Can We Agree On A Consensus Statement Regarding Conspiracy?

[David Von Pein]

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?

That is correct. I am unable to answer that question.

But the authenticated autopsy pictures prove that the autopsy doctors were wrong. But, as I also pointed out, the autopsy report verbiage isn't really "4 inches" off on the entry wound location. It says "above" on one page of the report, and says "slightly above" on another page. The determination as to how many "inches" or "centimeters" this would equate to can never be determined.

I will also point out (again) -- Dr. Humes HIMSELF admitted he was wrong about the "white dab" of tissue near the hairline being the entry wound, which was so obviously BELOW the EOP.

I'll refer you again to Humes' 1991 quote in JAMA:

"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. .... There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- J.J. Humes; 1991

And there's also this video interview with Dr. Humes in 1967 (his first interview given since the assassination; in this video, Humes does say the head entry wound was "low" in the back of the head; of course, he would change his mind for the HSCA eleven years later, and then change his mind again in 1996; so let's just agree that Dr. Humes was a little "fuzzy" on this):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slFCJ2X-Cpg

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

Edited May 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

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?

That is correct. I am unable to answer that question.

But the authenticated autopsy pictures prove that the autopsy doctors were wrong. But, as I also pointed out, the autopsy report verbiage isn't really "4 inches" off on the entry wound location. It says "above" on one page of the report, and says "slightly above" on another page. The determination as to how many "inches" or "centimeters" this would equate to can never be determined.

I will also point out (again) -- Dr. Humes HIMSELF admitted he was wrong about the "white dab" of tissue near the hairline being the entry wound, which was so obviously BELOW the EOP.

I'll refer you again to Humes' 1991 quote in JAMA:

"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. .... There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- J.J. Humes; 1991

And there's also this video interview with Dr. Humes in 1967 (his first interview given since the assassination; in this video, Humes does say the head entry wound was "low" in the back of the head; of course, he would change his mind for the HSCA eleven years later, and then change his mind again in 1996; so let's just agree that Dr. Humes was a little "fuzzy" on this):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slFCJ2X-Cpg

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/cbs-news-inquiry-warren-report-1967.html

If the entrance wound was nowhere near the external occipital protruberance, why would Dr. Humes use it as a referance point? That makes about as much sense as using the Adam's apple as a reference point for a wound in the forehead.

[David Von Pein]

If the entrance wound was nowhere near the external occipital protuberance, why would Dr. Humes use it as a reference point? That makes about as much sense as using the Adam's apple as a reference point for a wound in the forehead.

Well, Robert, did I (or Dr. Humes) ever say that the wound was "nowhere near" the EOP?

And we can argue about how silly it was for Humes to have used ANY of the landmarks he did use in this autopsy -- for example, the mastoid process and the shoulder joint (which some people insist are MOVABLE landmarks and, as such, not suitable for autopsy referencing).

Dr. Cyril Wecht has stated, and I tend to agree with him (although I'm certainly no pathologist), that most coroners and medical examiners will use the TOP OF THE HEAD and the MIDLINE OF THE BODY as the only points of reference during autopsies. But Humes didn't do that with any of the President's wounds in this case. Why didn't he? I haven't any idea why. (Although, I would guess that the EOP is, indeed, about the same as measuring from the "Midpoint" or "Midline" of a human body.)

But since it's fairly obvious that Dr. Humes & Company had no intention of using those other areas such as TOP OF THE HEAD as landmarks, it means he had to choose SOME other body landmark to measure the head wound from, didn't he? And what would you have suggested? The abdomen? Or the groin? After all, at least the EOP was located on the HEAD. So what else COULD he have used as a landmark (in lieu of the TOP OF THE HEAD)?

Edited May 9, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Robert Prudhomme]

If the entrance wound was nowhere near the external occipital protuberance, why would Dr. Humes use it as a reference point? That makes about as much sense as using the Adam's apple as a reference point for a wound in the forehead.

Well, Robert, did I (or Dr. Humes) ever say that the wound was "nowhere near" the EOP?

And we can argue about how silly it was for Humes to have used ANY of the landmarks he did use in this autopsy -- for example, the mastoid process and the shoulder joint (which some people insist are MOVABLE landmarks and, as such, not suitable for autopsy referencing).

Dr. Cyril Wecht has stated, and I tend to agree with him (although I'm certainly no pathologist), that most coroners and medical examiners will use the TOP OF THE HEAD and the MIDLINE OF THE BODY as the only points of reference during autopsies. But Humes didn't do that with any of the President's wounds in this case. Why didn't he? I haven't any idea why. (Although, I would guess that the EOP is, indeed, about the same as measuring from the "Midpoint" or "Midline" of a human body.)

But since it's fairly obvious that Dr. Humes & Company had no intention of using those other areas such as TOP OF THE HEAD as landmarks, it means he had to choose SOME other body landmark to measure the head wound from, didn't he? And what would you have suggested? The abdomen? Or the groin? After all, at least the EOP was located on the HEAD. So what else COULD he have used as a landmark (in lieu of the TOP OF THE HEAD)?

Mr. Von Pein

I'm sorry but, you are completely wrong about this.

Dr. Humes used the external occipital protruberance for the simple fact that it was the closest prominent landmark to the entrance wound.

Further corroboration of this can be found in Dr. Humes' testimony to the HSCA:

"Mr. CORNWELL. In the process of examining that, among the other available documentary evidence in the case, our panel of forensic pathologists, of course, were not present during the autopsy, did not have access to the body and, therefore, you and your colleague who were there are in a unique position to provide testimony as to the nature of the wounds to the President. In that connection, as you recall, the panel invited you, and you responded voluntarily, in fact, as I recall, on very short notice, you responded to an invitation to come speak to them informally. They, I guess, we could say, interviewed you as to your knowledge on the subject of the autopsy in the National Archives. In pertinent part, the transcript which was made from the tape recording of that interview at pages 12 to 13 reflects that you reviewed not only that drawing, but an X-ray of the President's head and identified the small droplet in the lower portion of the photograph as a wound of entry and that that was the only wound of entry. Later in the transcript, at pages 39 to 40, the following colloquy occured:

Dr. Petty of the panel said, going back to the earlier discussion, "Can I go back to another interpretation which is very important to this committee? I don't really mean to belabor the point, but we need to be certain, as certain as we can be, and I am showing you now photograph 15"--that, of course, was a photograph from which that drawing was made--"and here to put it in the record is the posterior hairline or margin of the hair of the late President and there near the midline in just a centimeter or two above the hairline is an area that you refer to as the in-shoot wound. That, in other words, was a verbalization of the description of the location of the small droplet near the bottom of the head. You replied, Dr. Humes, "Yes sir."

Dr. Petty then continued, "Also on this same photograph is a ruler and approximately 2 centimeters or so down the ruler and just to the right of it is a second apparent area of defect, and this has been enlarged and is shown to you in an enlargement, I guess No. 16, which shows you right opposite the 1 centimeter mark on the ruler this defect or what appears to be a defect." Thereafter, skipping a small portion and going to the very next page, 40, you replied, "I don't know what that is. No. 1, I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any point. I don't know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood. I don't, I just don't know what it is, but it certainly was not any wound of entrance." Would it be accurate to state first, Dr. Humes, that at the point at which you made the statements we have just referred to, you were called rather unexpectedly from your normal occupation, came to Washington and with no preparation or no referral to prior notes immediately prior to that, were shown this and other evidence and made the statements that I have just referred to?

Dr. HUMES. That is correct, and I comment that I was similarly summoned on Tuesday of this week, 48 hours ago, for this appearance likewise with no attempt or no chance for preparation and no idea of what questions were to be directed toward me.

Mr. CORNWELL. And we apologize for the short notice in both cases.

Dr. HUMES. Fine. I hope we can straighten that out.

Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to ask you if you would agree to various portions of what are reflected on this photograph. First, in the original photograph, there was shown, as in the drawing, a ruler; is that correct?

Dr. HUMES. That's correct.

Mr. CORNWELL. And in addition, there were the hands which are shown which appear to be holding the scalp so as to expose some portion of the back of the head.

Dr. HUMES. That's correct.

Mr. CORNWELL. Would you also agree that in the original photograph, the hair in the upper portion appears to be wet, that in the lower portion appears to be relatively dry?

Dr. HUMES. I would indeed.

Mr. CORNWELL. Would you also agree that the hair is spread apart in the upper portion of the photograph, exposing portions of the scalp and that in the lower portion, the hair is in a relatively natural position?

Dr. HUMES. I would.

Mr. CORNWELL. And finally, would you agree that the relative center portion of the photograph has what you, upon initially being shown this photograph in the Archives by our panel, could not identify, that's what you said might be a clot or some other it, and that is relatively off-center in the overall photograph the past you identified as being the wound of entry, the locations are as I described them.

Dr. HUMES. Yes, apparently.

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. HUMES. Yes, I think that I do have a different opinion. No. 1, it was a casual kind of a discussion that we were having with the panel members, as I recall it. No. 2, and I think before we talk about these photographs further, if I might comment, these photographs were made on the evening of November 22, 1963. I first saw any of these photographs on November 1, 1966, almost 3 years after the photographs were made, which was the first opportunity that I had to see those photographs. At that point, Drs. Boswell, Finck and I were asked to come to the National Archives to categorize these photographs, label them, identify them and we spent many hours going through that. It was not the easiest thing to accomplish, I might say, after 3 weeks short of 3 years. But we identified them and I think in light of the very extensive opportunity that various panels of very qualified forensic pathologists have had to go over them, we did a reasonably accurate job in cataloging these photographs. So, I saw them on that occasion. I saw them again on the 27th of January of 1967 when we again went to the Archives and made some summaries of our findings. I go back further 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, you heard Dr. Baden describe to the committee members today. And it is obvious to me as I sit here how with this his markedly enlarged drawing or the photograph 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. It relative position to boney structure underneath it is somewhat altered by the fact that there were fractures of the skull under this and the President's head had to be held in this position thus making some distortion of anatomic views produced in this picture. By the same token. 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."

[Thomas Graves]

Mr. KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?

Mr. KELLERMAN: The little finger.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. (2H91)

In the hairline immediately to the right of the bottom third of the ear?

What hairline immediately to the right (or left) the bottom third of the ear?

Sideburns?

What about what-looks-to-me to be an entry wound in the crown of JFK's head (the "red spot") and the circular, bullet-sized spot/defect near JFK's right temple hairline in the famous "death stare photo?"

I don't understand. (But then again, what else is new.)

--Tommy

Edited May 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Mr. KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?

Mr. KELLERMAN: The little finger.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little finger.

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. (2H91)

In the hairline immediately to the right of the bottom third of the ear?

What hairline immediately to the right (or left) the bottom third of the ear? Sideburns?

I don't understand. But then again, what else is new...

--Tommy

Tommy,

I take it to mean at or near the bottom edge of the hairline which would make it roughly level with the lower part of the ear.

Martin,

While still alive on 11/22/63 and viewed in a normal sitting or standing position, none of JFK's hair (or more precisely--"hairline") was near the "bottom third" or the "lower part" of his ear, so your phrase "level with" suggests to me that the photograph being referred to by Kellerman and Specter was not taken from the perspective of, for example, a typical snapshot. So, were they instead looking at the photos depicted in post #66 this thread or one taken from the same perspective? If so, is Kellerman talking about the highly visible small white circle near the hairline at the back of JFK's head, i.e. the "official" wound of entry?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited May 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Martin,

While still alive on 11/22/63 and viewed in a normal sitting or standing position, none of JFK's hair (or more precisely--"hairline") was near the "bottom third" or the "lower part" of his ear, so your phrase "level with" suggests to me that the photograph being referred to by Kellerman and Specter was not taken from the perspective of, for example, a typical snapshot. Were they looking at the photos depicted in post #66 this thread or one taken from the same perspective? If so, is Kellerman talking about the highly visible small white circle near the hairline at the back of JFK's head, i.e. the "official" wound of entry?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Tommy,

They weren't referring to any photographs. Remember, the Commission didn't use the autopsy photos.

Kellerman's first line, "right below that wound" is referring to the exit wound he had just described. This is the testimony immediately preceeding what I posted above:

Mr. SPECTER: I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy.

Mr. KELLERMAN: OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the rear portion of the head.

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes.

Mr. SPECTER: More to the right side of the head?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. This was removed.

Mr. SPECTER: When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?

Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.

Mr. SPECTER: All right.

Representative FORD: Above the ear and back?

Mr. KELLERMAN: To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.

Mr. SPECTER: When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?

Mr. KELLERMAN: It was absent when I saw him.

Mr. SPECTER: Fine. Proceed.

Great. A police department homicide interrogation without a stenographer or tape recorder, and some important Warren Commission testimony taken without the pertinent photographs. Fantastic.

Never mind.

Martin, are you capable of posting an image of man's head showing where you think Kellerman was referring to when describing JFK's head wounds? Because the more I read about it, the more confused I get?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Edited May 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Martin,

While still alive on 11/22/63 and viewed in a normal sitting or standing position, none of JFK's hair (or more precisely--"hairline") was near the "bottom third" or the "lower part" of his ear, so your phrase "level with" suggests to me that the photograph being referred to by Kellerman and Specter was not taken from the perspective of, for example, a typical snapshot. Were they looking at the photos depicted in post #66 this thread or one taken from the same perspective? If so, is Kellerman talking about the highly visible small white circle near the hairline at the back of JFK's head, i.e. the "official" wound of entry?

Thanks,

--Tommy

Tommy,

They weren't referring to any photographs. Remember, the Commission didn't use the autopsy photos.

Kellerman's first line, "right below that wound" is referring to the exit wound he had just described. This is the testimony immediately preceeding what I posted above:

Mr. SPECTER: I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy.

Mr. KELLERMAN: OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.

Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the rear portion of the head.

Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes.

Mr. SPECTER: More to the right side of the head?

Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. This was removed.

Mr. SPECTER: When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?

Mr. KELLERMAN: The skull part was removed.

Mr. SPECTER: All right.

Representative FORD: Above the ear and back?

Mr. KELLERMAN: To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.

Mr. SPECTER: When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?

Mr. KELLERMAN: It was absent when I saw him.

Mr. SPECTER: Fine. Proceed.

Great. A police department homicide interrogation without a stenographer or tape recorder, and some important Warren Commission testimony taken without the pertinent photographs. Fantastic.

Never mind.

Martin, are you capable of posting an image of man's head showing where you think Kellerman was referring to when describing JFK's head wounds? Because the more I read about it, the more confused I get?

Thanks,

--Tommy

LOL

And this is the investigation guys like Bugliosi have no problem with!

My understanding of Kellerman's testimony places the wound about where the small, whiteish bit of matter appears in the autopsy photo.

Martin,

But it's interesting that Kellerman apparently agrees with Specter's statement/question that it's to the right of the ear.

Since this photo wasn't available to them they probably weren't talking about JFK's head as viewed from this particular perspective, so Specter's statement, "about the lower third of the ear" must mean as viewed in a normal sitting or standing position.

--Tommy

Edited May 9, 2013 by Thomas Graves

[Cliff Varnell]

Now back to your regularly scheduled JFK Assassination Porn...

Head wounds, bitchez!

Edited May 9, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

DVP attempted to hijack the thread.

And in his usual nonsensical way, he did.

Threads can only be hijacked when other posters jump on board. When a would-be hijacker is ignored, he fails.

[Pat Speer]

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

I would agree to this, Steve.

[Don Jeffries]

It appears Lee Harvey Oswald is causing some to be reluctant to support my rather simple statement. I'm a bit surprised that seasoned researchers still hold out any possibility that Oswald was shooting a weapon that day, or that he was a willing conspirator. I would think that the prosecutorial thrust of the bogus investigation, ignoring any leads that led away from Oswald, and the absurd nature of the "evidence" discovered against him, would have convinced all of you that he was framed.

Isn't that one of the primary reasons we were all drawn to this case- the shoddy Carcano, with its dubious paper trail leading to Oswald's alleged alias, the acknowledgement that Oswald was "a rather poor shot," no ammunition sales traced to him, no evidence he had ever practiced with a weapon in America, etc.? Oswald's innocence as an alleged assassin seems to me to be part and parcel of any credible belief in conspiracy.

I appreciate all the replies here, and am grateful that some of you supported my statement. Still, I am disappointed in the predictable derailment of this thread by DVP. I would like to hear from more of you regarding this consensus statement. If we are any kind of real community, we have to agree on something.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Don Jeffries

[Ian Kingsbury]

Don

I have some reservations about Oswalds role but I agree with the statement.

If the "Oswald involved somehow" researchers/readers do not support the statement

It at least will make those unaware question the statement anyway!.

IOW

The statement begs the question "Well what did he do" by then you are into the conversation

Or able to drop in a real fact or two.

Last year I fitted some stone lintols and Jambs at a History teachers home

He was unaware of many aspects of the case and woefully unaware of the

American foreign policies ( Kennedys not Dulles)at the time.

I recommended " JFK and the unspeakable " and when he finished to give it to the school library.

Ian

[John Dolva]

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

I would agree to this, Steve.

While disagreeing about significance I understand that to many people the assassination of JFK was the most significant political assassination (I'd change that to one of or in the western world as it was at a time, while globally the death of a number of other persons prevented significant changes in the world with repercussions that are hard to see clearly) I'll concede that one for expediency and agree to that statement tho I think it needs tightening up in wording. Anyway it is a big step in the right direction without conceding the fundamental of a conspiracy which I think a majority of people believe anyway across the political spectrum and national boundaries.

[Don Jeffries]

Yes, I could live with that statement as well. However, I really thought my original statement was about as pared down as could be, while still coming as off a strong declaration of collective belief.

The important thing, imho, is for us to reach a consensus.

While this thread has been very active, how many people have actually agreed to that rather innocuous acknowledgement of conspiracy? Most of the posts have been between DVP and others, regarding issues that have nothing to do with the topic, and in fact they exemplify why there is a need for a consensus statement in the first place.

I'm beginning to think that more people prefer the infighting to a spirit of camaraderie.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Don Jeffries