Jump to content
The Education Forum

Lifton and Morningster, nice but no cigar.


Recommended Posts

Mike,

I follow your argument for a twin bullet strike, however the damage does not need two bullets to cause such damage.

Over the weekend I read a very persuasive and interesting article by John Hunt entitled “A Demonstrable Impossibility”. His argument was that the bullet could have splintered and thereby damage different areas in the head, even though his main thesis was where the existing bone fragments might fit on the head and they should fit there.

Just a thought.

James.

James,

Here is a link to the article you reference...

http://www.history-m...possibility.htm

First an observation from the John Hunt article....

The FPP placement of the triangular fragment behind the

the coronal suture is clearly in error. Dr. Angel’s conclusion based upon his anthropological expertise is obviously correct.[The area covered by the frontal bone appears too large to fit the front of the skull and not project into the skin of the forehead. JFK’s face was intact, and so the orientation here appears problematic. The odd appearance is due to the fact that the “bone fragment” has not been taped down to the skull in H-14. The paper bone fragment has been taped to the skull in illustration H-15. The triangular fragment is confined to the scalp-covered portion of the skull.]

It is important to note at this point that although it was never explicitly stated in the FPPReport, according to the FPP, the skull defect extended no farther forward than the coronal suture. That is to say that the frontal bone was intact, save the small chipped area of the “exit bevel” the FPP reported seeing in the photographs. This effectively confined the Harper andTriangular fragments to the right parietal; a restraint, it will be shown, the FPP knew was unjustified.
The forward right half of Kennedy’s coronal suture was not on the skull when the X-rays and photographs were taken because the Triangular fragment (and its half of the coronal suture) had not yet arrived at the morgue.

fig_h14_lrg.jpg

Yes I am aware there are theories that a single bullet splintered and caused all the damage to the head. That is just the second "single bullet theory" that the WC tried to push on us.

After analyzing the first single bullet theory a few threads back , I am seeing a pattern in the assassination. The assassins fired two shots each time they fired at the president. This would increase their probability of success greatly.

There is much other photographic evidence which supports two bullets to the head.

The Moorman photo was taken at a moment in time between the first and second shots to the head. It shows damage from the first shot but does not yet show the damage from the second shot(which occurs a few zapruder frames later)

This is just one more case where it is obvious that the back of the presidents head is not blown out yet but the damage to the top and right side has already been sustained. If you believe the back of the head was blown out then you must believe in two shots.

moormanfullheadcropnega.png

Plus we have this sequence from the Nix film showing the impact of the second bullet....

zlimobrake4bikes183nisa.gif

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Of course, I know that, David. You think Stringer's statements to you are of prime importance because he said them to YOU. You can't see beyond what people said to YOU because you're too close to the situation. Stringer proved, when he spoke to the ARRB and questioned the authenticity of the brain photos, that he wasn't afraid to question the official story. And yet, when shown the autopsy photos, he told the HSCA and ARRB that he'd taken them, and that they reflected the wounds as he remembered them. "

Sorry Pat, but Stringer's statements are important because they give his state of mind before pressure was put on him (whether by others or self-imposed) to conform his recollections to the back of the head photo. Lifton interviewed him in 1972, and got Stringer on record (emphatically so) as to the location of the head wound. When the official photos became known which he was supposed to have taken, his admissions to Lifton were an utter embarrassment. So he repudiated them. But Pat, the earlier 1972 statements are the more important ones, given what we now know of the dubious nature of the back of the head photo.

So also with the limo stop witnesses, whom you dismiss. Lifton, not you, interviewed these people in 1971, years before the public airing of the Z-film. Lifton, not you, have them down as saying the limo stopped. They were there, and were emphatic about it. You and I were not there. I have many times also alluded to Debra Conway's breakthough interview with Toni Foster in KAC Summer 2000. She is quite specific about two things: 1. the limo stop and 2. the "spray went behing him" referring to the blood and brains exiting the back of Kennedy's head. These people were staring at the limo and were there. You can't call their recollections nonsense.

"Try and sell that one to the public. "Yeah, there was this giant conspiracy, but they didn't know what they were doing. They kidnapped and altered the body, but changed it in a way that still showed conspiracy. So then they lied about it."

The existence of the shipping casket and body bag proves the body was kidnapped. The brutal condition of the head, unlike anything seen at Parkland, and Humes' comment of surgery, proved that the body was altered (not to mention the inordinately long and messy "trach incision" apparent in the stare of death photo). And you criticize Lifton because the project was done imperfectly? It may be a hard sell but the truth sometimes is, and it's not Lifton's fault that this is so.

My responses in bold.

One of the Parkland doctors famously told Jeremy Gunn that Jackie wore white on the day of the assassination. The recollections of witnesses months, years, decades after an incident are notoriously unreliable. What matters, then, is not what people tell a stranger over the phone, when just talking, but what they are willing to swear by when shown evidence in contradiction to their recollections. In other words, when it's on the line.

Pat: again this is circular reasoning. If Stringer swears on a stack of Bibles to Lifton that the head wound was in the back of the head in 1972, that's being on the line. You suppose the back of the head photo to be proper evidence, when the photo itself is gravely suspect according to a large number of have seen it and say it does not depict the back of the head as they remember it.

Now, I know that sounds silly to someone whose suspicions have been aroused by so few people reporting Kennedy's wounds to be as shown in the photos.

You've got that right.

But that's really all there is to go by.

That is, lens 3 is the best evidence of how the crime occurred. Sorry, I'll take lens 1. Lens 3 is corrupted and an attempted correction of lens 2.

The statements of ONE group of witnesses tend to reflect that the wound was further back on the head than shown in the photos. The statements of another group of witnesses--including Stringer, who reviewed the photos in 1966 and signed a document saying they were the photos he'd taken--reflect that the wounds were as shown in the photos. So how do you resolve this situation? 1. You study the photos to see if there's any obvious discrepancies between what BOTH sides remembered. 2. You show the photos to the side in disagreement with the photos and see if they change their minds.

That's called manipulation by false evidence.

The key Parkland witnesses, with the possible exception of McClelland, either admitted they were mistaken or let their support of the Warren Commission and their dislike of conspiracy theorists be known.

Ah yes, "key" Parkland witnesses. I have no doubt the doctors loathed being the center of controversy owing to their observations of Kennedy's wounds. That doesn't make their observations wrong.

There is no reason to believe any of them went to their graves believing the wounds had been altered or that the autopsy photos had been faked.

Charles Chrenshaw...oh, forgive me, he's not a "key" witness. What Perry et al. took to the grave we will probably never know. He may have hated the controversy so much he took that animus toward researchers to the grave with him. So what? His initial observations, made innocently and truthfully, are part of the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you watch the film in slow-mo, frame by frame, you'll see that Jackie's white glove was on JFK's right shoulder a few frames before the one you've presented, and is in the process of being pulled back at this frame. The so-called volcano shape at the back of JFK's head is therefore but an illusion, created by the white glove's blocking out the lowest part of his head.

It is not an illusion. The glove is behind the head from the perspective of the camera. It is obvious it is not an illusion.

It is an illusion. The glove was undoubtedly on the right shoulder a few frames before. If it was by this time on the left shoulder, you should be able to identify a specific frame where the glove passes back behind the head and moves over to the left shoulder. Please show us this frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DG: If Stringer swears on a stack of Bibles to Lifton that the head wound was in the back of the head in 1972, that's being on the line. You suppose the back of the head photo to be proper evidence, when the photo itself is gravely suspect according to a large number of have seen it and say it does not depict the back of the head as they remember it.

PS: The statements of ONE group of witnesses tend to reflect that the wound was further back on the head than shown in the photos. The statements of another group of witnesses--including Stringer, who reviewed the photos in 1966 and signed a document saying they were the photos he'd taken--reflect that the wounds were as shown in the photos. So how do you resolve this situation? 1. You study the photos to see if there's any obvious discrepancies between what BOTH sides remembered. 2. You show the photos to the side in disagreement with the photos and see if they change their minds.

DG: That's called manipulation by false evidence.

PS: The key Parkland witnesses, with the possible exception of McClelland, either admitted they were mistaken or let their support of the Warren Commission and their dislike of conspiracy theorists be known.

DG: Ah yes, "key" Parkland witnesses. I have no doubt the doctors loathed being the center of controversy owing to their observations of Kennedy's wounds. That doesn't make their observations wrong.

PS: There is no reason to believe any of them went to their graves believing the wounds had been altered or that the autopsy photos had been faked.

DG: Charles Chrenshaw...oh, forgive me, he's not a "key" witness. What Perry et al. took to the grave we will probably never know. He may have hated the controversy so much he took that animus toward researchers to the grave with him. So what? His initial observations, made innocently and truthfully, are part of the record.

1. Stringer never swore on a stack of Bibles that the large wound was on the far back of the head. He indicated as much in a casual phone conversation with Lifton, years after he'd last looked at the photos, and participated in a panel verifying the authenticity of the photos showing no wound in that location. We have no reason to think his memory that day was better than when he later spoke about the wound on the record. We have no reason to think, for that matter, that he wasn't just playing along with Lifton.

2. Autopsies are performed because the opinions and memories of emergency room surgeons just aren't reliable. Autopsy photos are then taken to refresh the memories of those taking the photos. The belief autopsy photos should not be shown to emergency room surgeons because they might taint their memories is a novel one, and not remotely reasonable, IMO.

3. We agree that the photos were suspect. I believe, however, that the long-term reaction of the Parkland doctors to seeing these photos is a clear indication they should no longer be.

4. While we agree that the Parkland doctors' early statements are part of the record, you fail to appreciate, IMO, that their latter-day statements, in which they sought to clarify their early statements, are also part of the record, and that ANY book on the assassination focusing on their early statements but leaving out their latter-day statements... is not an honest one.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

fig_h14_lrg.jpg

moormanfullheadcropnega.png

Mike,

I have limited time at the moment, but I will make two short points.

The skull image you posted is not John Hunt's view where both the triangular bone and the Harper fragment where quite originated from. I noted over the weekend, when I looked at Fox 2, that Hunt was quite right JFK's temple bone is indeed missing. I had not seen that because of the amount of distorted hair in that area. But at the weekend I suddenly realised that I could look below the mess of hair and noted that the frontal bone structure is actually not there. I do not content that John Hunt is necessarily right, about the placing of the bones but I found his arguments and evidence quite persuasive.

A few weeks ago I sent the Josiah Thompson drum version of Moorman #5 to a couple of serious photographic restorers. I felt if any image might have sufficient data on it to allow restoration, it was Josiah's drum image. Unfortunately even it had insufficient data to allow any meaningful restoration. The point about this is not just that I was interested in getting a better view of the back of the head. I am not at all sure what we are actually seeing. I know you contend that it is damage to the back of the head. It might be, but it could also a photographic anomaly. Also, I am not at all sure what is damage to the right side of the head and what is bleeding of the grass onto that part of the head. I know your opinion is that what we see is the damage to the right of the head. However the quality of the image does not make that certain. hence my attempt to get the image restored.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fig_h14_lrg.jpg

moormanfullheadcropnega.png

Mike,

I have limited time at the moment, but I will make two short points.

The skull image you posted is not John Hunt's view where both the triangular bone and the Harper fragment where quite originated from. I noted over the weekend, when I looked at Fox 2, that Hunt was quite right JFK's temple bone is indeed missing. I had not seen that because of the amount of distorted hair in that area. But at the weekend I suddenly realised that I could look below the mess of hair and noted that the frontal bone structure is actually not there. I do not content that John Hunt is necessarily right, about the placing of the bones but I found his arguments and evidence quite persuasive.

A few weeks ago I sent the Josiah Thompson drum version of Moorman #5 to a couple of serious photographic restorers. I felt if any image might have sufficient data on it to allow restoration, it was Josiah's drum image. Unfortunately even it had insufficient data to allow any meaningful restoration. The point about this is not just that I was interested in getting a better view of the back of the head. I am not at all sure what we are actually seeing. I know you contend that it is damage to the back of the head. It might be, but it could also a photographic anomaly. Also, I am not at all sure what is damage to the right side of the head and what is bleeding of the grass onto that part of the head. I know your opinion is that what we see is the damage to the right of the head. However the quality of the image does not make that certain. hence my attempt to get the image restored.

James.

I think that John Hunts view is the Angel match.

You may not think the Moorman photo is good enough to make the statement that I make, but it is consistent with what John presented. Where JFK's head out to be you can see the grass behind him. There is a well defined boundary.

Is it the clearest picture in the world, no, but we should be glad we have it. And it does not show the back of the head is blown out....yet.

Hold on a minute. I am not saying it is showing damage to the back of the head. I am saying it is showing damage to the front of the head.

Come on James give me a break. Are you saying you just finally saw that you can see the brains in this photo?

topofhead06resized.jpg

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answers in blue... quotes in black and red

{sigh}

The AP xray... that shows nothing from the midline down to the anatomical right ear corresponds to the Lateral which in my image above shows virtually no bone above the top arrow

This is the TOP of his head...

Not a single image of a medical person, also provided, has their hand on the TOP of their head.... where in the xray would correspond to McClellend's widow's peak.

and 2) if JFK's skull was falling all over the Bethesda table, why describe a neat, avulsed hole, as yet again, the illustrations show.... the laceration Boswell describes is as if an ax hit JFK in the head...

There is simply no way a brain comes out a 3" hole in the occipital Pat... these DOCTORS were inches from the man... BEFORE the government got involved.

Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head......

yet somehow, someway... that's not what we see at 8:15.

Commander HUMES -

Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to. That one portion of the missile and judging by the size of the defect thus produced, the major portion of the missile, made its exit through this large defect.

A second portion of the missile or multiple second portions were deflected, and traversed a distance as enumerated by this interrupted line, with the major portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the position indicated.

Perhaps some of these minor fragments were dislodged from the major one it traversed this course.

To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury.

We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

David: Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head......

It appears you're playing mix n match, David, and pushing something totally out of line with what anyone claimed to witness. Not ONE witness, anywhere, ever, said there was a wound to the left temple AND right temple AND back of the head, or even left temple AND back of the head, or even right temple AND back of the head. The Parkland witnesses all saw ONE wound, but remembered it differently, and described it differently. Your pushing that there were three wounds, and that they all saw but one of three wounds, and that it is a pure coincidence that NONE of them saw more than one of these wounds--IF that is indeed what you're pushing--is more than silly.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.

I think you are trying to confuse what I am saying - that these three wounds were noticed at Parkland is not in dispute... EVERYONE saw the back of head wound...

SOME see a LEFT TEMPLE WOUND

SOME see s right temple wound

Not a single person sees anything resembling the xray... where the entire front of his skull is missing...... look at the drawings again Pat... or please post a single image of a drawing by any Parkland personnel that agree with either of the xrays...

thanks

DJ

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?

Dr. AKIN - I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

If the RIGHT OCCIPITAL was the EXIT and the entrance came from the OTHER SIDE of the head (left temporal) - does that not add him to the list of LEFT TEMPLE wounds and those NOT seeing any frontal damage as that BS xray shows?

McClellend does not see a Left Temple wound AND hole in the back of the head?

Jenkins, left wound and large hole

Most others, Large Occipital/parietal hole...

Back wounds? no

Avulsed opening over right ear? NOPE

As far as Humes and Boswell and the crumpled skull... doctors wouldn't try to measure a wound on the skull with torn scalp and hair in the way. They would measure the skull wound after the scalp had been reflected. When they reflected the scalp, however, the skull was in pieces. They then removed some of the broken skull, and pulled out the brain.

That's not was was written or said, Pat. The testimony is that the doctors DID SAW AWAY SKULL... now whether that was at 6:45 or 8:15 is a matter os concern...

the witnesses suggest this occurs BEFORE the Y incision and well before the official autopsy begins when the skull and prain simply fall apart - AFTER our friends Humes and Boswell obliterate the wounds both front and back.

There is no indication that they measured the wound before the brain was removed.

Commander HUMES - I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left. This is somewhat difficult, because as back to when we were actually looking for the fragments of metal, as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table, and so forth, so it was difficult to put that exact figure into words.

Humes’ comments to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992 are also relevant. He said “The head was so devastated by the exploding bullet…that we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap…We peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumpled in my hands from the fracture lines…”

EXPLODING bullet.... you mean the 6.5mm FMJ bullet as shown in CE399 as being the TYPE of bullet fired? Exploded into fragments and particles and a cloud - FMJ bullet?.

This was not described by a single Parkland doctor....

Robinson:

Removal of President’s Brain: Robinson drew dotted lines on the drawing he executed of the

posterior skull which shows the wound between the ears. When asked by ARRB staff what the dotted

lines represented, he said “saw cuts.” He explained that some sawing was done to remove some bone

before the brain could be removed, and then went on to describe what is a normal craniotomy procedure,

. saying that this procedure was performed on JFK. He seemed to remember the use of a saw, and the

scalp being reflected forward.

Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head?

REED: Well, after about 20 minutes, Commander

Humes took out a saw, and started to cut the

forehead with the bone - with the saw

Humes' words to the ARRB in 1996 offer further support that the skull basically crumpled in his hands. He told Jeremy Gunn: "Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose."

.

So, starting with the LIES Humes tells us about using a saw, or NOT using one... Maybe by 8:15 they did not need one... but those that were there and saw what Humes did PRE AUTOPSY

tells a very different story.... at Parkland the TOP OF THE HEAD was not damaged... only the back of the head and at the temples... regardless of how many times Specter and other say "Top of the head".

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wound besides the head wound which you have just described?

Dr. BASHOUR - No; I did not observe any wounds.

Mr. Specter - When you arrived, what did you observe as to the condition of the President?

Dr. Baxter - He was very obviously in extremis. There was a large gaping wound in the skull which was covered at that time with blood, and its extent was not immediately determined. His eyes were bulging, the pupils were fixed and dilated and deviated outward, both pupils were deviated laterally. At that time his breathing was being assisted so that whether he was breathing on his own or not, I couldn't determine

Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it.

Mr. Specter - Did you notice any bullet hole below that large opening at the top of the head?

Dr. Baxter - No; I personally did not.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Dr. CLARK: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described?

Dr. JENKINS - On the right side?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir.

Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.

Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins.

Dr. JENKINS - Well, I was feeling for---I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also.

Dr. JONES - With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.":

Here is a clear instance of Diana Bowron telling Specter she saw no other wounds, and years later telling Harrison Livingston she saw the back wound. It is inconceivable to me that her admission to Livingston was "repressed memory." I think she told Specter the truth, and by the same sort of memory pollution that afflicted other Dallas personnel, told a lie to Livingston. I know of no observation by Nurse Henchcliff or the orderly Sanders of a back wound, which lends credence to Lifton's conclusion that the wound in fact was not there, and was in fact man-made after the body was removed from the Dallas casket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not an illusion.

This is the best I could do on short notice...Zaprudder frames 333 to 339

Watch her hand. It starts off on Kennedy's right shoulder and isn't pulled back to her side until the end of your loop, Z-339. The frame you presented as showing a blow-out on Kennedy's head if I'm not mistaken was Z-337, taken while her hand is still on the right side of her husband's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y

Watch her hand. It starts off on Kennedy's right shoulder and isn't pulled back to her side until the end of your loop, Z-339. The frame you presented as showing a blow-out on Kennedy's head if I'm not mistaken was Z-337, taken while her hand is still on the right side of her husband's head.

We start seeing the whiite glove clearly at frame 335 as she picks it up and moves it to her right side. At frame 337 the glove is off the shoulder and behind JFK. She is moving her had to her right side.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: My response to David Josephs in black:

DJ: I think you are trying to confuse what I am saying - that these three wounds were noticed at Parkland is not in dispute... EVERYONE saw the back of head wound...

SOME see a LEFT TEMPLE WOUND

SOME see s right temple wound

PS: This isn't true. Those claiming to see a left temple wound failed to report seeing a right temple wound. And nobody claiming to see a temple wound claimed to see a back of the head wound. They all saw one wound. The same wound. They just remembered it differently, and described it differently.

DJ: Not a single person sees anything resembling the xray... where the entire front of his skull is missing...... look at the drawings again Pat... or please post a single image of a drawing by any Parkland personnel that agree with either of the xrays...

PS: I spent weeks at the UCLA BioMed Library studying x-rays, David. And the face on the AP X-ray is intact. The x-rays concur--exactly--with the autopsy photos taken at the beginning of the autopsy.

DJ: Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?

Dr. AKIN - I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

If the RIGHT OCCIPITAL was the EXIT and the entrance came from the OTHER SIDE of the head (left temporal) - does that not add him to the list of LEFT TEMPLE wounds and those NOT seeing any frontal damage as that BS xray shows?

PS: No one disputes that the Parkland witnesses, by and large, failed to report a wound in the exact location of the wound on the photos and x-rays. But by no means can you consider Akin a "Left Temple Witness" when he never claimed to see such a wound, and was just speculating.

DJ: McClellend does not see a Left Temple wound AND hole in the back of the head?

Jenkins, left wound and large hole

Most others, Large Occipital/parietal hole...

PS: Neither McClelland nor Jenkins claimed to see a wound on the left temple. McClelland's report reflects there was a wound there. I suspect he simply confused his left with his right. But he said he screwed up because Jenkins pointed to his own left temple, and McClelland thought this meant that he--Jenkins--had seen an entrance wound there. Jenkins' testimony, in fact reflects that he did see something that caught his interest, but that he'd subsequently decided it was blood, and only mentioned the one large wound in his report.

Back wounds? no

Avulsed opening over right ear? NOPE

PS: They didn't inspect the back. And they thought the avulsed opening was a few inches further back on the skull than it was shown to be on the photos and x-rays.

DJ: The testimony is that the doctors DID SAW AWAY SKULL... now whether that was at 6:45 or 8:15 is a matter os concern...

the witnesses suggest this occurs BEFORE the Y incision and well before the official autopsy begins when the skull and prain simply fall apart - AFTER our friends Humes and Boswell obliterate the wounds both front and back.

PS: Humes said he extended the cut across the temple, but that the usual craniotomy incision--a big circular cut around the top of the head, which allows them to pull it off, was not necessary, due to the fractured nature of the skull..

DJ: Robinson:

Removal of President’s Brain: Robinson drew dotted lines on the drawing he executed of the

posterior skull which shows the wound between the ears. When asked by ARRB staff what the dotted

lines represented, he said “saw cuts.” He explained that some sawing was done to remove some bone

before the brain could be removed, and then went on to describe what is a normal craniotomy procedure,

. saying that this procedure was performed on JFK. He seemed to remember the use of a saw, and the

scalp being reflected forward.

PS: This procedure was not performed on JFK. The normal craniotomy procedure is to cut around the top of the skull, all the way around. There is no evidence they cut off the left side of Kennedy's skull to get to the brain. They claimed the right side was so smashed they could just pull it out the right side.

.

DJ: So, starting with the LIES Humes tells us about using a saw, or NOT using one... Maybe by 8:15 they did not need one... but those that were there and saw what Humes did PRE AUTOPSY

tells a very different story.... at Parkland the TOP OF THE HEAD was not damaged... only the back of the head and at the temples... regardless of how many times Specter and other say "Top of the head".

PS: No one saw Humes do a pre-autopsy. That is nonsense cooked up by Horne, based largely on a silly interpretation of Robinson's statements. As far as the top of the head, look at the photos in Groden's book of the supposed "back of the head witnesses." Most of them are pointing to the top of the head, only further back than the wound shown in the photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y

Watch her hand. It starts off on Kennedy's right shoulder and isn't pulled back to her side until the end of your loop, Z-339. The frame you presented as showing a blow-out on Kennedy's head if I'm not mistaken was Z-337, taken while her hand is still on the right side of her husband's head.

We start seeing the whiite glove clearly at frame 335 as she picks it up and moves it to her right side. At frame 337 the glove is off the shoulder and behind JFK. She is moving her had to her right side.

If, by "behind JFK," you mean behind his body, then we're not actually in disagreement. If by "behind JFK" you mean on the far side of JFK from Zapruder, however, we are, as it seems clear to me that her glove is slightly closer to Zapruder than the base of JFK's head, and blocking part of it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My responses in bold.

Pat,

I really do think you're hanging on for dear life through Mr. Toad's wild ride through wonderland.

My time is severely limited, but here are just a few quick points:

Re your statement:

Stringer always insisted that he took the autopsy photos of Kennedy, and that the wounds in the photos were as he remembered them.

Surely you do know that I spoke with Stringer twice--in August, 1972--and tape recorded those calls. Surely you do know that he insisted that the wound he photographed was at the back of the head, in the occipital area.

Surely you do know that when I brought this to Dr. Wecht's attention, he did not have the cojonas to deal with it, and quesitoned whether Stringer really knew his anatomy terminology.

Surely you do know that that's when I called Stringer back a second time, went over if again, and he re-verified everything he told me--emphasizing that of course he knew anatomic terminology; that this was his field.

And if you don't know these things, see Chapter 20 of BEST EVIDENCE, where it is all spelled out, word for word.

And surely you do know that these tapes were then played, for Stringer, by an enterprising Florida news reporter, Craig Colgan, and that Stringer then tried to play dumb. . . .

And surely you do know that I then provided these tapes to the ARRB, and they were the basis for Stringer being questioned, under oath, about these 1972 conversations?

So, yes, technically you are correct: Stringer never attacked the photographs directly; but what he said to me in August, 1972, is clearly inconsistent with the autopsy photographs showing an intact back of the head.

You really ought to know better than to try to sell this false bill of goods to anyone reading these posts, on the Internet.

The photographs Stringer took--as described to me in these August, 1972 conversations--do not show the "intact back of the head" as is shown on the official autopsy photographs now at the National Archives.

Surely you do know that. . .or ought to know that.

Of course, I know that, David. You think Stringer's statements to you are of prime importance because he said them to YOU. You can't see beyond what people said to YOU because you're too close to the situation. Stringer proved, when he spoke to the ARRB and questioned the authenticity of the brain photos, that he wasn't afraid to question the official story. And yet, when shown the autopsy photos, he told the HSCA and ARRB that he'd taken them, and that they reflected the wounds as he remembered them.

Wait... it just occurred to me--isn't it your position that the body was changed before the photos were taken? And that the photos are legit? If you've changed your position, please let us know.

* * * *

NEXT POINT. . which I shall label the "Pat Speer test for authenticity."

As described by you, Pat Speer.

Now quoting:

Well, hello? This is what I've been saying all along. The autopsy photos and x-rays are clear-cut evidence that there was more than one shooter...which is why I assume they are authentic. END OF QUOTE

This, imho, is a rather bizarre criterion for authenticity.

It's not a criterion. It's one of many factors leading to a conclusion.

The fact that evidence which may have been altered still shows (or "nevertheless shows"--choose your own terminology) is certainly NOT proof of authenticity, and should certainly not be the basis for any assumption of validity much less authenticity.

All that means--if the evidence was altered--is that the alteration was imperfect, or carried out hurriedly, or did not take into acount all the data.

Try and sell that one to the public. "Yeah, there was this giant conspiracy, but they didn't know what they were doing. They kidnapped and altered the body, but changed it in a way that still showed conspiracy. So then they lied about it."

An excellent case in point concerns the possibility of Zapruder film alteration.

Some dozen witnesses said the car stopped (I interviewed 4 of them, in 1971) and dozens more said it slowed sharply, to the point that it "almost" stopped, etc.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. It's nonsense. Many of the so-called "limo-stopped" witnesses were really limo-slowed or motorcade stopped witnesses, which is to say NOT "limo-stopped" witnesses.

If (in reality, i.e., in actuality) that actually happened, and if the film was altered in an attempt to conceal that fact, then a very serious problem arose, because the result of frame deletion (i.e., "speeding up the action") resulted in a very serious artifact: the appearance, on the resultant (altered) film, that the head "snapped" backwards.

Now I can tell you, from personal experience, that the backward headsnap was something that was the foundation for my initial belief that there must have been someone firing at Kennedy from the front (this was before I realized the powerful evidence, offered by the Dallas doctors, of an exit wound at the rear of the head) . And I an also tell you, from years of lecturing on the case, that one of the most powerful pieces of evidence of conspiracy that an be shown to a lecture audience, is that backward headsnap.

Now today (and going back to about 1970, when I first had the insight) I realize that the backward snap is an artifact of an altered film. But it would never occur to me--and would be, imho, totally false and fallacious--to assert that because the film shows such a dramatic headsnap (i.e. beause it shows "evidence of conspiracy") that the film was not (i.e., "could not have been") altered.

That is absurd.

If the alteration was done under great time pressure--and if plotters faced a Hobson's choice, i.e., if the choice was either exonerating the Secret Service by making the assassination appear to have been a six-second "we-were-caught-by-surprise" affair; OR. . having no head-snap, but (in that case) having a 10-15 second assassiantion, and a clearly non-reacting Secret Service, the choice would have been clear: alter the film; and just "lock it up" (which is what happened in this case), so hardly anyone would see the head-snap

But then, someone comes along, and argues (as you do). . and you see how folks react to the headsnap, and you might argue: "Oh, that film shows evidene of conspiray; ergo, it could not have been altered!"

I have never said it "could not" have been altered. I have merely reported that my conclusion the evidence suggests a conspiracy feeds my conclusion the evidence was most probably not altered.

The bottom line: this was not a perfect crime, and apparently, those who were involved not just in the crime, but in the coverup, got tangled in their own web of lies, and imperfectly and sloppily altered data.

I'm sorry to see you citing their clearly imperfect cover-up, as "evidence of authenticity."

DSL

8/19/12; 8:15 PDT

Los Angeles, California

Re your statement (quote on):

This has been discussed ad nauseum. It's nonsense. Many of the so-called "limo-stopped" witnesses were really limo-slowed or motorcade stopped witnesses, which is to say NOT "limo-stopped" witnesses. QUOTE OFF

Nonsense.

Perhaps the most important car-stop witness (or should I say witnesses) were the Newmans--Bill and Gayle Newman.

In my November, 1971 visit to Dallas, I spent an hour or so with the Newmans, at their home, a Sony reel-to-reel TC-800 Tape recorder sitting right there on the table.

In describing he assassination, Bill Newman said the car stopped--not having the faintest idea of the significance of that statement.

I then told him that the Zapruder film at the National Archives showed no such stop.

He replied that he didn't care what any film showed--he was right there, and the car stopped.

His wife agreed.

Once again, here you come along, four decades later, and inform us that this is nonsense.

You assure us that the car did not stop, even though two witnesses who were there said the car stopped, momentarily, right in front of them.

You have a most peculiar way of approaching evidence, Pat; you don't seem to care what the witnesses who were there said; you think that what you have decided "must have happened"--whether by deduction or inference--is superior to what witnesses who were actually there observed.

Sorry, but I cannot go along with your conclusion, or with this line of "reasoning."

DSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Of course, I know that, David. You think Stringer's statements to you are of prime importance because he said them to YOU. You can't see beyond what people said to YOU because you're too close to the situation. Stringer proved, when he spoke to the ARRB and questioned the authenticity of the brain photos, that he wasn't afraid to question the official story. And yet, when shown the autopsy photos, he told the HSCA and ARRB that he'd taken them, and that they reflected the wounds as he remembered them. "

Sorry Pat, but Stringer's statements are important because they give his state of mind before pressure was put on him (whether by others or self-imposed) to conform his recollections to the back of the head photo. Lifton interviewed him in 1972, and got Stringer on record (emphatically so) as to the location of the head wound. When the official photos became known which he was supposed to have taken, his admissions to Lifton were an utter embarrassment. So he repudiated them. But Pat, the earlier 1972 statements are the more important ones, given what we now know of the dubious nature of the back of the head photo.

So also with the limo stop witnesses, whom you dismiss. Lifton, not you, interviewed these people in 1971, years before the public airing of the Z-film. Lifton, not you, have them down as saying the limo stopped. They were there, and were emphatic about it. You and I were not there. I have many times also alluded to Debra Conway's breakthough interview with Toni Foster in KAC Summer 2000. She is quite specific about two things: 1. the limo stop and 2. the "spray went behing him" referring to the blood and brains exiting the back of Kennedy's head. These people were staring at the limo and were there. You can't call their recollections nonsense.

"Try and sell that one to the public. "Yeah, there was this giant conspiracy, but they didn't know what they were doing. They kidnapped and altered the body, but changed it in a way that still showed conspiracy. So then they lied about it."

The existence of the shipping casket and body bag proves the body was kidnapped. The brutal condition of the head, unlike anything seen at Parkland, and Humes' comment of surgery, proved that the body was altered (not to mention the inordinately long and messy "trach incision" apparent in the stare of death photo). And you criticize Lifton because the project was done imperfectly? It may be a hard sell but the truth sometimes is, and it's not Lifton's fault that this is so.

Daniel, thanks for your support, and writing about this as succinctly as you have.

I would like to add one other thing.

Let's turn to Pat Speer's statement, QUOTE ON:

Try and sell that one to the public. "Yeah, there was this giant conspiracy, but they didn't know what they were doing. They kidnapped and altered the body, but changed it in a way that still showed conspiracy. So then they lied about it." END QUOTE

It is simple a fact of history that the Dallas doctors and nurses -to the extent that they wrote medical reports and/or expressed an opinion to the press, and/or testified to the Warren Commission--said that President Kennedy was shot from the front. Either because they observed an entrance wound at the front of the throat, or an exit at the back of the head (or both).

It is also a simple fact of history that by the time the body reached Bethesda--and here I now refer to the autopsy report and testimony--there was no evidence, on the body, of a an entry from the front.

So if eliminating evidence of "cross -fire" (i.e., frontal entry, assuming Oswald was firing from the rear, as the news media was reporting); OR, alternatively, fabricating evidence of rear entry. . . if either of these were the goals, then the plotters sure did succeed, did they not?

Now. . when one gets to the finer details. . i.e., whether the bullet that supposedly entered the rear of the shoulder transited the body , on a downward slanting trajetory, that is a much more subtler proposition; and that's exactly where errors do appear to have been made. I discuss this in BEST EVIDENCE, under the general heading, the "low/high" conflict. Clearly, as more information became available (i.e., the Zapruder film, and the fact that Kennedy's throat wound not be a fragment of the head shot, because he was reacting to it as early as Z-189, whereas JFK was (supposedly) shot in the head at Z-313, then it became imperative that the putative "rear entry" be higher than it was apparently (and originally made, if one goes by the clothing holes).

I find this perfectly plausible. Regardless of how much planning went into this assassiantion, who would ever have thought there would be such a compound screw-up as (a) having the first shot (to the throat) be non-fatal, requiring a second shot at least 5 seconds later; (b ) that Connally would be shot by accident; and (c ) that all this would be recorded on film, through a telescopic lens?

So no, I don't find it at all implausible that those who altered the body to make sure there was no evidence of "cross fire" , would then have to make certain "adjustments" (strictly after the fact) to come up with the one-bullet/two victim scenario, which required a downward slanting neck trajectory; and which, in turn, required a rear entry "high enough" on the back (or shoulder) of the President to support such a bizarre proposition.

That's why, as Doug Horne has shown, there were at least two "prior versions" of the autopsy report, before the final "conclusions" were agreed upon.

All of this left a serious (and almost comically obvious) paper trail, so no, I don't find this difficult to "sell" to the public--but once again, whether it is easy to "sell" or not, is not a criterion as to what actually happened.

It is pretty obvious that the body was in fact covertly intercepted, and altered, prior to the delivery to the morgue; and that then, there was a certain amount of pulling and hauling connected with the actual writing of the autopsy report, which left such things as:

(a) the order not to talk

(b ) the burned notes, and first draft

(c ) The earlier version (or two) of prior autopsy conclusions.

And you [speaking now to Pat Speer] consider this hard to "sell" to the American public?

Well, whether its difficult or not, I really don't care. I'm in the truth business, not in the marketing business.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
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...