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

Daniel

I think you sum up this issue nicely. Even if you don't buy the body alteration theory (and I sit on the fence here) the case for some kind of cup game involving the body - simple decoy or something darker - is inescapable.

Time and again with this case, things which should be simple and straightforward are anything but. I can imagine no innocent reason for this.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Daniel:

Please check the title of this thread.

You volunteered Horne:

THen you say: Quibble with Horne on some points, fine.

Really?

Quibble with 5 shots to the head and Greer shooting Kennedy?

Quibble with 3 holes punched into the back?

Quibble with the back of the head being reconstructed?

Quibble with the neck wound being sutured on AF One?

Quibble about a 16 mm Z film that was later cut in half by O'Donnell?

Yeah I will quibble all day about this stuff. Simply because as I said, it leads us into a cul de sac, because it is stuff that can never be proven. What you do is cherry pick a piece of evidence and then say, "Well see, look at that?" Its something I criticized Horne on also.

Consider what you and he say about the back wound: Are you really implying that all the shots came from the front? Or that most of them did?

And you cannot understand that the doctors were not focused on the body, but on the gaping head wound? ABout which their testimony is solid. BTW, nice way to dismiss people you don't like in Bowron. (I have already heard you on Glen Bennett, so I expected you to recite the creed on Bowron also.)

See, the problem with Horne is that, in many instances, he then never went back and rechecked what he said. Or never had anyone edit or fact check his work. And with people like you I think he would have been encouraged not to do so. Since the wilder and more weakly substantiated, the better in Gallup's world.

Maybe for you. But for most of us, we have had enough of that. Its this kind of stuff that gets our heads cut off.

I mean even DVP had fun playing around with the no shots from the rear scenario. I can imagine what Ailes would do.

Jim, having trouble with Bowron does not mean I dssmiss her. However, since you brought it up, please explain to me why, when she was asked by the WC about any other wounds, she did not volunteer her recollections about the back wound. That is my problem with her. Had she spoken of it then, we would not be having this conversation now. Now as to "quibbling," OK, my point was that Horne speculates on many things in the 5 volumes. I did say in my response to you that in seemed a bit far-fetched to think that Kellerman played doctor. But Ebersole is the source for the surtured wound account, and if what he says is true, at some point in the autopsy he saw a surtured throat wound, and he thought it was done in Dallas. So Ebersole's observations had to be early in the series of inscrutable events we call Bethesda Friday night. Ebersole's observations, Humes' comment about surgery, the Osborne allegation, Jenkins recollections-- things were going on Friday night that are extremely unusual and defy common-sense explanantion. It is easy to speculate, and speculate wrongly. I have no doubt Horne is guilty of this. So you see, your cheap shot at the end of the post:" And with people like you I think he would have been encouraged not to do so. Since the wilder and more weakly substantiated, the better in Gallup's world" is not grounded in any reality I can think of, and reinforces my point that you miss the forest for the trees. The forest is the interception of the body and its being rendered a medical forgery. Horne bolsters the case for this in many ways, and for this I am most grateful. The trees are certain of Horne's speculations, many of which, like you, I take with a grain of salt, and would argue they are peripheral to the central thesis of fraud in the evidence, principally re:the President's body (well, and the Z-film as well).

Jim, you're an experienced writer with a great interest in the case. It is a fine thing to write a book, and I know how difficult it is to do so. I am currently teaming with a retired professor and we are writing a book on Differnential Equations. I am testing our book, at least at its present stage, on my students here in Pasadena. My hat is off to you for what you have accomplished, and especially your re-write of Destiny Betrayed. You will forgive me for not having read it as my plate is very full (I also play violin and viola at church). That said, please extend to me some courtesy and lay off your own wild speculations about what I really think about the case and the cheap shots. They diminish you, not me.

May I ask in the interest of promoting some kind of good will, what you think of Peggy Burner's observations to Dallas Herald (?) on Nov 23 regarding the limo stop? I will show my hand clearly and say I think the limo stop has been established beyond cavil and Peggy's corroboration is just another nail in the coffin of Z-film authenticity.

Finally, a central tenet in my view of the case is that the events that actually transpired before, during and after the assassination are counter-intuitive, that is, they run roughshod over normal notions of common sense. So if we get our heads cut off by the likes of DVP---or anyone else-- I find that an acceptable price to pay for the pursuit of lifting the veil over the secret machinations of Nov 22. Like you, I do wish to avoid unsubstantiated speculations. Nothing should be proferred that is not substantiated by corroborating sources. We cannot know if Kellerman played doctor. But the size and condition of the neck incision at Bethesda, and if and when it was sutured, is a worthy topic of debate and study, esp. in light of Perry's comments to Clark and Lifton.

All best wishes, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a number of researchers who write regularly here on this site privately ask me why I don't contribute more often. I have to admit I sometimes begin to...I will read something I have thoughts about, and begin a lengthy response, only to erase it after a lot of work. I sometimes feel terribly guilty at not doing more, because I do feel strongly about the assassination and it's consequences to our country.

What stops me isn't insecurities about what I have to say or how I write it. It isn't fear either of an Imperial starship with Darth Vader giving me the old evil force choke hold.

What keeps me from contributing more here is the fact that the Kennedy Research community reminds me so much of the kiddie play area at the local mall. Many of the children want to sit atop the plastic mountain, or drive the immobile molded convertible. There are more kids than mountains and cars. The noisiest, oldest, toughest kids tend to just knock the smaller and weaker kids off the top of said pinnacle with a rather nonchalant, almost innocent shoulder or hip bump, and they tumble down.

A few share nicely, but often the ones that are the most charismatic and outgoing hog the toys and the more introverted kids end up crying.

The real world can be somewhat like this too...but here on these boards it's much more pronounced than in our daily lives.

There's a complete lack of manners, of respect to people who have given their all to discovering the truth about who really killed JFK. These are people who have sometimes forgone better jobs, that have lost marriages in their pursuit of the truth.

It's one thing to be attacked by intelligence operatives hiding behind the cover of the internet, or having to deal with government agencies bent on destroying evidence showing conspiracy, and it's quite another to find out that a researcher that you respect, have read, and feel a kinship to, is misrepresenting what you wrote, inventing stances you never took, or just wallowing in their own egos, pretending that they never used anything in their printed books that amounted to unprovable and wild theories.

In the end we are all human beings, and we all have and will in the future use sources we wish we hadn't.

JFK researchers tend to be more intelligent people than maybe your average Joe on the street, and certainly most are much more stubborn, focused and questioning of authority than your average reality show watcher.

But sadly, in this guy's opinion, we are for the most part, most unwise.

Everytime we attack anothers book or stand without reason, it effects our own karma. No one comes accross as an objective researcher when they say someone said something as if it were a "fact" when they clearly expressed that it was a possible "theory". That is called lying, and it shows that the researcher in question is operating out of ego driven motives, much like that big kid on the mountaintop.

This is the only reason why there is no concensus, no workgroup, no progress, towards some united project to present the truth to the American people on the 50th anniversery of JFK's death...and you all know it's the truth.

Most everyone has a theory, and you each defend it like an armed camp in little, isolated clusters like dumbf**ks. You let your egos dictate whom you kick around. If someone believes in X's general theory where JFK was flown to Australia and turned into a kangaroo, Z hates that guy, because he has it in for X.

It come to the point where the facts in the case mean less than the personalities involved....and it's remarkably clear to see, watching from the outside.

So, remember, before attacking another researcher who actually is on your side in the "big picture", just whose reputation it is that you are actually harming, and who it is that is on the recieving end of all that bad karma.

Edited by Patrick Block
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Not so, sir! It's a piece of cake...

The following documents were prepared according to proper protocols: the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors re the throat entrance wound; Burkley's Death Certificate (signed off as "verified"); the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified"); the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy and the HSCA depositions of FBI SAs James Sibert and Francis O'Neill.

From this evidence we learn that JFK suffered an entrance wound to the throat, there was no exit, and no bullet was recovered during the autopsy. JFK suffered a wound in the back too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- again, there was no exit and no bullet recovered during the autopsy. The autopsists were "at a loss" to explain this, and suggested JFK may have been hit with a bullet that didn't show up on x-ray. They asked the FBI men if there were such a thing as bullets that don't show up on x-ray, which prompted SA Sibert to place a call to the FBI Lab to inquire.

Also, there was "apparent" surgery to the top of the head.

The properly prepared evidence suggests two concrete leads -- the possibility that high tech weaponry was used in the assassination, the possibility that pre-autopsy surgery occurred, the extent of which is unknown.

I dismiss other explanations, but your mileage will vary.

The improperly prepared medical evidence is easy to spot: the back wound entry in the final autopsy report suffers from compound violations of proper military autopsy protocol; the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen; the improperly produced autopsy photos (especially the BOH Fox 5 photo), for which, after all, there is no chain of possession.

Which brings us to the x-rays. Given the possibility there was pre-autopsy surgery to the head, the head x-rays are meaningless. All the head wound evidence is meaningless. We have no idea how many times JFK was struck in the head, and we never will. It's a major rabbit hole I'd advise young folks to avoid like the plague...

But what about the neck x-ray? Has Mantik ever impeached the authenticity of the neck x-ray? Here's what the report for the HSCA found:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue

swelling.

James Gordon has done a wonderful job (albeit unintentionally) showing us what the bullet trajectory may have looked like.

C7T1_2.png

The neck x-ray is consistent with the speculation that a low caliber round subsequently dissolved or was removed.

I'd conclude the neck x-ray is authentic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here here,Patrick.

This thread was supposed to be about something. What was it? Who would you choose as the face of JFK research....

I propose to let the evidence make the choice.

The properly prepared medical evidence presents us with a mystery: two wounds of entrance, no exits, no bullets recovered during autopsy. There are two explanations I find plausible (I've yet to hear anything plausible otherwise): the bullets dissolved, or were removed pre-autopsy.

I'd have Greg Burnham present the case for the high tech blood-soluble-flechette killing of John F. Kennedy (considered highly likely by Fletcher Prouty), and I'd have David Lifton present the case for pre-autopsy surgeries.

That covers the killing, but I'd also want to have someone to address the early sprouts of the cover-up: Bill Kelly on the AF1 radio transmissions, and the black propaganda ops linking Oswald to the commies.

Roger Ailes would be no match for the team of Lifton, Burnham and Kelly.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Lee. I thought we had been through this already with Bowron. Very surprising that Daniel would dredge this up again. Even though she is a good witness for our side, its not congruent with his type of conspiracy.

DG: But Ebersole is the source for the surtured wound account, and if what he says is true, at some point in the autopsy he saw a surtured throat wound, and he thought it was done in Dallas.

Daniel, the above is just what I am talking about. See, IMO it is not good scholarship to title something with a rubric like "The observations of Dr. Ebersole" ; then print something like that, and then proceed as if its an established fact, without saying, "It does seem odd that none of the pathologists who were standing over the body and actually working on it did not notice what a radiologist did." In fact, if I recall--correct me if I am wrong--Horne could not mount one other corroborating witness for this observation. Same with the pilot who said he saw Kellerman with blood on his shirt or something like that. Same with O'Donnell and his private showing of the 16 mm Z film to Jackie, which he then cut. Same with Knudsen allegedly taking photos of JFK for Bobby Kennedy. I could go on and on.

In all these cases Horne did not supply the proper warning to the reader. For instance, he never mentioned the problems that O'Donnell was having medically and psychologically. My God, that was in the NY Times! And this is just what I mean about being our spokesman. Daniel, please, can you imagine what Roger Ailes would do with something like that? I sure as heck can. And you know, I wouldn't cringe when it happened. I'd be telling the person next to me, in advance, "Watch what O'Reilly says next about Horne's book." Then I would smile when he said it. And you know, we deserve it. If we have not learned our lessons by now, heck, we never will. How many Roscoe White, Nigel Turner fiascoes do we want? An assembly line full of them?

And this is what really gets me about you not reading my current book. Then, sight unseen, comparing what I did there with Horne. I would never go with someone like O'Donnell; and along the way taking a swipe at Randy Robertson, in order to bolster my own agenda. Simply because I know how easily the guy could be discredited. In my book, I was very careful to be able to mount more than one witness, independent of each other, to substantiate a major claim. I would never even think of titling a section, "The Observations of, or the Memories of" and using one person. Good historians do not do this. Which is why, in many instances, I had an array of witnesses--with both written and photographic evidence-- to mount my claims with. Count how many sources I have for Oswald being in the company of Banister. Its over ten. And some of these worked for agencies of our government, like the INS. Some were supplied by Shaw's own lawyers. Count how many I use to establish Shaw as Bertrand. Just as many. Including his own maid. Including agencies of our own government, like the FBI.

I thoroughly understand the dictum that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Especially on our side, since in the past, we have been made to look--to be kind-- rather unflattering. And this is the doctrine I followed. And through hard work, I turned the tables of the MSM jerks, like for example, that FBI prostitute James Phelan. I proved he was a xxxx, and even better, I proved HE KNEW HE WAS A xxxx! No one had done that before. No one. All the lemmings, on both sides, swallowed this cheap carnival barker without understanding he was an FBI tool and a con man. Anyone who uses him in the future will be in danger of being rendered foolish by my book.

But I don't want to make it appear as if I am patting myself on the back. Let me quote a man who Cliff so much admires, VInce Salandria. This is what he wrote about my book:

"Jim, you have written extremely well on a subject that is enormously complex. As to be expected, your conclusions and mine are not always precisely congruent. But on a subject as complex and prolix as the Garrison investigation, you have demonstrated integrity, intelligence, work ethic and a passion for the truth that gave birth to a work product of which you can be rightuflly proud. You have produced the finest history of the desperate struggle of Jim Garrison to employ his public office as a pubic trust in unsuccessfully prosecuting Clay Shaw....Thank you Jim , for your fine work."

I underlined those six words because they were especially flattering, since--unlike so many others--VInce was there. He is saying that my second edition of Destiny Betrayed is the best book ever written about Garrison. Which is saying something considering Garrison's own book, and Bill Davy's Let Justice be Done. If I ever take up Tm Fairlie on his offer of a web site, that quote will be at the top.

So please, do not say that I would do what Horne would do, without reading what I wrote. Because I did not.

Per my friend Patrick Block: I guess we have a difference of opinion as to what the research community is and should be. I don't see us as a bunch of kids fighting over the best toys in a playground. I see this as a ongoing debate over a crucial turning point in history. And I see the field crowded with agents, assets, charlatans, blowhards, and even worse, people who are so wedded to their own agendas that it infects everything they do and say. I don't think its too much to compare the debate on the Kennedy assassination with the debate over other great historical and intellectual issues, e.g. evolution, the Shroud of Turin, Pearl Harbor etc. After pratfalls like Roscoe White, it may seem like kids on a playground. But its not. Its about murder and treason, and how the perpetrators got away with it. And in fact, they actually controlled the cover up. And what that says about our country, both then and now. Because as I note in my book, they didn't just destroy Garrison. They got rid of RIchard Sprague also. And, as we have seen, they waited out the ARRB.

To me, this is a mass disease that has eaten away at the very social fabric and subconscious of America for decades on end. Culminating with the ridiculous "Sandy Hook truthers". And now, we finally have enough evidence to show that the MSM was a part of it. We can turn the tables on them, blow them away.

So excuse me if I don't want to dissipate that moment with five shots to the head, Greer topping it off, and O'Donnell's 16 mm premiere of the uncut Z film.

Geez.

Again, kudos for the good work on Destiny Betrayed. I couldn't agree more with this: "Its about murder and treason, and how the perpetrators got away with it. And in fact, they actually controlled the cover up. And what that says about our country, both then and now." My only other comment is that the Ebersole comment comes from a chapter of Best Evidence. It stands as a mystery, if there was a sutured throat at some point, why Ebersole, and Ebersole alone, went public with this information. Lifton gives the newspaper which carried the Ebersole story. He checked it out before commiting to print in Best Evidence. So that Ebersole went public is is a matter of record. That no one else did on this very point is also a matter of record. It remains unexplained to this day. Same with the Osborne allegation. Along with Humes' comment on surgery, it indicates that the proceedings Friday night remain hidden in murky machinations.

A question I have for anyone on the forum: has anyone besides Lifton attempted to place either Ebersole's or Osborne's allegations in a proper perspective? That would be good to know. Regards, Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Not so, sir! It's a piece of cake...

The following documents were prepared according to proper protocols: the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors re the throat entrance wound; Burkley's Death Certificate (signed off as "verified"); the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil (signed off as "verified"); the Sibert/O'Neill FBI report on the autopsy and the HSCA depositions of FBI SAs James Sibert and Francis O'Neill.

From this evidence we learn that JFK suffered an entrance wound to the throat, there was no exit, and no bullet was recovered during the autopsy. JFK suffered a wound in the back too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- again, there was no exit and no bullet recovered during the autopsy. The autopsists were "at a loss" to explain this, and suggested JFK may have been hit with a bullet that didn't show up on x-ray. They asked the FBI men if there were such a thing as bullets that don't show up on x-ray, which prompted SA Sibert to place a call to the FBI Lab to inquire.

Also, there was "apparent" surgery to the top of the head.

The properly prepared evidence suggests two concrete leads -- the possibility that high tech weaponry was used in the assassination, the possibility that pre-autopsy surgery occurred, the extent of which is unknown.

I dismiss other explanations, but your mileage will vary.

The improperly prepared medical evidence is easy to spot: the back wound entry in the final autopsy report suffers from compound violations of proper military autopsy protocol; the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen; the improperly produced autopsy photos (especially the BOH Fox 5 photo), for which, after all, there is no chain of possession.

Which brings us to the x-rays. Given the possibility there was pre-autopsy surgery to the head, the head x-rays are meaningless. All the head wound evidence is meaningless. We have no idea how many times JFK was struck in the head, and we never will. It's a major rabbit hole I'd advise young folks to avoid like the plague...

But what about the neck x-ray? Has Mantik ever impeached the authenticity of the neck x-ray? Here's what the report for the HSCA found:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue

swelling.

James Gordon has done a wonderful job (albeit unintentionally) showing us what the bullet trajectory may have looked like.

C7T1_2.png

The neck x-ray is consistent with the speculation that a low caliber round subsequently dissolved or was removed.

I'd conclude the neck x-ray is authentic.

I would tend to agree with you on the neck x-ray, as it seems (without my really knowing for sure) to corroborate Clark's statement to the New York Times that Kennedy was hit by a bullet that ranged downward and did not exit. I do not know how Perry, who told Clark about this, knew the bullet did not exit; only that this was his view and by the time the body got to Bethesda there certainly was no bullet. I believe the width and ragged look of the trach incision indicates a bullet was removed prior to examination of the throat area by x-rays etc. Best. Daniel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due repsect to the early researchers and pioneers, a more modern perspective would have: Larry Hancock, James Douglass, Jim DiEugenio, Doug Horne, Dick Russell, and Gaeton Fonzi... I think that Joan Mellen might also add value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who libels Mark Lane as a xxxx, and says he has the proof in hand, but many months--years--later somehow cannot find it should not lecture anyone about telling the truth.

And let us not forget this: in addition to a tape, Ray Baby said this was in public. Well, in the many years since, in addition to not being able to find the tape, has anyone ever heard of a witness to this event?

Nope.

Wonder why.

Carroll has shown himself to be all talk and no trousers.

Actually you are wrong ONCE AGAIN. I made these charges to Mark Lane's FACE at the Duquesne conference in 2003,

and Lane ran away with tail between legs. I've got it on audiotape......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, having trouble with Bowron does not mean I dssmiss her. However, since you brought it up, please explain to me why, when she was asked by the WC about any other wounds, she did not volunteer her recollections about the back wound.

Daniel,

I may have this wrong but my memory has a recollection that this has already been covered with you.

It's very simple to provide a reason why Bowron did not "volunteer her recollections about the back wound" but something tells me it will simply be dismissed.

i) All witnesses appearing before the Warren Commission had a pre-meeting with the counsellor who had responsibility for their testimony, in Bowron's case Arlen Specter. Do you think it inconceivable that Specter, and all we know about him, didn't use that pre-meeting to ensure that the witness fully understood that they were to only answer the questions that were asked of them unless otherwise instructed?

ii) Bowron was asked by Specter whether she saw any other wounds on the President's body within the context of when she was removing him from the car and she answered that she did not.

What is so complicated about this? Surely it is not incumbent on a witness to address the fact that they have not been asked a specific question by a lawyer? Perhaps she was sat there thinking a real and honest investigation was taking place and that the questions that she was being asked were the questions that they needed answering? Or do you instead believe she was sat there thinking, "Gee whizz, Mr. Specter hasn't asked me anything specific about the back wound. This guy must be new to lawyering, so I'll make sure I do his job for him at some point."

She was asked about "any other wound" just once during her testimony, Daniel, and you know as well as I do that it was within the context of first assisting in removing the President from the limousine.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

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.

I sincerely do not understand why you continually misrepresent the context of the question Bowron was asked. It is this type of reading of the evidence that I see from David Von Pein. When I brought this up with Ray Carroll, who also believes what you believe, the only comeback the guy had was that I had to defend Nurse Bowron because she was British.

Regards

Lee

Lee,

On November 22, 1963 at Parkland Hospital—and in the month(s) that followed—not a single person said that they observed an entry wound on the back of President Kennedy’s body. Not a single one.

As to the head wounding, every single doctor was asked about an entry wound (beneath the "large" defect that they saw) and each answered “no,” with one—Dr. Kemp Clark, opining that well, maybe he didn’t see it because it was not visible in the hair, etc.

But let’s turn to the lower wound—the one supposedly in the back. Again, not a single person (at Parkland Hospital) reported any such wound—and that includes the nurses who washed the body.

And who did that?

Why, Diana Bowron.

But of course, you don’t mention that in your post.

But let’s put that aside, for the moment.

If one goes to the microfilmed records of newspapers from November, 1963, there is not a single account from any medical person at Parkland Hospital who states that President Kennedy was shot in the (back of the) neck or the back. Not a single one.

Then, on December 11th, Secret Service agents visit Parkland Hospital, and show the Dallas doctors the Bethesda autopsy report, and then, for the first time, it is made known—officially known—to the Dallas doctors that the Bethesda autopsy document reports two entry wounds on the rear of the body.

One does not have to be an aficionado of Law and Order or CSI to smell a rat. And let me assure you that if Diana Bowron—or any other person—had said anything about there being an entry wound on the back of President Kennedy’s body—be it low on the neck or in the shoulder, choose your favorite language—word of that would have spread like wildfire around the hospital, and, very likely, to the news media.

One of the problems with your post is that you are trying to limit the context in which Diana Bowron answered questions put to her, and you reason as follows.

First, you note that “all witnesses appearing before the Warren Commission had a pre-meeting with the counselor.” Well, that was a common practice. So what?

But then you invest that with some sinister meaning. In other words, you apply "spin" to that meeting. Your entire line of reasoning comes down to the following supposition, and now quoting from your post “Do you think it inconceivable that Specter. . didn’t use that pre-meting eo ensure that the witness fully understand that they were to only answer the questions that were asked of them unless otherwise instructed?” That’s quite a supposition: that there was such a pre-meeting; and at which she was “prepared” in that fashion.

Then you go further—you join your speculations about a “pre-deposition” meeting between Bowron and Specter with your own speculations about Diana Bowron’s state of mind:

QUOTE:

What is so complicated about this? Surely it is not incumbent on a witness to address the fact that they have not been asked a specific question by a lawyer? Perhaps she was sat there thinking a real and honest investigation was taking place and that the questions that she was being asked were the questions that they needed answering? Or do you instead believe she was sat there thinking, "Gee whizz, Mr. Specter hasn't asked me anything specific about the back wound. This guy must be new to lawyering, so I'll make sure I do his job for him at some point." UNQUOTE

Then, you add to that Bowron was asked “whether she saw any other wounds” but “in the context of when she was removing him from the car”.

What you do not tell the reader, in your post, is that Bowron wrote a two page report of her activities that day—see Price Exhibit 12, in the Price Exhibits in Volume 20 of the 26 volumes. That report makes clear that she was told to clean up the body, after the pronouncement of death; and so she washed it, presumably sponging it down.

Don’t you think Diana Bowron would have noticed a back or shoulder wound—if it was there?

You also fail to tell the reader that she was interviewed by the British press, and three stories that were published –all admitted into evidence as Bowron Exhibit 2, 3, and 4 in Volume 19- lend further data to the general picture that this was a registered nurse who had the opportunity to see the back of the body.

Your post also fails to note how peculiar it would be if Diana Bowron was being questioned about a back wound (when she was in the limo helping to get the body out, and onto a stretcher) since the President was clothed at the time.

So how, in the absence of any evidence that she saw such a wound, was she supposed to answer the question? –e.g., “No, Mr. Specter, I didn’t see any wound in the back, but then, the President was wearing a shirt and coat” ?

Yes, I would agree that Specter couild have been more precise, in framing his questions. He could have said, for example: “Now turning to the time you were in the Emergency Room, . . “ or “turning to the period when you and another were alone with the body, after the pronouncement of death. . “ –yes, in a more perfect world, perhaps he should have asked the question that way.

But what you have done, Lee, is turn this thing on its head, posited a pre-deposition conference in which Specter (in effect) told her what not to answer; then added to that your own speculations about her state of mind—and come up with this peculiar interpretation, in which the English language doesn’t mean what it clearly says.

You also have left out, by the way, Specter’s final question to Bowron, and her reply:

Specter: “Do you have anything to add that you think might be helpful in any way to the Commission?

Bowron replied with the story of how she ended up with Kennedy’s gold watch, and attempted to return it, by giving it to Security Chief O P Wright.

Then Specter asked the same question again:

“Do you think of anything else that might be of assistance to the Commission?”

And she replied “No, sir” (6 WCH 139).

Now don’t you think, Lee Farley, that if Diana Bowron had seen a bullet wound on the back of President Kennedy, she would have said something about it?

I certainly do.

You seem to resist that obvious (and reasonable inference) and instead are positing a series of secondary and tertiary hypotheses to explain why this young woman, a registered nurse for whom this was an extraordinary experience, and who obviously has an eye for detail, deliberately omitted the most important detail of all: a bullet entry wound in the back.

IMHO: She did no such thing.

She didn’t report any such wound because it wasn’t there.

DSL

2/1/13; 6:15 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now don’t you think...that if Diana Bowron had seen a bullet wound on the back of President Kennedy, she would have said something about it? I certainly do. .... She didn’t report any such wound because it wasn’t there.

Then WHY was this photograph even taken, David? ....

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_3.jpg

What was the purpose of photographing the President's back (with a ruler being placed in the photo, to boot) if there wasn't ANY wound at all in President Kennedy's upper back? Did the autopsy physicians just want a picture of a TOTALLY UNINJURED portion of JFK's body?

Or don't you think the above photo of JFK's back is a "real" photograph at all, David L.? Was it created by a group of conspirators in a photo lab or dark room somewhere?

Or do you think Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell fired a rifle bullet into the upper back of the dead President at Bethesda just before the above photograph was snapped?

Plus: why did ALL THREE autopsy surgeons say there was a wound in JFK's upper back if there was really no such wound there at all?

All three autopsists were rotten liars when it comes to the topic of the back wound, David?

For God sake, get real.

EDIT --- Oh, I forgot. ~slaps forehead~ Mr. Lifton thinks the bullet hole in the back was added by the covert body-altering team at Walter Reed. Therefore, there's no need for Humes, Boswell, and Finck to be liars at all. (How silly of me to forget that delicious layer of utter nonsense and crackpottery authored by Mr. Lifton. So sorry.)

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

Daniel, instead of liking my credo about the JFK case being an inside job, I would have preferred you have taken to heart my quote about corroboration.

In case you missed it it goes like this:

I thoroughly understand the dictum that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Using Ebersole to back up Ebersole is not what I am talking about. To me, that is like Peter Janney using more more of TIm Leary to back up Leary. See, that is not an independent corroboration.

Let me go further since you do not seem to understand (and I hope Patrick Block is reading this closely since it illustrates my point perfectly), if you have but one source for a controversial claim, and no one else testifies to what this person says, then what case do you have? Especially since there were many others who could have seen it, and in fact, SHOULD have seen it. See, if you have none then Ebersole is simply an outlier. To most objective people, an outlier is not credible. Because in court, he would be cross examined and questioned as to why no one else saw what he saw.

Which leads to my other quote you avoided:

In my book, I was very careful to be able to mount more than one witness, independent of each other, to substantiate a major claim. I would never even think of titling a section, "The Observations of, or the Memories of" and using one person. Good historians do not do this. Which is why, in many instances, I had an array of witnesses--with both written and photographic evidence-- to mount my claims with. Count how many sources I have for Oswald being in the company of Banister. Its over ten. And some of these worked for agencies of our government, like the INS. Some were supplied by Shaw's own lawyers. Count how many I use to establish Shaw as Bertrand. Just as many. Including his own maid. Including agencies of our own government, like the FBI.

See Daniel, that is corroboration. When you have someone independently testifying to the same thing, someone who does not even know the other witness, that is corroboration. And if you can string several of these people together, then it becomes more and more credible as to the probability it happened.

David Mantik's work on the 6.5 mm fragment is effective for that reason. It is plain as day on the x ray, yet so many people who should have seen it did not. Too many to be credible.

But that does not necessitate body alteration, so you're not interested.

Again, congratulations on your investigative work. You deserve credit for the good work. Still, there seems to be no end to our inabiity to communicate. I am well aware of everything you have said-- in fact I find your observations trivially true -- axiomatic if I may say so in normal investigative work. I am well-aware of Mantik's work on the 6.5 mm fragment, and grateful for it; yet you just can't avoid the illogical and misplaced cheap shot. May I ask why? What is it in the psyche of Jim Dieugenio that requires a missguided and ill-informed, illogical and completely inappropriate put down of Dan Gallup? You still have no clue about what interests me and what doesn't. I read these put-downs and I am embarrassed for you. Outliers is a concept with which I am quite familiar. What/who the outliers are in this case is not always evident. Who are the outliers, for example, in the limo-stop issue? That issue has been important to me for quite a long time. My answer would be Altgens, but your answer might be quite different. Impasse? That's the counter-intuitive nature of this case. And because there is a strong counter-intuitive component to this case, I will not summarily exclude Ebersole, or Osborne, or Diana Bowron, for that matter, but I will be troubled by what they say, and ask more questions, and keep probing. So also with Humes' statement about surgery. Things that don't "fit" may in fact be all the more important by that very fact. One must allow for that possibility.

In a perfect world, in a straightforward case, the kind of corroboration of evidence and testimony that ties things together and wraps up a case to everyone's satisfaction is, well, everyone's desire. But this is not a straightforward case, and the manipulation of evidence has created the situation in which things are not coming together after the passing of years. In light of this, no stone should be left unturned, and the lack of corroboration of say, statements like Ebersole's, should not ipso facto be grounds for ignoring them. Since the artifice that the plotters seem to have set up-- and their identity-- is still not clear after all these years, it seems to me imprudent to do so.

One last thought: there is a strong subjective element in the oft-quoted "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." But what constitutes a claim as "extraordinary," or evidence as "extraordinary"? I will leave you with that question. Best Regards, 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...