Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton and Morningster, nice but no cigar.


Recommended Posts

By concensus, and I will quote sources if pressed, a team of leading plastic surgeons at the time could not have altered Kennedy's head in the way Lifton claims in the time period given. Morningstar's theory of Tippet being postop Kennedy is impossible. The hairlines are all wrong and couldn't be imitated today much less in 1963...absurd ideas that far too prominent theorists hang their hats on. The pictures of badgeman are absurd. The foreground objects are way out of perspective compared to more distant objects. Were all shots from the snipers nest obviously not the only ones, surely evidence proves it, the muddy water doesn't help at all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

What I find hard to recocile,is JFK,s Death Stare,were all of his face looks intact,and the x-rays of his skull,were damage to the front of the head is apparent and significant.

I would have thought,the damage caused internally,would be more than apparent externally.Bone missing would appear to me,to make the face distort.I have had a significant head injury,and know from my experience,it can alter the way you look.His face is just,to pristine.IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought,the damage caused internally,would be more than apparent externally.Bone missing would appear to me,to make the face distort.I have had a significant head injury,and know from my experience,it can alter the way you look.His face is just,to pristine.IMHO.

Malcolm,

You are spot on about the extent of the damage. I have only just begun to look at the head wound, and at the moment I do not understand the head anywhere near as well as I do the upper chest area.

My interest was raised by the following exchange quoted at the bottom. Photograph 46 is not in the public domain. Clearly the HSCA panel are interested how the damage this far down in the brain was caused. They even wonder whether the damage was created by the work of the autopsy. Humes denies his autopsy work was responsible. It is pity we don’t have Photograph 46 to see what they are talking about. It was Humes reply that really interested me. In his view what has happened this far down in the brain was only partly caused by the bullet. Interesting what he thinks also contributed to this. It is interesting that as far as Humes is concerned the bullet did not need to be low in the brain to do this damage.

It is also of interest that the area in question is right next to the Cerebellum. This was an area of importance to the Parkland doctors. Comments on the Cerebellum caused a lot of grief to the Parkland doctors. However if damage in the brain was as low as this and that close to the Cerebellum I am surprised Cerebellum was not damaged.

The Pons is a substantial body, much more so than the Cerebellum and therefore I am beginning to believe that Cerebellum had to be damaged ( if a body like the Pons so close to it was torn ) and that the Parkland doctors were right all along.

Maybe the damage to the corpus callosum [boxed in red] is understandable, but the idea that the midbrain was torn from the Pons [boxed in blue] is what I find curious. What I find curious is how deep inside the brain the Pons is and how close it is to the Cerebellum. And that is why I believe Cerebellum had to have been damaged.

Thebrain.png

James

Dr. COE. Dr. Humes, looking at photograph No. 46, I am curious to know whether this destruction you feel is a postmortem artifact in removing the brain, or was part of this, was caused by the bullet you think perhaps? You have a junction between the cerebellum and the---

Dr. HUMES. No ; well, I think it was partly caused by the bullet.

Dr. COE. It was?

Dr. HUMES. It was great - it was a tearing type of disruption that basically had to go back to our description. The corpus callosum was torn, was it not Jay? And the midbrain was virtually torn from the pons.

Dr. COE. Thank you all.

Dr. HUMES. Now don’t misinterpret me that the missile necessarily passed through there because it was a great -

Dr. COE. But it must have come fairly close in there.

Dr. HUMES. Could have, yeah.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Dr. BADEN. You are completely satisfied - and Dr. Boswell - that there was no foreign object in this area?

Dr. HUMES. Absolutely, unequivocally, without question.

Dr. BOSWELL. Yes. HSCA 7 Addendum I P. 247

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

In this thread propose that the first shot to the head came from a very high elevation,such as the roof of the Criminal Records or Criminal Courts Building. I think it struck the top of JFK's head and exited at the right temple. It had a very steep downward slope and would have penetrated deep into the brain.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19245entry256000

The exit wound is inside the red ellipse. It is seen as the round hole in the temple area in the xray.

topofhead06resizedellip.gif

xautlarge.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James,

In this thread propose that the first shot to the head came from a very high elevation,such as the roof of the Criminal Records or Criminal Courts Building. I think it struck the top of JFK's head and exited at the right temple. It had a very steep downward slope and would have penetrated deep into the brain.

http://educationforu...45

The exit wound is inside the red ellipse. It is seen as the round hole in the temple area in the xray.

topofhead06resizedellip.gif

xautlarge.png

Couple of concerns with your conclusions Mike...

1) If it was a high to low shot from behind... why are the fragments leading away from SOLID BONE at the back of the head, when there should be an opening for an entrance wound at the back..?

2) Looking at the following images... the pre/post of JFK's skull shows there would be bone where the xray shows it's gone... if the skull is gone there, what is holding JFK's face and forehead up?

xray-before-after-JFK-skull.gif

X_AUT_2overlayleftside.jpg

and finally... can you explain the HUGE difference in the headwound from Parkland to Bethesda?

What started as a small temple wound and a 3-4 inch blowout in the right rear becomes 3/4 of his skull gone... based on Boswell and the xrays...

xraysversusreality.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recall Jackie's words: " But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." Add to this Hill's description of the back of Kennedy's head lying in the seat, and the Parkland observations, and there is little doubt that post mortem damage was done to Kennedy's skull, as well as a switch in brains, since the observations of extruding cerebellum by competent physicians, including the neurosurgeon Clark, are the best evidence of where the damage to the brain was. I hold no brief on Morningstar, but Lifton has proved his case beyond refute, IMO. Anyone who thinks differently has to explain the conflicts in the record with a better thesis than Lifton, and I have yet to hear of one. Steven Skeen, I suggest a very careful reading of Best Evidence. If you think he's wrong give evidence, not conjecture, as to why he is. I shall be glad to read it. Best, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couple of concerns with your conclusions Mike...

1) If it was a high to low shot from behind... why are the fragments leading away from SOLID BONE at the back of the head, when there should be an opening for an entrance wound at the back..?

2) Looking at the following images... the pre/post of JFK's skull shows there would be bone where the xray shows it's gone... if the skull is gone there, what is holding JFK's face and forehead up?

and finally... can you explain the HUGE difference in the headwound from Parkland to Bethesda?

What started as a small temple wound and a 3-4 inch blowout in the right rear becomes 3/4 of his skull gone... based on Boswell and the xrays...

It is my belief that there were TWO shots to the head. The first shot had a steep downward trajectory and exited the right temple.

The second shot was from the front and had a front to back trajectory. This is the shot that created the "gorge" between the two hemispheres.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, an entrance wound is small, an exit large and avulsive. See Jackie's words that I quoted above, and find for me evidence of your first head shot in the Parkland testimony. Thanks in advance, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We can see skull being ejected from the top of the presidents head in Zapruder frame 313. This is when the large hole in the top of the head was created. I am obviously not a forensic analyst, however I believe that a high speed bullet striking the skull at an oblique angle could cause the ejection of skull bone as we see in the zapruder frame.

Again, the area inside the red ellipse in the following image is obviously an exit wound. That wound was created at the same time as the skull material was ejected.

Regarding Mrs. Kennedy's statements I believe she was referring to the wound created by the second bullet.

33681500.gif

itex313.jpg

topofhead06resizedellip.gif

This thread explains whay I think the shot came from the roof of a building.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19245entry256000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing from a faked film is to me no evidence at all. No one at Parkland reported such a wound. Recall, if you will, Audrey Bell asking Perry where the wound was, because the face was clear, as well as the top of the skull. Perry turned Kennedy's head to the left and pointed to the right rear. Nurse Bowron reported only one large wound in the rear of the skull. See also McClelland's drawing for Thompson, and the FBI report of surgery, first unearthed by Lifton and published in Best Evidence. The FBI were recording words of Humes that night, and Humes said there was surgery to the top of the skull. The photo above shows the top of Kennedy's head looking like scrambled eggs and hair. Funny no one saw any of this at Parkland. Costella's list of mistakes in the extant film speak to 313 and would be good reading. The government has us fooled, and we have fallen for this fraud hook, line and sinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that what we see in Zapruder frame 313 is fake?

Once one allows themselves to believe that the data is fake they enter a realm where they can prove just about anything they want to prove. I cannot go there.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arguing from a faked film is to me no evidence at all. No one at Parkland reported such a wound. Recall, if you will, Audrey Bell asking Perry where the wound was, because the face was clear, as well as the top of the skull. Perry turned Kennedy's head to the left and pointed to the right rear. Nurse Bowron reported only one large wound in the rear of the skull. See also McClelland's drawing for Thompson, and the FBI report of surgery, first unearthed by Lifton and published in Best Evidence. The FBI were recording words of Humes that night, and Humes said there was surgery to the top of the skull. The photo above shows the top of Kennedy's head looking like scrambled eggs and hair. Funny no one saw any of this at Parkland. Costella's list of mistakes in the extant film speak to 313 and would be good reading. The government has us fooled, and we have fallen for this fraud hook, line and sinker.

Daniel,

Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was.

Although Diana Bowron testified to the Commission that she only saw only the neck wound she also saw the back wound. In "Killing the Truth" P. 189 she informed Harrison Livingston that she also saw the back wound. That makes sense, because I believe she assisted in the preparation of the body for return to Washington.

I believe you will find that Dr. McClelland has commented on what he considered this drawing meant. I understand his view is that it did not reflect a wound as you have described. I cannot remember exactly what he said it really meant. But I am sure it is not the single exit wound that many take it to mean.

The Sibert O'Neill is still dynamite, even after all these years. True it is not clear what was meant, but somebody said it and all Sibert and O'Neill did was to record it.

I have never been persuaded by the Fetzer/Costella theory about Zapruder. The complexity of what would be required is what I find to seriously undermine the theory. And without the Zapruder film we have lost the visual evidence of the assassination.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By concensus, and I will quote sources if pressed, a team of leading plastic surgeons at the time could not have altered Kennedy's head in the way Lifton claims in the time period given. Morningstar's theory of Tippet being postop Kennedy is impossible. The hairlines are all wrong and couldn't be imitated today much less in 1963...absurd ideas that far too prominent theorists hang their hats on. The pictures of badgeman are absurd. The foreground objects are way out of perspective compared to more distant objects. Were all shots from the snipers nest obviously not the only ones, surely evidence proves it, the muddy water doesn't help at all!

This post is rather superficial and highly inaccurate.

First of all, I have nothing to do with Morningstar, or his theories about Tippit. Nada.

But, moving on from there. . .

As to wound alteration, BEST EVIDENCE lays it out quite clearly. The Dallas treating physicians –in their reports—describe wounds that are entirely different than those at Bethesda, both in the area of the neck and head. None of that has changed, and it is an immutable part of the existing record.

Focusing on the head: All one needs to do is compare, for example, the description of the head wound in the autopsy (10 x 17 cm, per the Boswell diagram, or what he drew for the ARRB, when he testified), or by Dr. Finck, in his 1965 report to Dr. Blumberg, which states the wound extended all the way to the front, and he names the frontal bone) with the relatively modest sized head wound described by McClelland, Carrico (5 by 7 cm) , or even Jenkins (cerebellum “protruded”, etc.) and the difference is obvious.

In the area of the throat wound, the same “before” vs. “after” situation exists: “2-3 cm” (per Dr. Perry) versus Humes “7-8cm” with “widely gaping irregular edges.”

It matters not what some of these people said decades later, when they tried to wriggle off the hook. The record stands.

Moreover, and as to Humes’ state of knowledge: there was nothing subtle about the messed up condition of Kennedy’s body when it arrived. Humes knew the head wound was altered. It was an atrocious sloppy job, and that’s why his immediate response—written down by the two FBI agents present (even though they apparently didn’t not realize the implications)—was that it was “apparent” that there had been “surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull.” (Sibert and O’Neill FBI report).

For further data, read Sibert’s September, 1997 testimony before the ARRB, which confirms what he told me in a detailed 1990 interview: that he would “swear on a stack of bibles” that the doctor said there had been surgery. That’s where he says: “that’s haunted me for years, this surgry of the head. This part, back on the back [of the head[ there. . you could like right in there.” In notes he made at the time, he wrote: “"Brain had been removed from head cavity." (Source: ARRB document MD 216) This of course was confirmed when I first interviewed Paul O’Connor, who was present (and helped) when the shipping casket arrived at Bethesda and JFK’s body was removed from the body bag inside. (See Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, for a verbatim account of my very first interview of O’Connor, in August, 1979).

Uninformed statements talking about “plastic” surgery (“ I will quote sources if pressed,” you write knowingly, and ominously) that come out of the mouth of Posner, or Dr. Wecht are no substitute for careful analysis and proper attention to the evidence.

Furthermore, Chapter 18 of BEST EVIDENCE lays out, in detail, just how seriously and violent was the smashing and bashing that must have occurred, to remove the skull cap. Specifically, I am referring here to the stellate fracture pattern, contra-coup injury on the base of the brain (reported accurately by Humes); the “crushed vomer”, and the evidence of a severed spinal cord.

Instead of buying into oversimplified name-calling, and false association with Morningstar, perhaps you’d be better off re-reading and understanding the detailed analysis set forth in BEST EVIDENCE.

DSL

7/29/12; 5 pm

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Instead of buying into oversimplified name-calling, and false association with Morningstar, perhaps you’d be better off re-reading and understanding the detailed analysis set forth in BEST EVIDENCE.

DSL

7/29/12; 5 pm

Los Angeles, California

'tis the best the current, whipped, lone nut faction can do... 10-to-1 no plastic surgeon will venture forth here, not even an opinion. Best Evidence is still as solid as can be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that what we see in Zapruder frame 313 is fake?

Once one allows themselves to believe that the data is fake they enter a realm where they can prove just about anything they want to prove. I cannot go there.

If you cannot "go there," then you are essentially saying, in advance, that you cannot deal with the most basic and most elementary of deception mechanisms: the deliberate falsification of evidence to manufacture a false story about the murder of the President.

If you cannot "go there," then that means that you are willing to be duped by anyone who places a rifle near a window, or a bullet on a stretcher, or alters a wound on a body--or, yes, screws around with (i.e., fakes) a motion picture film.

If you can't deal with the concept of falsified evidence, and pursue data that in fact indicates such falsification, then you will never get to the bottom of the Kennedy assassination.

Unearthing the evidence that the key evidence in this case was altered does not give one a license to invent "any old 'solution' " to the Kennedy assassination, but forces one to reason carefully and to learn to distinguish between the false and the real; between fact and artifact.

If the critical evidence in this case --i.e., the autopsy--was falisified, then the notion that Lee Oswald shot the president is nothing more than a cover story manufactured in advance by plotters, promulgated by the Dallas Police Department, swallowed whole by the FBI, and then sanctified by the Warren Commission.

You say you don't want to "go there." I'd advise you to rethink that position, because, when it comes to finding the truth about what happened on November 22, 1963, that's where the true lies.

DSL

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...