Jump to content
The Education Forum

Who would you choose as the "face of JFK research" for the 50th Anniversary


Martin White
 Share

Recommended Posts

First of all, you need a message. Something like a video or possibly a documentary, but nothing as long as a book. PowerPoint is close but too static. You need something with animation and good sound to keep people mesmerized. A series of such videos would be acceptable, especially to tell the full story. However, the younger generation needs something easy to tweet after a 1-5 minute viewing.

Second, you need money--a lot of money. Any good PR campaign needs funding and all of the CTers together can't afford what I'm talking about. You'll need one or more angels to invest in this baby and you'll need the money upfront in order to avoid the cold feet syndrome that has derailed many a noble activity. The dream of "going viral" cannot be the core part of this campaign. Exponential growth of good buzz is obviously helpful, but you'll need a deeper experience to drive behavioral changes.

Third, you need a goal and a plan to accomplish it. This is actually "step zero" but I placed it third because nobody ever thinks of this and instead focuses on what they have to say (i.e., the message). The problem is that the message is never enough. There is always the chance that the random person will listen to you and even believe what you're saying, but it's all meaningless unless that person does something with this new information. Say you convince them that LHO is 100% innocent. Great, then what? Maybe you'll want to start a campaign to change all of our textbooks or perhaps tear down the TSBD 6th floor shrine. The point is that we tend to ignore the action part and knowledge without action is useless. This is another reason why you'll need a lot of money.

The fourth part is having a good face (i.e., mouthpiece), but a team of good spokespersons is even better. I had a thought once that it would be interesting to contact 100 leading celebrities (movie stars, sports stars, musicians, etc.) and ask them to lend their money and their time/face to the project. If only a few agree (and it's easy to imagine a couple of athletes, actors, or rap stars willing to rattle the cage), you'd still have a huge leg up on this endeavor. The trick is to not tie yourself to a single personality (e.g., meet Mike Tyson and Mariah Carey, the face of the CT movement). The plus side is that you'd get instant funding and credibility with such an approach.

Mix these ingredients and you'd have the start of a proposal.

The good news about this approach is that DiEugenio, Douglass, and all of the others cited would only have to help the "face" with the scripts and the facts. We would really just be pointing people to the message (part 1) and direct them to some type of action (part 3).

The bad news (from my own POV) is that I'm not sure what the action will be. We can't reform the political system in our country and we'd have a hard time even redoing the HSCA work correctly without subpoena power. Thus, we would have to have an historical or economic outcome such as updating textbooks (as silly as that might sound, at least it's a tactical plan) or developing a public resource (library, website, etc.) that "tells the truth" or facilitates openness.

Any others ideas? I've been thinking about this for years and (as some of you know) am frustrated that we focus on the facts and disinformation rather than the message and the subsequent action.

-------

A very important post that needs to be referred to lots if anyone is interested in making the 50th work instead of putting all the chips on Dallas in November. We Know the Dealer and his deck. Dallas in November will be wet powder if it is ONLY Dallas in November. We cannot rely on the lenses that murdered Jack. Suicide is not good for their portfolio. And I mean we cannot rely on their lenses in any way at all.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

First of all, you need a message. Something like a video or possibly a documentary, but nothing as long as a book.... However, the younger generation needs something easy to tweet after a 1-5 minute viewing.

*************

Good luck finding somebody with a film, other than Oliver Stone. These things cost money. Money comes from mainstream sources. Mainstream media conglomerates are more likely to print JFK books than fund JFK movies. Nobody's making serious feature films on JFK anymore. Broadcast-quality documentaries of an hour's length or more cost $350K and upward.

Len Osanic has been putting up on his Black Op Radio site a series of short films on 50 lies of the Warren Commission - but these are disjoint topics for the purposes being discussed, and Len, bless him, is Canadian and so is disqualified in the eyes of US media. They'd turn him into an Alex Jones figure.

Documentaries and feature films also are subject to omissions, elisions, and statements that divide the research communities. Books like JFK and the Unspeakable and Destiny Betrayed have more consensus among researchers, less to argue about.

The alternative, Tom, is that we all get behind...John Hankey. There's some Twitter-worthy.DIY filmmaking, for sure. :idea

Edited by David Andrews
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we DON'T want for the "face" of the movement is someone who characterizes anyone and everyone who disagrees with one single iota of their pet theory as a "disinformation agent." And unfortunately, that would eliminate many of the so-called "best and the brightest" of the researchers on the side of conspiracy.

I would think Doug Horne would possibly qualify,..if only because of the volume of evidence he's had the opportunity to examine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we DON'T want for the "face" of the movement is someone who characterizes anyone and everyone who disagrees with one single iota of their pet theory as a "disinformation agent." And unfortunately, that would eliminate many of the so-called "best and the brightest" of the researchers on the side of conspiracy.

I would think Doug Horne would possibly qualify,..if only because of the volume of evidence he's had the opportunity to examine.

That said, the truth of the kennedy assassination cannot be determined as if it is a political convention and some middle of the road candidate is chosen because he has the best chance of winning. You mention Doug Horne, and I agree he would be an excellent choice. But he believes, as I do, that Kennedy's body was stolen from the Dallas casket and entered the Bethesda Morgue 20 minutes before it was supposed to, and by the time the official autopsy began, was a medical forgery. It matters a great deal whether or not this is true, just as it matters a great deal whether or Horne's view of Z-film alteration is true (and I agree with him here as well). It is one thing to punch holes in the WC report. That is rather a trivial matter. It is quite another to delve into the perps manipulating evidence behind the scenes. A failure to examine fraud in the evidence only plays into the hands of those who chide the CT community for not presenting an alternative scenario on how the assassination happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read Horne that closely. Do we have to agree with everything in his 5-volume work to allow him to be a "face for the 50th?" If you read my statement carefully, you would have already anticipated this response: Horne takes on the issues in this case that make an important contribution toward exposing the fraud in the evidence. That is too important a contribution to be set aside because of his other speculations. I stand by what I said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Jim, let's put it this way; my perception of failure on your part adequately to pursue "fraud in the evidence" does not therefore invalidate you as a "face for the 50th," even though I regard this (perceived) fault of yours as far worse than Horne's take on Greer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be disagreements. Always. One way that some groups use to work together is to use a form of consensual democracy. A group of the willing form a coalition with an aim to avoid internal fighting while presenting reasons individually but only on prearranged committments to consensus. If one dissents on a point then that point is not presented until otherwise. This (transnational) group hold internal discussions with the aim to resolve these issues, naturally they need to be recorded and diseminated but as a grouping, a peoples commission perhaps, the aim should be to affirm the need to take conspiracy seriously and posiitions of commonality being already a formula for that which is best. This lends it a certain legitimacy that won't need msm or Junta status quo approval. Such a united front may attract those who otherwise may not want to be associated (and, perhaps, my first choice, RFK jr, might show some interest jk(sort of))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There will always be disagreements. Always. One way that some groups use to work together is to use a form of consensual democracy. A group of the willing form a coalition with an aim to avoid internal fighting while presenting reasons individually but only on prearranged committments to consensus. If one dissents on a point then that point is not presented until otherwise. This (transnational) group hold internal discussions with the aim to resolve these issues, naturally they need to be recorded and diseminated but as a grouping, a peoples commission perhaps, the aim should be to affirm the need to take conspiracy seriously and posiitions of commonality being already a formula for that which is best. This lends it a certain legitimacy that won't need msm or Junta status quo approval. Such a united front may attract those who otherwise may not want to be associated (and, perhaps, my first choice, RFK jr, might show some interest jk(sort of))

the unwritten assumption here is that controversial matters which divide the research community should be put aside because a united front is better than a divided one. Unfortunately, it may be that the controversial matters are the key to solving the case to the extent it can be solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, Daniel

Excellent discussion, gentlemen!

My comments like this...

OK Daniel, let us take up your "Controversial matters...are the key to solving the case to the extent it can be solved."

I agree with this. The root facts of the case are fraught with controversy, to wit:

JFK's T3 back wound was too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

That much can be proven as an historical fact. High back wound advocates have lapsed into silence save an occasional xxxxx howling at the sun.

The ramifications of this root fact -- JFK back wound too low -- are enormous. It means the throat wound was a shot from the front. It means that there were two wounds of entrance with no exits and no bullets found during the autopsy. Three possibilities have been put forth to explain this "central mystery" and all of them are controversial.

Now, since this started with Horne, let us continue it there. Here are some of the controversial matters he upholds but which you think are key to solving the case:

1. There were three holes punched in to the back of Kennedy's corpse. One in the back and two in the skull.

That is one explanation for why the back wound was shallow with no exit and no bullet.

Another explanation is that JFK was hit with a round that didn't show up on x-ray. FBI SA James Sibert put in a call to the FBI lab to inquire as to the existence of rounds "which would dissolve after contact."

The third explanation is that the round in JFK's back was removed pre-autopsy.

These explanations are so controversial lots of people don't accept the fact that JFK's back wound was at T3, because the evidentiary universe defined by the T3 back wound seems "macabre" or "exotic" and thus unlikely...

As those who follow my posts know (repeated endlessly) "dissolves after contact" makes sense to me.

2. There were five shots to Kennedy's head, and three of these were from the front.

Arguably the most pernicious rabbit hole in the entire case given the fact we can never know how many times JFK was struck in the head. Given the fact that pre-autopsy surgery to the head was indicated in the FBI report on the autopsy, this is a matter of speculation only, and is likely to tell us more about the way the murder was covered up than the way it was pulled off.

3. There was very likely a fourth shot to the front of the head, delivered by Greer. (Who apparently didn't mind the fact that scores of people would see him, and many of these people had still cameras and even film cameras. Therefore, an open and shut case would be made against him.)

I don't buy it.

4. Joe O'Donnell projected a 16 mm version of the Zapruder film for Jackie Kennedy in the White House. One which he called an original. When she got upset, he cut out ten feet of the film. This is after the film had already been altered. MInd you, ten feet of a 26 second 16 mm film is quite a lot, like half of it. He must have been an expert cutter to camouflage that seamlessly.

5. In the famous back of the head photo, showing a pretty much intact skull, there is not any sign of photographic alteration. That was actually rebuilt for the camera. (Talk to Cyril Wecht about that one. You will get an earful. )

Yes, there is a sign of photographic alteration -- the back wound could not have possibly been in that location (unless you care to join the xxxxx howling at the sun).

6. Knudsen took a separate set of photos at the request of RFK and these got back to Pitzer. (Man, how did Pitzer live as long as he did after the assassination?)

7. The neck wound actually arrived at Bethesda as a sutured wound. Forceps had been previously applied to extract bullets and they needed to sew it up.

It's a possibility, I suppose. Either that or JFK was hit in the throat with a round that "dissolved after contact." Ashton Gray came up with another explanation -- Diana Bowron shivved JFK in the throat while wheeling him into the ER.

Controversial matters cannot be avoided in this case.

8. This had been done in a forward compartment on Air Force One.

Really hard to swallow that one. They had to punch a hole in the back early on, as well...Naw, I don't see it...

I'll give Lifton/Horne credit for examining what was possible, I just find most of it highly unlikely.

Now, if this is your idea about tackling controversial aspects of the JFK case this year, and this will solve the case for our side, then please, count me out. This kind of stuff leads us to a one way ticket to a cul de sac in which our car is going to drive around in circles for about five more decades. Because the obvious question which you are seemingly oblivious to is this:

HOW THE HECK DO YOU EVER PROVE ANY OF THIS STUFF? TO ANY SATISFA​CTORY DEGREE?

All we can prove for a fact is that JFK's back wound was at T3, at least two shooters fired, and JFK was hit in the throat from the front.

After that, we are in the realm of speculation. Lifton/Horne explore scenarios which were possible but, imho, highly unlikely in regard to the back and throat wounds.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Daniel, let us take up your "Controversial matters...are the key to solving the case to the extent it can be solved."

Now, since this started with Horne, let us continue it there. Here are some of the controversial matters he upholds but which you think are key to solving the case:

1. There were three holes punched in to the back of Kennedy's corpse. One in the back and two in the skull.

2. There were five shots to Kennedy's head, and three of these were from the front.

3. There was very likely a fourth shot to the front of the head, delivered by Greer. (Who apparently didn't mind the fact that scores of people would see him, and many of these people had still cameras and even film cameras. Therefore, an open and shut case would be made against him.)

4. Joe O'Donnell projected a 16 mm version of the Zapruder film for Jackie Kennedy in the White House. One which he called an original. When she got upset, he cut out ten feet of the film. This is after the film had already been altered. MInd you, ten feet of a 26 second 16 mm film is quite a lot, like half of it. He must have been an expert cutter to camouflage that seamlessly.

5. In the famous back of the head photo, showing a pretty much intact skull, there is not any sign of photographic alteration. That was actually rebuilt for the camera. (Talk to Cyril Wecht about that one. You will get an earful. )

6. Knudsen took a separate set of photos at the request of RFK and these got back to Pitzer. (Man, how did Pitzer live as long as he did after the assassination?)

7. The neck wound actually arrived at Bethesda as a sutured wound. Forceps had been previously applied to extract bullets and they needed to sew it up.

8. This had been done in a forward compartment on Air Force One.

Now, if this is your idea about tackling controversial aspects of the JFK case this year, and this will solve the case for our side, then please, count me out. This kind of stuff leads us to a one way ticket to a cul de sac in which our car is going to drive around in circles for about five more decades. Because the obvious question which you are seemingly oblivious to is this:

HOW THE HECK DO YOU EVER PROVE ANY OF THIS STUFF? TO ANY SATISFA​CTORY DEGREE?

Go ahead, prove there were five shots to t head, 3-4 from the front, and Greer turned around and shot Kennedy with a handgun in broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses who actually were photographing the scene. Yet not one photo or film depicts anything like this. Go ahead Danny.

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

Do you know how ridiculous this will make us sound? Maybe like Alex Jones on Piers Morgan? Maybe worse?

And please, do not reply that I have no ideas, or have expressed none, about there being fakery in the evidence.

Did you read my book? Have you ever read anything by me on the following issues?

1. I believe that CE 399 was switched before it got to FBI HQ that night. And therefore CE 399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza.

2. I do not believe that Oswald ever ordered or picked up the MC rifle found on the sixth floor.

3. I do not believe that Oswald ever picked up the handgun used to kill TIppit, and he was not at 10th and Patton.

4. I believe, as David Mantik and others do, that the x-rays were tampered with.

5. I do not believe Oswald was at the Russian or Cuban embassies in Mexico CIty and did the things attributed to him.

6. I do not believe the Mexico City tapes sent up to the FBI after the assassination are of him.

7. And I do not believe, as the official story has it, that these tapes were destroyed before the assassination.

The difference between the two sets is that I can advance strong cases in my suppositions that are convincing. And can stand counter scrutiny. And have.

And these are crucial to the case, and not just, in your words, critical of the WC. Because they show that:

1.) Hoover was in on the cover up almost immediately.

2.) The Pentagon did not just control the autopsy. Someone over there actually altered exhibits afterwards.

3.) Elements within the CIA knew in advance that Oswald was being set up seven weeks in advance and that Mexico City would be crucial to covering up the their own role in the crime.

Beware the man who knows only one book. (Or in your case, two.)

But worse, only one aspect of the case.

Jim, I don't know where to start. You're quite a poor mind reader, if you suppose you know what I think in this case. And it would seem you failed to grasp my initial post, which did not detail the "fraud in the evidece" that is indisputable IMO and which is not. So you jump to a thousand conclusions and as a result appear to me to be shooting several clips of bullets into the wall hoping some will hit their mark. I don't live by such intellectual sloppiness, and I would hope you would not either. As a mathematics instructor, I am well-schooled in what is a proof and what is not, and find it a trivial matter to spot a fallacious argument when it comes my way. So don't bore me with a long list of Horne's alleged errors. Someone will come back and list yours. Rather, since this case is rather counter-intuitive in its essence, let us hold as tentative some of your assured conclusions that Horne is wrong. Where to start? Punched holes? It is a possibility. The earliest reliable testimony of the back wound at Parkland came long after the autopsy. I do not trust for a moment Diana Bowron's assertions before Harrison Livingston, because she had ample opportunity to tell the WC about any wounds in the back, and failed to do so. Both she, nurse Henchcliff and the orderly Sanders were in a position to see such a wound. But there is no contemporaneous witness to it. Is it artificial? There is evidence for that conclusion. Is it conclusive? You'll have to decide that. It is also well-known that until bones arrived around or after midnight there was no evidence of a wound near the EOP. These bones were represented as having come from Dallas. They might have, or they might be the work of a rush job of alteration of the skull, an alteration that is certain to have happened, comparing the Parkland and Bethesda wound descriptions, and esp. Humes' assertion of surgery. It is a matter capable of question. As to the number of shots to Kennedy's head, if alteration preceded the autopsy, which I regard as a certainty, then the body as a medical forgery would not accurately render to the physicans the number of shots to the head. it is possible, given the conflicting statements at Parkland, that Kennedy received shots to both the right and left temple. I don't think we will ever know. As for the sutured throat wound, I have no doubt that the trach incision was enlarged to extract bullets or bullet fragments from a shot that Clark said "ranged downward and did not exit" to the NYTimes a few days after the assassination. He got this from Perry. Ebersole claimed someone in Dallas sutured the wound. If you have a problem with that, it is not with Horne but with Ebersole. As to where the wound was sutured, this is unknown to this day. But the size of the incision and its irregular edges suggests this is not the incision Perry made, and if it was surtured, then the body's early entrance to the morgue at 6:40 p.m. tantalizes but does not answer this crucial question. I am well aware Horne thinks Kellerman played doctor, but I rather doubt he had knowledge of suturing. Had he a hand in all this? Pure speculation, but certainly someone connected with the Secret Service gained access to Kennedy's body, since it appears in a shipping casket in a body bag before the Dallas casket arrives at Bethesda...it is most likely someone who knew how to surture. Since the x-rays are most likely faked, given the work of Mantik, I do not doubt that the photos were as well. I hold no brief for the other points mentioned, viz, O'Donnell Pitzer and Greer.

Jim, I honestly think you miss the forest for the trees. Quibble with Horne on some points, fine. But the essential question, and the most important one in this entire case is simply this: was the chain of possession of Kennedy's body lost between Parkland and Bethesda? There is very strong evidence that this happened. And if it did happen, the 50th anniversary representatives should park right there, and keep prying at that door until it is open and reveals the hidden machinations involved with both the theft of the body and what was done to it.

I might add, I never said you denied fraud in the evidence. That is of course a misrepresentation of my position. And in fairness to you, I have not read your book, though I have read whole sections of The Assassinations which you edited with Lisa Pease. I don't think you go far enough in taking a jaundiced view of the evidence, that's all.

One final thing: there is a glaring logical breakdown in your post, and it concerns the following statemetnj: " The difference between the two sets is that I can advance strong cases in my suppositions that are convincing. And can stand counter scrutiny. And have. " The error is to suppose that your suppostions are the important ones, and that others that are harder to advance in a convincing matter are less important. As I said before, this case is very counter-intuitive, and the more imporant issues may be harder to prove, yet more important to solve.

What is this "Danny" business? I would not out of disrespect call you "Jimmy." You have earned a right to be heard. And be respected. But then what is this about my having read only one or two books?? I am nevertheless weary of sophomoric condescension. If you want my respect to grow, you'll dispense with school-boy bullying and engage in proper intellectual decorum. My guidelines for criticism have always been and will be taken from Mortimor J. Adler's How to Read a Book. If you are familiar with the work you'll know what I am talking about; if not may I suggest picking up a copy? Best Regards, Daniel

Edited by Daniel Gallup
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help but suspect that there is a campaign at work and it is made up of several levels.

The mind boggles

I long ago came to the conclusion that James Fetzer was purposely trying to undermine..... Similar to the way in which he has systematically helped destroy the reputation and credibility of the nine-eleven truth movement.

"Destroy the reputation of the nine-eleven truth movement"

Now there's a good one.

To what reputation do you refer, Sir,?

Might that perchance be the reputation for being LOONEY TUNES?

Do I sound pessimistic?

Optimism is a precondition for sound reasoning.

Pessimists fail to qualify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Optimism is a precondition for sound reasoning. Pessimists fail to qualify.

Lee Farley has shown himself to be a pragmatist. And even pragmatists may sound pessimistic from time to time.

Charles Sanders Peirce wrote: "Where hope is unchecked by any experience, it is likely that our optimism is extravagant."

Carroll giving his preconditions for sound reasoning is not unlike a panhandler giving stock tips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, a lot of people can't discuss these issues -- simply can't "Go There" -- because they don't think they'd be taken seriously if they did.

&So, they don't take these issues seriously. Which is unfortunate.

I think the the medical evidence needs to be framed correctly. We must recognize the difference between medical evidence which was properly prepared/maintained, and medical evidence which was improperly prepared/maintained. The medical evidence produced according to proper protocols indicate there was a shallow entrance wound in the back with no exit and an entrance wound in the throat with no exit.

No bullets were recovered during the autopsy.

The central issue of the case (imo) is -- what happened to the bullets?

Is it a sin of ommission to be oblivious to this central issue? Probably. But it's just as much a sin of ommission to promote one solution to the mystery while ignoring other possibilities.

Two entrance wounds, no corresponding exits, no bullets recovered during the autopsy. These are the possibilities that have been put forth, near as I can tell.

Back wound

1) Defective round, which left a shallow wound, was removed pre-autopsy.

2) High tech weaponry involving bullet that didn't show up on x-ray, as speculated by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

3) Punched in post-mortem

4) Some mysterious explanation beyond anyone's conception, deus ex machina.

Throat wound

1) Defective round, which left a shallow wound, was removed pre-autopsy.

2) High tech weaponry involving bullet that didn't show up on x-ray, as speculated by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

3) A fragment from the head shot exited the throat (advanced by Josiah Thompson and others).

4) Diana Bowron shivved JFK in the throat while wheeling him into the ER (advanced by Ashton Gray, who is otherwise sorely missed).

5. The Mysterioso -- deus exs machina...

Going forward I'll argue that it was a high likelihood that JFK was murdered in part by high tech weaponry -- but it's a mistake to be certain about any of these possibilities with the exceptions of #3 and #4 under throat wound. Ridiculous!

Consider the battle won if you can get people to look at this stuff with the sobriety it deserves.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel, a lot of people can't discuss these issues -- simply can't "Go There" -- because they don't think they'd be taken seriously if they did.

&So, they don't take these issues seriously. Which is unfortunate.

I think the the medical evidence needs to be framed correctly. We must recognize the difference between medical evidence which was properly prepared/maintained, and medical evidence which was improperly prepared/maintained. The medical evidence produced according to proper protocols indicate there was a shallow entrance wound in the back with no exit and an entrance wound in the throat with no exit.

No bullets were recovered during the autopsy.

The central issue of the case (imo) is -- what happened to the bullets?

Is it a sin of ommission to be oblivious to this central issue? Probably. But it's just as much a sin of ommission to promote one solution to the mystery while ignoring other possibilities.

Two entrance wounds, no corresponding exits, no bullets recovered during the autopsy. These are the possibilities that have been put forth, near as I can tell.

Back wound

1) Defective round, which left a shallow wound, was removed pre-autopsy.

2) High tech weaponry involving bullet that didn't show up on x-ray, as speculated by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

3) Punched in post-mortem

4) Some mysterious explanation beyond anyone's conception, deus ex machina.

Throat wound

1) Defective round, which left a shallow wound, was removed pre-autopsy.

2) High tech weaponry involving bullet that didn't show up on x-ray, as speculated by the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

3) A fragment from the head shot exited the throat (advanced by Josiah Thompson and others).

4) Diana Bowron shivved JFK in the throat while wheeling him into the ER (advanced by Ashton Gray, who is otherwise sorely missed).

5. The Mysterioso -- deus exs machina...

Going forward I'll argue that it was a high likelihood that JFK was murdered in part by high tech weaponry -- but it's a mistake to be certain about any of these possibilities with the exceptions of #3 and #4 under throat wound. Ridiculous!

Consider the battle won if you can get people to look at this stuff with the sobriety it deserves.

Agreed -- just getting anyone to take a serious look at the medical issues is a victory. I first read Six Seconds in Dallas in 1971 and got hooked by Anthony Summers Conspiracy and of course Best Evidence in the early 80s. I don't have a lot of time to look into the case so I try to focus mainly on "fraud in the evidence" and agree it is difficult to frame properly the medical evidence precisely because it is not easy to determine where proper protocol was maintained and where it wasn't. My personal view is that once the coffin was closed at Parkland all hope of solving the case through the autopsy was lost. I say this on the basis that, once the chain of possession of the body was lost (and I think it was) all bets are off concerning what story the body might then tell. Perry told Clark that a bullet entered the throat from the front and that it ranged downward and did not exit. Clark took that story to the New York Times a few days later. That is my basis for maintaining a shot from the front (as well as others who saw the wound before the trach incision and said it looked like an entrance wound). I am troubled that there is no written corroboration of the back wound at Parlkand from Nurse Bowron until the 90s, and nothing from Nurse Henchcliff, as far as I have been able to determine. I believe I read some time ago that Jenkins said he saw the wound, but there are no contemporaneous notes confirming this to my knowledge and Jenkins was notorious for changing his story.

As far as promoting one solution to the mystery, much depends indeed on whether or not it can be established that the chain of possession of Kennedy's body was lost. From the testimony at Bethesda , and especially the somewhat newly released Boyajian report as found in Horne, it would seem Dennis David was correct in thinking he carried Kennedy's body into the Morgue entrance around 6:40. He was told by Boswell, as he reports to Lifton, that Kenendy's body was in the shipping casket. If so it is hard to understand a benign interpretation of that event, especially in light of the relatively unambiguous look of the body at Parkland, and the difficulty the doctors at Bethesda had in determining almost anything about the head shot until the famous "late arriving fragments." If there is a better scenario to explain the mystery, I would be glad to hear it. Anyway, your commets are appreciated. Best, daniel

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...