to do is put some surgically-alterable fatal wounds in him?

Easier said than done.

First-shot/kill-shot was a gamble the plotters were not willing to make. None of the

shooters had ever fired on a US President before, and potentially nervous. How

could the plotters ignore the possibility that the first shot(s) merely wound Kennedy

and thus allow him to duck down out of the line of fire?

The plotters took nothing to chance.

And JFK was paralyzed within two-three seconds.

There was an air pocket on the x-ray -- and no bullet, no exit. The back wound

was shallow with no bullet, no exit.

The prosectors did conclude that blood soluble rounds might well have struck

Kennedy.

The extant evidence indicates they were right.

I don't believe it was technically possible or feasible to put a flechette neatly and invisibly in the throat.

This is not a belief based in historical fact. William Colby admitted that this

weapon was tested on humans.

Anybody who does had better start accounting for technology, position and street slope, necktie nicks and collar holes

What is there to "account for"? The technology existed; the weapon was fired by Black Dog Man

as the limousine approached circa Z190; it missed the necktie and the shirt collar.

The blood soluble round in the back left holes in the shirt and jacket.

So?

(those, that is, not ascribed to Ashton Gray's poison syrette thread). Oh, and the possibility of both misses and hits to the clothing or face noticed by witnesses. They did need invisibility here, right? Or else, Greer may just as well have done it.

Why would a strike by a blood soluble round be more noticeable than a

conventional round?

And, if no throat bullet at Parkland, why no throat flechette?

It was blood soluble. That was the point.

This may have been one place where Prouty overreached, and spawned HSCA disinfo, repeated down to our day.

This doesn't come from Prouty -- it comes from the men who actually handled the body

and came up with an initial conclusion that JFK may have been hit with blood soluble rounds.

Why do people automatically assume they were wrong?

The empty back wound location would have been a far better option for an invisible poison-pill shot, as Cliff suggests - assuming that the muscle would have transmitted the toxin fast enough.

Yes. It was a far better option. And that's exactly what they did. The back

wound was probed and found to be shallow, no bullet. I'd speculate he was

hit with a toxin.

Could they count on any body location transmitting enough dosage in the very few seconds necessary?

What, you think the CIA didn't test it?

Yes, they did. Another historical fact.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Armenian Genocide, Kennedy assassination intersect in art

Psychiatrist Alen Salerian on why he paints

by Yelena Osipova

Friday January 15, 2010

Washington - One might think John F. Kennedy's assassination and the controversy surrounding it are things of the past: dark memories conveniently left in the 20th century.

But this is not the case for Dr. Alen Salerian, who has made it his mission to uncover the untold story behind the president's assassination through art and research.

"Every single [man-made] disaster – every genocide, every holocaust, every war – is preventable, if there is governmental and individual integrity," Dr. Salerian says.

The Washington-based psychiatrist was a 16-year-old boy in Istanbul at the time of the assassination in 1963, and although he did not speak English or understand what was going on, he remembers having cried that day.

"Looking back, I would say, ‘Why would I cry for an American president?' Because he gave me hope. Hope as a minority; as an underdog."

Forty-five years later, on that same date – November 22 – Dr. Salerian opened a third exhibition of his paintings, all inspired by and dedicated to JFK's memory, at the Women's National Democratic Club in Washington.

The predominantly expressionist works are an explosion of colors and imagination, ranging from some based on photographs of Abraham Zapruder, to others dealing with duplicity and the controversy involved, Obama, and even, Mount Ararat.

Full article: http://www.reporter.am/index.cfm?objectid=...F640003FF3352C2

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...