Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy?

[John Dolva]

and I don't so we can't agree on his statement as is. Previous official findings are not satisfactory and there is ample evidence there was a conspiracy. The people are not satisfied.

To state there is an agreement that Oswald was completely innpocent is wrong. I'd be happy to either a minority statement be attached, the statement be reworded or that I am irrelevant. All simple solutions in order to have agreement.

The problem is that there is a large section of people with interest in this case that can readily see a conspiracy and one where Oswald is not innocent afa the law goes re who can be indicted as a conspirator on some level.

To declare him provably totally innocent is a mistake, a foolish one.

[Cliff Varnell]

The only thing I know for a fact about the assassination of JFK is that he was shot in the back around the level of his Third Thoracic Vertebra.

The implications of this fact are enormous -- and enormously off-putting for most folks.

I'm convinced Oswald didn't shoot JFK but I wouldn't sign off on his complete innocence. I don't know. I'd be more interested in Oswald if I didn't suspect his handlers were set up as patsies as well, given different contingencies and outcomes.

I prefer to cut to the chase -- the low back wound means the throat wound was an entrance. There were two wounds of entrance, no exits, no rounds recovered during the autopsy.

What happened to the rounds which caused JFK's back and throat wounds? That question goes to the core of the case.

99% of this line of discussion is dominated by David Lifton et al because of the reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head in the FBI report on the autopsy. This is unfortunate. The autopsists suspected JFK was hit with high tech weaponry -- rounds which would not show up on x-ray.

It was a solid investigative lead and SA Sibert of the FBI took it seriously enough to call the FBI Lab, who derailed this promising line of inquiry with news of the Magic Bullet.

Pre-Autopsy Surgery or High Tech Weaponry or a combination of the two?

Most folks find these options unpalatable, and so there is tremendous resistance to the T3 back wound and thus no chance of consensus on the issue even though it's prima facie evidence of conspiracy.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Ray Mitcham]

Mike, it seems appropriate that the original John Mytton's nickname was "Mad Jack"

[Martin Blank]

You'll note that my statement says nothing about Oswald's possible role in any conspiracy. Jim Garrison was the first, I believe, to postulate that LHO was some kind of intelligence operative, and had been assigned to infiltrate a group he was told might be plotting to kill the President. I happen to personally think this is the most likely explanation of Oswald's role as unwitting patsy. I don't think it's likely that he was a witting conspirator, but my statement doesn't address that.

Any way we look at it, Oswald was framed for the assassination of JFK.

i personally believe he was infiltrating a group and happened on to a/the plot and was told to stay in place and participate and report. this of course pushed him in deeper and stuck him on the tarbaby of looking like he was involved. his contacts either were unsecure or running him in this direction once he had taken the bait

[David G. Healy]

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.

There's no entry wound at the "1 o'clock" position above the white splotch, Pat. You're seeing things that you WANT to be there--but aren't.

In addition, as I mentioned previously, neither the white splotch or your make-believe "1 o'clock" entry wound are located "above" or even "slightly above" the EOP. And the autopsy report (twice!) clearly indicates that the entry wound on the back of JFK's head was located "above" the EOP.

Also -- Isn't it remarkable, Pat, that the thing in the "red spot" photo that you claim is merely "dried blood" can look so much like an entry hole for a 6.5-mm. bullet? Amazing coincidence, huh? (Or did the Clark boys just draw in the red spot themselves?)

Plus -- Isn't it also remarkable that the red spot just happens to PERFECTLY LAY OVER THE TOP of the entry hole in the underlying skull of the President, per the Clark Panel? (More Clark lies here, Pat?).....

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

Also hear the HSCA talk to Dr. Finck about how the red spot in the photo perfectly lines up with the entry in the underlying skull (just a co-inky, I guess) --- 1978 Interview With Pierre Finck.

given 49 years, and this is the best you can do? LMAO! I say, lone nut drivel! Underhanded way of avoiding: 'did a conspiracy murder JFK on the street of Dallas Texas on Nov 22nd 1963?' What say you Von Pein? Or, are you going to continue playing; avoid THAT subject at all costs?

Edited May 8, 2013 by David G. Healy

[David Von Pein]

It's incredible, but Davey is even worse on the medical evidence than he is on Oswald and the ballistics. Like he has never read anything by Mantik or Aguilar.

Let's see....Mantik is the guy who thinks somebody filled in a gaping hole in the occipital area in this X-ray (which, of course, is said to be authentic by the HSCA, but all CTers think the HSCA's Photo Panel was filled with liars, as per usual, so I'm told to flush 7HSCA41 down the nearest toilet):

And Mantik is the guy who thinks a piece of "cardboard" was inserted into the AP X-ray of JFK's head by the plotters who were framing Oswald. But apparently these industrious plotters never bothered to tell ANYBODY about the "6.5mm. object" between 1963 and 1968, so the first we find out about it is in 1968 with the Clark Panel. Great frame-up there. The plotters were the "patient" type evidently--they sat around and waited for FIVE years to have their fakery and handiwork discovered. But this fact, of course, doesn't bother Jim D. in the least.

Common Sense Break......

"Conspiracy theorist Dr. David Mantik, who has visited the National Archives on nine occasions to examine JFK autopsy materials, has since argued that the two X-rays (lateral and anterior-posterior) of the president’s skull have been altered, based largely on the presence of what appears to be a bullet fragment (but, per Mantik, was really a “simple piece of cardboard, or whatever you wish to imagine, cut out in the shape of a 6.5mm fragment”) seen embedded in the back of the skull “one centimeter below the entry site.”

[...]

But if Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were going to commit the forgery he claims they did, instead of using a “simple piece of cardboard” to simulate a bullet fragment (the very use of which enabled him to detect the alleged forgery), why wouldn’t they use an actual bullet fragment? Also, what possible advantage would the conspirators have gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in which he and his rifle were already overwhelmingly connected to the assassination is irrational on its face.

One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik’s conspirators were willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame Oswald, wouldn’t they have found some way to bring it to the attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964? Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister implications of the “cardboard artifact” for the first time thirty-five years later when he published his findings in the book 'Assassination Science'? Isn’t this silly, again, on its face?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 221-222 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Lots more common sense and rational thinking that destroys the theories of Drs. Mantik and Aguilar can be found in Vince's "RH", beginning on page 221 of the Endnotes.

But Jim DiEugenio never ONCE will allow himself to think in the above common-sense manner that Mr. Bugliosi demonstrates with respect to Mantik's theories. Jimbo will jump, head first, into the deep end of the Conspiracy Pool, never bothering to even stop and ask: Does this even make any sense?

Just as Jimbo has done with respect to the "paper bag" topic. Jim thinks there was NO large paper bag at all carried by LHO into the TSBD on 11/22. It was an INVENTION of Frazier, Randle, and/or the DPD. But does Jim ever ask himself WHY Frazier and Randle decided to make their fictional bag TOO SHORT to hold the rifle that it needed to contain? No. Common sense, IOW, is not to enter into Jimbo's fantasies--ever. For if common sense WERE to enter into Jimbo's thinking, every theory he has ever purported would go flying out the window in two seconds.

Edited May 8, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Von Pein

Tell me something. Just how incompetent do you think Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck actually were?

This was, possibly, the most important autopsy of the 20th Century. When an entrance wound was discovered in the locale of JFK's external occipital protruberance, don't you think they would have taken the time to probe it a little bit with a finger or something to ensure it actually was a bullet hole and not just a surface abrasion or splotch of blood?

Also, the EOP is a fairly prominent protrusion, easily felt and located even by laymen. Just how do you think three trained doctors mistook the EOP for JFK's cowlick?

[Pat Speer]

My responses in BOLD.

I'm glad you posted this, David. Look at the piece of brain matter down by the hairline. Now, look just above it, at the 1 o'clock position if the brain matter was at the center of a clock. There's the EOP entrance wound, EXACTLY where Humes--and everyone else noting an entrance wound at the autopsy--said it was.

Now, why was this entrance wound erased from history by the Clark Panel? That's right. The Clark Panel was asked to debunk the stuff in Tink's book--including that the bullet supposedly traveled low to high within the skull, without destroying the brain in between. So they moved the entrance wound to someplace more compatible with the single-assassin conclusion--like the dried blood in the cowlick--where NO ONE at the autopsy saw such a wound.

There's no entry wound at the "1 o'clock" position above the white splotch, Pat. You're seeing things that you WANT to be there--but aren't.

WRONG, David. There is undoubtedly something there--EXACTLY where Humes said he saw an entrance wound. Now, if you wanna say it's a bruise, or a splotch of blood, go at it. But to pretend there's NOTHING there is LAUGHABLE. So laughable, in fact, that I defy you to go to the Wecht conference in October, and tell those in attendance that the entrance wound I showed them was a mirage.

In addition, as I mentioned previously, neither the white splotch or your make-believe "1 o'clock" entry wound are located "above" or even "slightly above" the EOP. And the autopsy report (twice!) clearly indicates that the entry wound on the back of JFK's head was located "above" the EOP.

WRONG AGAIN. The oval in discussion is within a cm or so of the level of the EOP. Please show us where YOU think the EOP is. If your argument is that it's slightly below the EOP, and the doctors couldn't possibly say it was slightly above the EOP if it was slightly below, then, guess what, you've officially jumped the shark, and DOOMED your side of the discussion to ridicule. I mean, you're pretending to be rational--at the same time you're claiming it makes more sense for a team of doctors studying a body to be 4 cm off in their estimation, than 1-2 cm or so in their estimation? Hubba-wha?

Also -- Isn't it remarkable, Pat, that the thing in the "red spot" photo that you claim is merely "dried blood" can look so much like an entry hole for a 6.5-mm. bullet? Amazing coincidence, huh? (Or did the Clark boys just draw in the red spot themselves?)

What? Do some research, will you? The red spot in question is not 6 by 15, as was the hole measured at autopsy, and bears NO resemblance to an entrance wound for a FMJ bullet that exploded. I mean, if that was the hole, wouldn't ONE of the witnesses recall seeing a hole in this general area? Think, David, think.

Plus -- Isn't it also remarkable that the red spot just happens to PERFECTLY LAY OVER THE TOP of the entry hole in the underlying skull of the President, per the Clark Panel? (More Clark lies here, Pat?).....

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance." -- Clark Panel Report

Yes, absolutely. Once again your ignorance of the facts is evident. The Clark Panel was conducted in secret, with a lawyer on hand for consultation. Its leader later admitted it was convened to refute conspiracy "junk." First and foremost among this "junk" apparently, was that the head wound trajectory made little sense. Well. voila! They found an entrance wound where they thought it would make sense. And, voila!, the panel's radiologist "found" an entrance hole on the x-rays underlying this "entrance." Well, guess what, David? NOT ONE of the men to subsequently study these x-rays--even after they were "enhanced"-- was able to see the "entrance hole" specified and measured by the Clark Panel's Russell Morgan. And there's a good reason for this... Because he'd made it up!!!

Also hear the HSCA talk to Dr. Finck about how the red spot in the photo perfectly lines up with the entry in the underlying skull (just a co-inky, I guess) --- 1978 Interview With Pierre Finck.

Yes, David, hear the HSCA "talk" to Finck! Man, you can't see the forest for the trees! It was not the HSCA, it was Baden, trying to pressure Finck to go along with the findings of Baden's buddy Russell Fisher. Baden was so desperate to get him to go along, in fact, that he told him the red spot had the same dimensions as the wound measured at autopsy. Well, this was not true--as testified to by the final report of Baden's panel. And, oh yeah, there's also this--Baden's panel consulted with a number of radiologists, NONE OF WHOM saw an entry hole on the back of the skull on the x-ray. So yes, it's true. Baden tried to coerce Finck into going along with his panel by citing evidence which his panel had decided was untrue. Enough.

[David Von Pein]

Robert,

The autopsy report really isn't inconsistent at all with the "red spot" autopsy photo. Yes, we can argue about how many inches or centimeters can be included within a word like "slightly", but as I pointed out earlier, the autopsy report TWICE says the entry wound was positively "above" the EOP -- not below it.

The biggest screw-up that Humes & Company made with respect to the precise location of the head entry wound was by not specifying (in centimeters or millimeters--or SOME measurement) exactly HOW FAR ABOVE the EOP the wound was. They did say it was "2.5 centimeters" to the right of the EOP, and that's fine. But when it came to that "north-south" measurement in relation to the EOP, for some silly reason the only thing Humes puts in the report (twice) is "slightly above" (Page 4 of the report) and "above" (Page 6 of the AR).

I have never been able to figure out why Dr. Humes decided to include the detailed measurements of all other wounds on the President (including the "14 cm. from the tip of the right mastoid process" for the upper-back entry wound), but decided to not include any "north-south" measurement of the head entry wound at all. All we get is "above" and "slightly above".

Yes, that's incompetence. But it's NOT "conspiratorial incompetence", IMO.

Edited May 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

There is no entry wound where you say it is, Pat. You're seeing what you want to see. Period. What you are seeing is merely JFK's dark hair. And that's all.

Edited May 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

I wish Pat would post a link to his micro photo of what he think sis the entrance wound. Because DVP, with his Muttonhead GIF is selling more Von Pein snake oil with his newest deception. In Pat's photo [it's] pretty plain and easy to see.

Why didn't you just look it up on Pat's website and post it yourself, Jimbo? Pat's stuff is easy to find on his site. Here it is below. But there is no "wound" there. It's just Kennedy's hair. Nothing more.

This is exactly like the people who think they've "found" stuff in other pictures -- e.g., Badge Man, Black Dog Man, the "other gunman" in the Dillard TSBD photo, "Oswald in the doorway", etc. They see what they WANT to be there. And so does Pat in the autopsy photo.

In fact, without the aid of Pat's arrows to guide us to the spot in the B&W Fox photo, we wouldn't have the slightest idea that the so-called "wound" was even there. The "arrows" don't even help much on that B&W picture:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Edited May 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert,

The autopsy report really isn't inconsistent at all with the "red spot" autopsy photo. Yes, we can argue about how many inches or centimeters can be included within a word like "slightly", but as I pointed out earlier, the autopsy report TWICE says the entry wound was positively "above" the EOP -- not below it.

The biggest screw-up that Humes & Company made with respect to the precise location of the head entry wound was by not specifying (in centimeters or millimeters--or SOME measurement) exactly HOW FAR ABOVE the EOP the wound was. They did say it was "2.5 centimeters" to the right of the EOP, and that's fine. But when it came to that "north-south" measurement in relation to the EOP, for some silly reason the only thing Humes puts in the report (twice) is "slightly above" (Page 4 of the report) and "above" (Page 6 of the AR).

I have never been able to figure out why Dr. Humes decided to include the detailed measurements of all other wounds on the President (including the "14 cm. from the tip of the right mastoid process" for the upper-back entry wound), but decided to not include any "north-south" measurement of the head entry wound at all. All we get is "above" and "slightly above".

Yes, that's incompetence. But it's NOT "conspiratorial incompetence", IMO.

Your arguments are ridiculous; in fact, they border on the insane.

Only a raving fanatic would state that the cowlick is "slightly above" the external occiptal protruberance. However, I would imagine you are, in reality, eternally grateful to Dr. Humes for not giving a precise measurement, as this allows for the elasticity so needed by you in re-locating the entrance wound.

Can you imagine, even for one second, that Dr. Humes described the wound as "slightly above" the EOP for the simple fact that it was less than one centimetre above the EOP and not worth measuring?

Look at the diagram of the skull below. The EOP is No. 21 in this diagram. Can you honestly tell me, with a straight face, that JFK's cowlick is "slightly above" the EOP?

[Steven Kossor]

I think it's important to recognize that an honest search for understanding can't be conducted when access to evidence is obstructed. The obstructions have to be removed, not justified, and until that happens it will be impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt "what happened." The obstructions are so collossal that it is inconceivable to many people that they will ever be removed (exhumation of the President's body, release of all government records related to his assassination, etc). The best we can hope for is the correction of policy that permitted and has sustained the obstruction of evidence for the past 50 years, so that finally "the truth can come out" and our country can recover from the horrors that have befallen us for the past 50 years. I like Don's statement, but in the interest of attracting the widest possible endorsement (especially from among future generations), I'd suggest the following.

The Warren Commission, FBI and Dallas Police did not solve the mystery of who assassinated President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. The House Assassinations Committee of the late 1970s left more questions than answers behind them. Because access to evidence has been obstructed and a real investigation has never been conducted, reasonable doubt persists about the circumstances of President Kennedy's death. On the verge of the 50th anniversary of the most significant political assassination of the 20th century, it is more important than ever for there to be an open and independent inquiry into the matter for the very first time.

Steve

[David Von Pein]

Your arguments are ridiculous; in fact, they border on the insane.

Only a raving fanatic would state that the cowlick is "slightly above" the external occiptal protruberance [sic].

Then you're going to have to call Dr. Humes "ridiculous", "insane", and a "raving fanatic" too, Bob. Because Humes totally reversed himself for the HSCA in 1978 and he's on record doing it [1 HSCA 327]. Yes, he re-reversed himself again for the ARRB, indicating the man was very confused over the years. But we do have the following testimony from Humes after he viewed the best possible evidence for where that entry wound was located (the red-spot photo):

MR. CORNWELL -- "Now, I would like to ask you today if you have had at least a greater opportunity to look at the photographs along the lines that I have just indicated to you and if, after doing so, you have a more well-considered or a different opinion or whether your opinion is still the same, as to where the point of entry is?"

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. .... I go back...to the original autopsy report which we rendered, in the absence of any photographs, of course. We made certain physical observations and measurements of these wounds. I state now those measurements we recorded then were accurate to the best of our ability to discern what we had before our eyes. We described the wound of entrance in the posterior scalp as being above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, a bony knob on the back of the head. .... And it is obvious to me as I sit here...that the upper defect to which you pointed or the upper object is clearly in the location of where we said approximately where it was, above the external occipital protuberance. Therefore, I believe that is the wound of entry. .... The object in the lower portion, which I apparently and I believe now erroneously previously identified before the most recent panel, is far below the external occipital protuberance and would not fit with the original autopsy findings."

Now, Robert P., I'm sure you will be more than willing to call James Joseph Humes "insane" and "ridiculous" and a "raving fanatic" (just as you inferred I was) after having read the above sworn testimony of Dr. Humes. Correct?

As for WHY Dr. Humes utilized the term "slightly above" in the autopsy report, when we know from the authenticated and unaltered autopsy photographs and X-rays that the entry wound in JFK's head was MORE than just "slightly above" the EOP, I haven't a clue.

But this photograph below is not lying. And this photograph, in that it has been authenticated as being "not...altered in any manner" [7 HSCA 41] PROVES for all time that the entry wound in the back of President Kennedy's head was located HIGHER (by about 4 inches, per the Clark Panel) than the location of that wound that appears in the autopsy report:

BONUS QUOTES (for the conspiracy theorists to mock, spit on, and totally ignore):

"We, as the [forensic pathology] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head."

-- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978

----------------------------------------------

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings."

-- Dr. James J. Humes; Interview with JAMA editor George D. Lundberg; October 1991 [see “JFK’s Death: The Plain Truth From The MDs Who Did The Autopsy”, by Dennis L. Breo, Journal of the American Medical Association, Volume 267, No. 20, May 27, 1992, Page 2794]

Edited May 11, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Von Pein

Your arguments prove absolutely nothing, for the simple fact that many witnesses had a "reversal" from their original testimonies to the Warren Commission, similar to Humes. Fear is a great motivator. I am far more inclined to believe testimony from 1964. No one had an agenda at this point and the testimony from these witnesses is far more likely to be truthful.

Aren't you a little suspicious of so many witnesses discovering, fifteen to thirty years later, that they had "mis-remembered" events of 22/11/63 in their WC testimony?

And you have still not told me how you think Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck could be so grossly incompetent as to misplace the entrance wound at the bottom of the back of the head when in "reality" it was at the top of the back of the head.

Are you unable to answer this question?