Where do We Go from Here?

[Thomas Kroger]

I find it rather amusing that on the Amazon discussion board, I created such a stir by asking whether it was “more probable” that fourteen eyewitness were “mistaken” (as S V Anderson put it) in their location of Kennedy’s fatal head wound, OR that there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing and concerted effort, to discredit these witnesses. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. I’m sure everyone present here will recall that it was Dr. McClelland who drew the medical sketch 264, that clearly identifies a massive exit wound in the rear of JFK’s skull, with no ambiguity. S V Anderson had no convincing reply to make, at least to me, other than to say that these witnesses were “mistaken,” and he hadn’t a clue as to how or why this happened. I found his response to be unsatisfactory, and said so, recalling that the statistical odds against independent parties randomly making such an error had to be considerable. S V Anderson then went on to say that “forensic evidence trumps” such oral testimony, and my rebuttal was that inadvertently, he had raised the key point: namely, that in a case of this sort, involving the assassination of a head of state, the chain of possession of the evidence – in this case the slain President’s body – was crucial. And the “Feds” had possession from start to finish. David Lifton wrote an entire book devoted to the chain of possession, and notes that even Dr. Humes remarked that there appeared to be “surgery of the head area” upon viewing the remains. And this was before the “autopsy,” such as it was, commenced.

I find such a remark to be disturbing. No “surgery of the head” was performed in Dallas. What the hell happened? And the two orderlies present at Bethesda noticed that almost ¾ of the underlying brain tissue was absent. Was Humes delusional? I doubt it. He was, however, inexperienced in performing an autopsy involving gunshot wounds. The selective nature of the procedures employed, the presence of massive authority during the proceedings, and carte-blanche assurances that everything was in order some forty years after the fact, leaves me suspicious. I don’t accept these assurance, and I don’t think anyone else should. Least of all, at a time during which official secrecy continues. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, as to the mind-set of a significant number of people, that they could accept such assurances, under these circumstances, which by themselves constitute abundant ground for believing, that a coup d’état occurred. It worries me even more that the media has abandoned its “watchdog” role, by accepting these claims and assurances, in effect telling us to trust and not question “our” government.

Increasingly, I am of the belief that is really is all over. There should be outrage, and protest. Instead, we see complacency, and what Professor Ralston calls the hegemonic pattern in connection with the media. Our society has become a plantation, in which dissent is routinely marginalized, and in which our public schools no longer convey any semblance of critical thinking. No, after my experiences of late, I am not comforted at all. As a country, we are headed toward the cliff, and at this point, I’m not convinced that even a Ron Paul Presidency could turn it around. They’d just “JFK” the guy if he got into the White House, probably within six months if it even took even that long. Who was it - T. S. Elliot - that said "This is how it all ends/this is how it all ends/not with a bang, but with a whimper"?

Edited June 11, 2011 by Thomas Kroger