Jump to content
The Education Forum

The forward head movement - an illusion?


Recommended Posts

btw, David... the link in your post... the man on the far left in the trenchcoat...

E Howard Hunt.... y'know... from Plausible Denial.

LOL. I thought Howie was one of the tramps. But now he's standing in the middle of the street in the Cancellare photo wearing a trenchcoat.

LOL.

He who laughs last laughs longest.

Howard Hunt's son identifies him in the tramp photos,

which should give you THE CHILLS!

A SON CAN ALWAYS IDENTIFY HIS NATURAL FATHER!

p.s. None of St. John Hunt's siblings have challenged St. John's identification of HH in the tramp photos,

as far as I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You know, Ray Carroll is the only guy on this board who can make DVP look good.

The cognoscenti here already know that I have REPEATEDLY made DVP look like a fool,

just as I am now doing with Mr. Di Eugenio, who has NO CLUE about the acoustics.

Howard Hunt's son identifies him in the tramp photos,

which should give you THE CHILLS!

A SON CAN ALWAYS IDENTIFY HIS NATURAL FATHER!

p.s. None of St. John Hunt's siblings have challenged St. John's identification of HH in the tramp photos,

as far as I know.

P.S. Isn't it interesting that Di Eugenio & Von Pein, as Oswald ACCUSERS, ULTIMATELY end up on the SAME SIDE?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To David Lifton,

Yes, I know you still believe in the impossible -- i.e., the "impossible" notion that (in a very brief period of time) President Kennedy's wounds were altered and/or rearranged in order to eliminate all evidence of supposed frontal gunshots (all without a single witness ever coming forward--in 47 years--to say that he or she witnessed any such covert surgery on the President of the United States).

And, yes, I know you still believe in the Impossible #2 -- i.e., the incredibly silly notion that ALL of the shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 came from the FRONT of the President's vehicle.

I just happen to vigorously disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, Mr. Lifton. And I strongly disagree with your theories, DESPITE the opinions and observations of the several Parkland and Bethesda witnesses you interviewed on film in 1980.

You will say I'm ignoring those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, such as Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, Aubrey Rike, et al.

But, the truth is, I'd rather disagree with people like Paul "No Brains In The Head" O'Connor if the alternative option is to place a single ounce of faith in the outlandish theory that you, Mr. Lifton, have been peddling since 1966.

Can I ask you a straightforward question, Mr. Lifton?

Do you REALLY and TRULY believe that such "body alteration" on the President's head COULD have been accomplished in such a short period of time on the evening of 11/22/63? Could such perfect head-altering surgery have been performed so that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons at the Bethesda autopsy were totally fooled by the covert surgery?

Do you really and truly, deep down, today, believe such amazing behind-the-scenes patchwork surgery on JFK's head/body could have resulted in the autopsy report we now find on Pages 538-546 of the Warren Commission Report?

I'm virtually certain what your answer will be to my last question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway (for the record).

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com'>http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

-------------------------

DR. HUMES' COMPLETE 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH DAN RATHER:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

David Von Pein, I don't know you, but I went to your web site http://Best-Evidence.blogspot. and read what you had to say on Best Evidence. Having read the BE 4 or 5 times myself, I find it hard to know where to start in your mischaracterization of Lifton's argument. You state the autopsy doctors were fooled by covert surgery to Kennedy's head. False-- why would Humes complain of surgery to the top of the skull? You state Paul O'Connor alone is witness to the back of the head blown out. Read the FBI interviews by Law in his book ITEOH, and that of others, as well as Brad Parker's, First on the Scene, about the Dallas testimony. OConnor is not alone as a witness to the shipping casket. First mention of it comes from Dennis David, who is still alive, who saw it unloaded from a Black Hearse in view of Boswell and Humes. James Curtis Jenkins also is a witness to the shipping casket. Floyd Riebe is also a witness to the shipping casket, and body bag. In your web site you infer that the alteration was perfect. No such conclusion is found in Best Evidence. In fact, the entire basis for the creation of Lens 3 is the imperfection of the forgery. Custer and Reed, along with Jenkins, thought Kennedy had been shot from the front. Jenkins was emphatic about this. So the body at Bethesda still gave the impression to these men that Kennedy was shot from the front. That's not a very good forgery. All evidence for a frontal entry was not removed.

As for the integrity of the extant autopsy report, if you have read BE, you know the FBI's Friday night persepctive differs significantly from the eventual autopsy conclusions; in fact reading Horne we see several versions of the autopsy, all supporting different conclusions about the shots. For example, as for the bullet entrance wound near the external occipital protuberance, Dr. Ebersole didn't see it; O'Connor didn't see it; Admiral Osborne didn't see it; Jenkins, Custer and Reed didn't see it. No extant photograph shows it.

Again, you say no one has come forward claiming to have seen chicanery with the body. This is to be expected of clandestine operations.If the entrance wound, or any other wounding of the head, is the result covert surgery, do you suppose the perps would come forward and brag about it? Again, the only direct "witness" to covert surgery is Humes himself as recorded by the FBI. We now have Horne reporing that Robinson was witness to Humes taking a saw to Kennedy's head -- don't know what to make of this because Horne infers that this is prior to the start of the official autopsy. More study needs to be done. As an aside, I read an African American orderly at Bethesda saw someone take a hammer to Kennedy's skull -- don't recall where I read this and if there is any credibility to this. Anyone out there know anything of this?

The only argument you present that has any weight is that Kennedy's body was always attended by Powers et al., so it could not have been stolen. Well, if Kennedy's body shows up in a shipping casket 20 minutes before the Dallas casket reaches the Bethesda Morgue, then neither you, nor I, nor Powers, knows how and when the body was obtained, but that obtained surreptiously it most certainly was. We may never know how and when. Or maybe we will. Godfrey McHugh is a good example of a man who claimed always to have been with the Dallas casket. But when interviewed, he hadn't the slightest idea how the handlles on the Dallas casket were damaged. Yet damaged they were. It is very dangerous to lean too heavily on testimony that continual vigilence was exercised with regard to the Dallas casket. One because it is possible there is significant CYA going on; and second, there is always the possibility that the casket was being attended at some point by the perps whose job it was to steal the body.

I think Best Evidence deserves a much more careful reading than your web site suggests you have done. While you are at it, I would recommend Horne's 5 volumes as well. Best, Daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The autopsy report proves there was no "blow out at the rear of the skull".

Even though I do not believe there was such a blowout,

the evidence is still consistent with an explosive bullet

fired from the GRASSY KnOLL

THe autopsy report is SO DISCREDITED,

it PROVES NOTHING!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As an aside, I read an African American orderly at Bethesda saw someone take a hammer to Kennedy's skull -- don't recall where I read this and if there is any credibility to this. Anyone out there know anything of this?"

That's in Horne.

To David Lifton,

Yes, I know you still believe in the impossible -- i.e., the "impossible" notion that (in a very brief period of time) President Kennedy's wounds were altered and/or rearranged in order to eliminate all evidence of supposed frontal gunshots (all without a single witness ever coming forward--in 47 years--to say that he or she witnessed any such covert surgery on the President of the United States).

And, yes, I know you still believe in the Impossible #2 -- i.e., the incredibly silly notion that ALL of the shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 came from the FRONT of the President's vehicle.

I just happen to vigorously disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, Mr. Lifton. And I strongly disagree with your theories, DESPITE the opinions and observations of the several Parkland and Bethesda witnesses you interviewed on film in 1980.

You will say I'm ignoring those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, such as Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, Aubrey Rike, et al.

But, the truth is, I'd rather disagree with people like Paul "No Brains In The Head" O'Connor if the alternative option is to place a single ounce of faith in the outlandish theory that you, Mr. Lifton, have been peddling since 1966.

Can I ask you a straightforward question, Mr. Lifton?

Do you REALLY and TRULY believe that such "body alteration" on the President's head COULD have been accomplished in such a short period of time on the evening of 11/22/63? Could such perfect head-altering surgery have been performed so that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons at the Bethesda autopsy were totally fooled by the covert surgery?

Do you really and truly, deep down, today, believe such amazing behind-the-scenes patchwork surgery on JFK's head/body could have resulted in the autopsy report we now find on Pages 538-546 of the Warren Commission Report?

I'm virtually certain what your answer will be to my last question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway (for the record).

http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com'>http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com

-------------------------

DR. HUMES' COMPLETE 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH DAN RATHER:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html

David Von Pein, I don't know you, but I went to your web site http://Best-Evidence.blogspot. and read what you had to say on Best Evidence. Having read the BE 4 or 5 times myself, I find it hard to know where to start in your mischaracterization of Lifton's argument. You state the autopsy doctors were fooled by covert surgery to Kennedy's head. False-- why would Humes complain of surgery to the top of the skull? You state Paul O'Connor alone is witness to the back of the head blown out. Read the FBI interviews by Law in his book ITEOH, and that of others, as well as Brad Parker's, First on the Scene, about the Dallas testimony. OConnor is not alone as a witness to the shipping casket. First mention of it comes from Dennis David, who is still alive, who saw it unloaded from a Black Hearse in view of Boswell and Humes. James Curtis Jenkins also is a witness to the shipping casket. Floyd Riebe is also a witness to the shipping casket, and body bag. In your web site you infer that the alteration was perfect. No such conclusion is found in Best Evidence. In fact, the entire basis for the creation of Lens 3 is the imperfection of the forgery. Custer and Reed, along with Jenkins, thought Kennedy had been shot from the front. Jenkins was emphatic about this. So the body at Bethesda still gave the impression to these men that Kennedy was shot from the front. That's not a very good forgery. All evidence for a frontal entry was not removed.

As for the integrity of the extant autopsy report, if you have read BE, you know the FBI's Friday night persepctive differs significantly from the eventual autopsy conclusions; in fact reading Horne we see several versions of the autopsy, all supporting different conclusions about the shots. For example, as for the bullet entrance wound near the external occipital protuberance, Dr. Ebersole didn't see it; O'Connor didn't see it; Admiral Osborne didn't see it; Jenkins, Custer and Reed didn't see it. No extant photograph shows it.

Again, you say no one has come forward claiming to have seen chicanery with the body. This is to be expected of clandestine operations.If the entrance wound, or any other wounding of the head, is the result covert surgery, do you suppose the perps would come forward and brag about it? Again, the only direct "witness" to covert surgery is Humes himself as recorded by the FBI. We now have Horne reporing that Robinson was witness to Humes taking a saw to Kennedy's head -- don't know what to make of this because Horne infers that this is prior to the start of the official autopsy. More study needs to be done. As an aside, I read an African American orderly at Bethesda saw someone take a hammer to Kennedy's skull -- don't recall where I read this and if there is any credibility to this. Anyone out there know anything of this?

The only argument you present that has any weight is that Kennedy's body was always attended by Powers et al., so it could not have been stolen. Well, if Kennedy's body shows up in a shipping casket 20 minutes before the Dallas casket reaches the Bethesda Morgue, then neither you, nor I, nor Powers, knows how and when the body was obtained, but that obtained surreptiously it most certainly was. We may never know how and when. Or maybe we will. Godfrey McHugh is a good example of a man who claimed always to have been with the Dallas casket. But when interviewed, he hadn't the slightest idea how the handlles on the Dallas casket were damaged. Yet damaged they were. It is very dangerous to lean too heavily on testimony that continual vigilence was exercised with regard to the Dallas casket. One because it is possible there is significant CYA going on; and second, there is always the possibility that the casket was being attended at some point by the perps whose job it was to steal the body.

I think Best Evidence deserves a much more careful reading than your web site suggests you have done. While you are at it, I would recommend Horne's 5 volumes as well. Best, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, when you actually back a complete opportunist like Saint John Hunt without supplying the reader any information at all about him, about his relationship with his father, about how he got involved with the whole JFK imbroglio at such a late age, and how the guy is a proven xxxx, well yeah, I can see why DVP is correct on this one.

They say Birds of a feather flock together,

so no one should be surprised that you and Von Pein

are really on the same page.

So let me ask, do you know anything about the guy?

St. John Hunt is the NATURAL BORN son of Howard Hunt.

What is next, LBJ was going to call in the SWAT team if JFK escaped the kill zone?

You really are A SILLY MAN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As an aside, I read an African American orderly at Bethesda saw someone take a hammer to Kennedy's skull -- don't recall where I read this and if there is any credibility to this. Anyone out there know anything of this?"

That's in Horne.

Mrs. Jamie B. Taylor uses the word "hurried" in describing the doctor's work on Kennedy's head. The same word is used by Lifton in Best Evidence. DVP, take notice. And thanks Bernice. Gratefully, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, I don't know you, but I went to your web site http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com and read what you had to say on Best Evidence. Having read the BE 4 or 5 times myself, I find it hard to know where to start in your mischaracterization of Lifton's argument. You state the autopsy doctors were fooled by covert surgery to Kennedy's head. False-- why would Humes complain of surgery to the top of the skull? .... You infer that the alteration was perfect. No such conclusion is found in Best Evidence.

Oh, come now, Daniel. How could Lifton's body-altering scenario be deemed anything OTHER than "perfect" when we find these words (which Mr. Lifton obviously believes are totally false words) in Dr. Humes' completed autopsy report?:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

But Lifton believes the exact OPPOSITE happened to John Kennedy in Dealey Plaza -- i.e., Lifton thinks that ALL of the shots came from the exact OPPOSITE direction--from in front of JFK. And yet we find those words above in the autopsy report authored by Dr. J.J. Humes.

Plus: How could Mr. Lifton's outrageous body-altering theory be considered to be anything BUT perfect when we find the following two autopsy pictures in evidence today, which depict a perfectly INTACT rear of the scalp on JFK's head and a wholly INTACT rear (occipital) portion of Kennedy's cranium?:

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

You can't get much more "perfect" than that, Daniel.

And you somehow DON'T think that Humes, Finck, and Boswell were "fooled" by the covert surgery that Lifton suggests occurred? Then why do we find the "from above and behind" verbiage in the autopsy report if Humes and company weren't "fooled"?* You've got to be kidding me.

* = And, unless Mr. Lifton has decided to accept Doug Horne's additional nonsense regarding Dr. Humes, Lifton does not believe that the Bethesda autopsy surgeons were part of the body-altering team that switched President Kennedy's wounds around on 11/22/63.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray, your latest is a classic.

You essentially admit you know nothing about Saint John Hunt, his relationship with EHH, how he got involved with the JFK case, the whole Rolling Stone-Costner imbroglio, and his phony story about his father coming home and dumping electronics surveillance stuff with him.

As if somehow none of this is important.

Ray, all of it is important.

Then I list all the bizarre things you say you buy into, including Hunt as a tramp, and predict what could be next and you call me silly.

Ray, I do not believe those things--you do!

Hey Jim, what am I thinking right now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Von Pein, I don't know you, but I went to your web site http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com and read what you had to say on Best Evidence. Having read the BE 4 or 5 times myself, I find it hard to know where to start in your mischaracterization of Lifton's argument. You state the autopsy doctors were fooled by covert surgery to Kennedy's head. False-- why would Humes complain of surgery to the top of the skull? .... You infer that the alteration was perfect. No such conclusion is found in Best Evidence.

Oh, come now, Daniel. How could Lifton's body-altering scenario be deemed anything OTHER than "perfect" when we find these words (which Mr. Lifton obviously believes are totally false words) in Dr. Humes' completed autopsy report?:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

Daniel: David Von Pein, the operative word above is "completed." The autopsy report was really a work in progress. The first version, which Humes burned, probably reflected the FBI non-transit conclusions, or else Lipsey's 3 -shot scenario. Read Horne for an interesting analysis of the various versions of the autopsy report, with summary on p. 872. Horne has since refined his thinking on the evolution of the autopsy conclusions; one can read these on his Inside the ARRB website.

Another consideration: the confidence expressed by Humes in the quotation you cite belies the utter confusion that night at Bethesda. According to Boswell, the doctors had no evidence of a bullet entrance wound in the back of the head until bones were brought in around midnight. The fractures in the skull, according to Humes, "taxed satisfactory verbal description" and when removing the brain, Humes exclaimed, according to Jenkins, words to the effect that the brain just fell out into his hands. Jenkins is of the opinion (Law, p. 80) that the brain had already been removed and replaced. And of course we have Humes' statement, made known by Lifton, that there was surgery at the top of the skull. There is another quote from Humes but I can't find it -- in Best Evidence Lifton finds Humes saying the wound in the head could only have been caused by a bullet which both entered and exited the rear. I have paged through my copy of BE but cannot find it. These are just a few indications of the suspicious nature of the wounds to the President.

Plus: How could Mr. Lifton's outrageous body-altering theory be considered to be anything BUT perfect when we find the following two autopsy pictures in evidence today, which depict a perfectly INTACT rear of the scalp on JFK's head and a wholly INTACT rear (occipital) portion of Kennedy's cranium?:

You can't get much more "perfect" than that, Daniel.

Daniel: DVP, these pictures are supposedly taken at the onset of the autopsy. How can they show a bullet entrance wound to the back of the head, when, according to Boswell, there was no evidence of such an entrance wound until the aformentioned bones brought in at midnight?

And you somehow DON'T think that Humes, Finck, and Boswell were "fooled" by the covert surgery that Lifton suggests occurred? Then why do we find the "from above and behind" verbiage in the autopsy report if Humes and company weren't "fooled"?* You've got to be kidding me.

Daniel: I don't kid around when discussion such a serious case, DVP. I suggest you read the perspective on Humes given by James Curtis Jenkins in BE, chapter 27.I think that will answer your statement above. Let me know.

* = And, unless Mr. Lifton has decided to accept Doug Horne's additional nonsense regarding Dr. Humes, Lifton does not believe that the Bethesda autopsy surgeons were part of the body-altering team that switched President Kennedy's wounds around on 11/22/63.

Daniel: DVP, honestly I do not at this time know what to make of Horne's claims, or that of Af. American orderly who reportedly said he saw a doctor do a rushed smash job on Kennedy's head before the start of the autopsy (see the memo Bernice Moore posted). Certainly this is an area for further study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought up this point in my review of Horne when I tried to survey the spectrum of beliefs today in the autopsy evidence.

One split is between people like Groden and people like Horne and Lifton.

Groden believes that the infamous back of the head photo has been matted in. We all know what Lifton thinks happened.

Daniel: I'm not at my best today but I am not sure what Lifton thinks explains the obviously fake back of the head photo. Could that picture have been taken later in the evening when the morticians had worked on the head, or perhaps there is some manipulation of scalp or as you suggest, a matte insertion? I guess my question is, what does this have to do with Lifton's essential theory of wound alteration?

I tend to agree with Groden on this.

But let me relate another criticism of BE from a noted critic Cyril Wecht, who Lifton treated rather cavalierly in his book.

In speaking of this theory of how that picture got like that, considering the hijinks BE postulates i.e. trajectory reversal, Wecht said it would take a first class plastic surgeon hours to recreate the skull into an almost flawless surface like that. I have to agree. So where is the evidence for such? And why do it? Especially with the brain gone and JFK dead and buried. I actually thought this was one of the weaker parts of Horne's book when he tries to argue that somehow the plastic surgery route was better than the fake pictures route. Groden has made pretty good arguments for his photo alteration alternative, which Doug kind of ignored.

Daniel: The back of head photo doesn't look consistent with the way the head looks on Autopsy Photo 6A, where the wounds do seem to confirm Humes comment in the Autopsy Report that the head wounds "taxed satisfactory verbal description." If Clarence Israel's brother did see a doctor at Bethesda doing a number on Kennedy's head before the autopsy, that would be a good reason why the wounds "taxed satisfactory verbal description," and why Humes exclaimed "surgery." If Groden is right about the back of the head photo, I don't see what that has to do with Lifton's essential thesis.

And BTW, that document from the ARRB about a woman naming someone, a black orderly with a hammer, I mean again, this was a problem I had with the book. If I read that correctly, it is pretty much thirdhand, and many, many years after the fact. It reminded me of Horne actually using O'Donnell as a witness. Horne's book had so much good stuff in it like Karl McDonald, like Stringer etc. He really needed an editor to cut it down and tone it down. Plus he needed an index also. Especially with so much primary material of value. Its a shame.

Daniel: Jim, I think we have to consider each case on its own merits. There was no way, according to the memo from Janie B. Taylorm, for Clarence Israel's brother to say anything for fear of retribution. So "many years after the fact" is a sad reality for all testimony of Bethesda witnesses. If one believes as I do that the condition of the head at Bethesda was very different from the wa it appeared at Parkland, then someone with medical knowledge got to the head and probably removed the brain. Did Clarence Israel's brother see this? I don't know, but it is a possibility to be looked into further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(as texture) draped over a 3d model approximating skull shape

model rotated

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DVP, these pictures are supposedly taken at the onset of the autopsy. How can they show a bullet entrance wound to the back of the head, when, according to Boswell, there was no evidence of such an entrance wound until the aformentioned bones brought in at midnight?

WTF?

What on Earth do the bones being brought in have anything whatsoever to do with the entry hole in the outer SCALP of JFK as seen in the picture below?

Are you seriously saying that Boswell said that this red spot (which is so obviously the one and only wound of entrance on the back of JFK's head) couldn't be seen until the bones were brought in from Dallas to reconstruct the underlying skull of the President? That's nuts.

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

ADDENDUM:

Interesting HSCA interview with Dr. Pierre Finck in March '78:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-dr-pierre-finck.html

Edited by David Von Pein
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...