David Josephs Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I'll spell it out again. I decided to put all the alterationist stuff aside to see what the evidence shows. It suggests there was more than one shooter. Always did. Always will. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that "they" would fake up a bunch of evidence that suggests more than one shooter, so I have no problem believing the medical evidence is authentic. Feel free to believe whatever you like. It should be noted, moreover, that one of the great ironies on this issue is that in order to make the alteration they so heartily believe in seem probable, many alterationists are willing to push that the evidence, when taken at its face, suggests one shooter firing from behind. Is that what you believe? If so, I would be glad to discuss that with you on another thread, if you like. Pat - take a second and put yourself back in 1967... unless you had taken the time and effort to wade thru the evidence or read Lane, Salandria, Meager, Weisberg... you BELIEVED WHAT YOU WERE TOLD... you may not like it, you may think there was something fishy... but you had no idea what the evidence showed... You read a book, do some research and lo and behold, CONSPIRACY. They didn't FAKE IT TO SHOW MORE THAN ONE SHOOTER, they simply could not hide all the real FACTS of the case. You really need to read Lifton's section on the autopsy and the condition of the brain/skull to fully appreciate the extent of the faking of that evidence. You need to more fully understand what transpired between 6:35 and 8pm and why the Navy Brass helped in the charade. Here's a news flash... THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE SHOOTER PAT... there may have been three if not four... in 1963 the evidence was altered and the FAITH OF THE NATION was put in the WC and their conclusion... Specter even tells us that we needed to accept the weight of these men's reputations over the discrepencies in the evidence... Those that told a different story or attempted to tell the truth were attacked and supressed - yet to you this is the act of an innocent government? You honestly believe the autopsy represented the condition of the body at Parkland? That simply boggles the mind... Read Lifton again and tell us why PARKLAND PROS would attempt to put a trach tube into a person in THAT condition... --- It would be really good if you refrained from generalizations. "alterationists" sound too much like "crazy conspiracy theorists" to me... Once you begin to understand the extent of the manipulation of the evidence that occurred in every area on every level... I find it amazing that you can also state that this was not the case with the Zfilm... The one film that the SS did not confiscate - overtly. The one film that is not argued with by the "experts" who claim it clearly shows shots only from behind... The only thing that need happen for my alteration theory to work is Zap filming at 48fps for those 6 to 11 seconds... YOUR analysis places all the shots that hit coming from behind... you even have the impossible bullet falling out the front of JFK's neck inthe face of ALL the evidence to the contrary... so as you can tell, I do not suggest there was only one shooter from behind.... I suggest that there isnot a single piece of evidence in the entire case that you can point to with 100% certainty that it is authentic and representative of the situation.. If you have something that fits that bill - please post here or start a new thread... I have yet to see one that does not support conspiracy... yet you think these photos and xrays which contradict each other let alone tax the bounds of reality - are authentic.... as you say... feel free to believe whatever you like... no matter how it flies in the face of logic and rational thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) The Fox 5 photo is obviously faked. It has an abrasion collar on the bottom of the misplaced back wound, indicating a shot from below. How Fox 5 is taken seriously by serious people is a serious mystery to me. Edited January 11, 2014 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) What do you guys think of Speer's assertion that Parkland nurse Audrey Bell, who claimed to have seen a wound on the lowest part of the occipital bone, probably wasn't even in the trauma room? Speer: "But there are two problems with Bell. One is that Bell has no credibility, as there's no evidence whatsoever, beyond her latter-day say-so, that she was even in the room with Kennedy." Link Bell's drawing of the wound was so odd that probably no one in this thread would agree that it's accurate, as it has no overlap whatsoever with the parietal bone. This sub-topic gives back-of-the-head theorists an opportunity to restore Bell's credibility. Edited January 11, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~~Mark Twain~~ Here's a summary of the responses so far regarding Audrey Bell's presence (or absence) in the room where JFK died: Response #1) Joseph: Miss Bowron is a back of the head witnesses. Response #2) Prudhomme: "Idiot!" Could anyone identify the names of the logical fallacies above? Anyway, please help restore Bell's credibility by addressing the claim that she may have made it all up. Edited January 11, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Uh, sorry, Andric, it wasn't David I was referring to there. Don't take it personal or anything, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~~Mark Twain~~ Here's a summary of the responses so far regarding Audrey Bell's presence (or absence) in the room where JFK died: Response #1) Joseph: Miss Bowron is a back of the head witnesses. Response #2) Prudhomme: "Idiot!" Could anyone identify the names of the logical fallacies above? Anyway, please help restore Bell's credibility by addressing the claim that she may have made it all up. "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." ~~Mark Twain~~ Here's a summary of the responses so far regarding Audrey Bell's presence (or absence) in the room where JFK died: Response #1) Joseph: Miss Bowron is a back of the head witnesses. Response #2) Prudhomme: "Idiot!" Could anyone identify the names of the logical fallacies above? Anyway, please help restore Bell's credibility by addressing the claim that she may have made it all up. Will this do Andric? On March 20,1997 Jeremy Gunn and I interviewed Audrey Bell in her home in Vernon, Texas. We interviewed her because the Warren Commission never did, and the HSCA only asked her questions about Governor Connally’s bullet fragments--business that was apparently not concluded--not about President Kennedy’s wounds. The interview was audiotaped, and four drawings called Bell Exhibits 1 through 4 were completed by Audrey Bell. Recollections of President Kennedy’s Wounds: -She did not see the throat wound herself; -Although only in Trauma Room One for 3-5 minutes, she did see the head wound. After asking Dr. Perry “where is the wound,” she said he turned the President’s head slightly to the President’s anatomical left, so that she could see a right rear posterior head wound, which she described as occipital in both her oral remarks, and in her drawings; Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) She continued: She said she could see brain and spinal fluid coming out of the wound, but could not tell what type of brain tissue it was; -She said it was her recollection that the right side of the President’s head, and the top of his head, were intact, which is why she had to ask Dr. Perry where the wound was in the first place The effort with which the WC and subsequent investigations went to clarify the Parkland situation is simply staggering {crickets chirping in the distance} Edited January 11, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Regarding Audrey Bell. On page 325 , High Treason 2 - Livingston does what the Warren Commission and HSCA seemed to have neglected to do. He asked her where the head wound was and her response: "There was a massive wound at the back of his head" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 WCR apologists remained amazed when each and every time they try and defend a WCR conclusion... and find the evidence proves the opposite in most every case.... PAT has CE399 in DALLAS... when there is ZERO evidence it ever was... why would anyone discussing the case via the facts not introduce supporting data for that assertion... when we all know the chain of evidence for THAT bullet starts at Rowley's desk? He gives credibility to evidence that not only does not deserve it but drastically changes the analysis of the shots and evidence... There is little if ANY evidence that a 6.5mm bullet ever touched JFK or JC that day... but if you have some, please post. Again, Pat does great work... sadly he believes the evidence he is working with is authentic... no matter how hard he tries - and he tries harder than anyone I've seen - he cant turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. JFK was hit at least twice from the front... and there is not a shred of authenticated evidence available once JFK leaves the ER. If the evidence COULD be authenticated, Pat wouldn't need 50 paragraphs per chapter to explain why we ought to believe it from every point of view except the actual process of authentication. Why would he take the word of experts NOT at the scene over experts FROM the scene? This is akin to the Oswald shirt discussion... He changed his clothes at his room... they were found in the bottom drawer... yet Bledsoe and Whaley are commended on their ability to describe the ARREST clothes, right down to the three buttons torn off IN THE THEATER that he had on before he went to the theater. The experts are once again commenting on pieces of a puzzle that NEVER had anything to do with the actual situation... Ebersole ORDERED that pieces of metal be attached to the films when making the xrays the 2nd time around... Identification markers were removed from xrays related to JFK There is repreated and corroborated evidence of tampering with the skull prior to the actual autopsy starting... Yet these xrays - especially the anterior - are used by Pat in order to prove what happened in Dallas... Once again Pat... Not a soul says anything was wrong from the man's ear forward on either side... Now look at the orientation of this xray... there SHOULD be jaw and teeth to the right if the xray was truly lateral... You state the head was tilted back 30-35 degrees for this image... yet I do not think it was the head but the angle of the xray that was taken like that... otherwise we'd see jaw, no? Just as an experiment, I thought what if the lateral was actually posterior? All I am saying is that these bits of evidence are DESIGNED to take us down the wrong path is we believe they are representative of DALLAS... once we drop that notion and listen to the people who were there... a real picture emerges. DJ (btw - I sent this to Mantik who doesn't think this is realistically possible... which is fine. I am simply making the point... we do not know what transpired to get us to these images. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 My response in bold. WCR apologists remained amazed when each and every time they try and defend a WCR conclusion... I don't understand the reference. There are no WCR apologists on this thread, and find the evidence proves the opposite in most every case.... Not true. You think raising doubt about evidence disproves it. I think evidence suggesting a conspiracy is probably legit. You think if you tear enough down, you can build it up however you like. I think having an intact building--the official evidence--which suggests a conspiracy--is a more practical basis upon which to argue for a conspiracy. PAT has CE399 in DALLAS... when there is ZERO evidence it ever was... why would anyone discussing the case via the facts not introduce supporting data for that assertion... when we all know the chain of evidence for THAT bullet starts at Rowley's desk? At the outset of my webpage, I write that my study of the evidence was based around it's being legit. WHAT DOES IT SHOW? It never ceases to amaze me how controversial this is. Why is it so threatening to some for someone else to take a look at something they think is fake, and discuss what it ACTUALLY shows? He gives credibility to evidence that not only does not deserve it but drastically changes the analysis of the shots and evidence... There is little if ANY evidence that a 6.5mm bullet ever touched JFK or JC that day... 6.5 mm bullet fragments were found in the front seat. Now you might think they were planted... but if you have some, please post. Again, Pat does great work... sadly he believes the evidence he is working with is authentic... no matter how hard he tries - and he tries harder than anyone I've seen - he cant turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. JFK was hit at least twice from the front... There is very little to suggest Kennedy was shot from the front. There is some of course because YES, people thought they heard shots from in front and people saw smoke on the knoll. But that's about it. and there is not a shred of authenticated evidence available once JFK leaves the ER. If the evidence COULD be authenticated, IT HAS BEEN AUTHENTICATED. DO THE RESEARCH! To authenticate autopsy photographs legally officially etc one needs a witness--the autopsy doctors--to say the photo represents what they saw. That's it. In this case, we also have the photographer saying he took the photos, and the radiologist and x-ray techs saying they took the x-rays. TA-DA! The recollections of the emergency room physicians are not a factor. Not in this case. Nor in any other! For years I've been asking people to come forward with one case in history in which the recollections of an emergency room doctor were used to discredit the recollections of a forensic pathologist and the authenticity of the official evidence. I'm still waiting. And besides, EVEN if one were able to get let's say McClelland on the stand to say the autopsy photos weren't legit, the government would put on his fellow Parkland physicians Carrico, Perry, Baxter, Jenkins, and yes probably even Clark, Jones and Peters to say they differed to the accuracy of the photos. TA-DA! Pat wouldn't need 50 paragraphs per chapter to explain why we ought to believe it from every point of view except the actual process of authentication. Nonsense. They've been authenticated. Why would he take the word of experts NOT at the scene over experts FROM the scene? Why do YOU take the words of Audrey Bell and Charles Crenshaw--who saw Kennedy for a few seconds if at all--and weren't asked about it for 20 years or more--over the words of Mrs. Kennedy and Dave Powers--who loved Kennedy more than anything and said it was the TOP of the head that was missing long before any controversy over the head wounds had bubbled to the surface? This is akin to the Oswald shirt discussion... He changed his clothes at his room... they were found in the bottom drawer... yet Bledsoe and Whaley are commended on their ability to describe the ARREST clothes, right down to the three buttons torn off IN THE THEATER that he had on before he went to the theater. You realize, I hope, that no one in recent years was discussing the shirt problem till I came along and wrote a detailed chapter on it. The experts are once again commenting on pieces of a puzzle that NEVER had anything to do with the actual situation... Ebersole ORDERED that pieces of metal be attached to the films when making the xrays the 2nd time around... I don't believe this is true. To my recollection, the metal experiment--whatever its purpose--was conducted days after the autopsy and was not conducted on Kennedy's x-rays. If you have an exact quote from Custer saying he was handed the original x-rays when performing this experiment, I'd be glad to say I'm wrong. Identification markers were removed from xrays related to JFK NOT TRUE. Where do you get this? READ THE ARRB interviews of Reed and Custer. They both authenticated the x-rays based upon the ID markers they'd placed on the originals. There is repreated and corroborated evidence of tampering with the skull prior to the actual autopsy starting... Nonsense. This is all make-believe. Horne says Robinson saw an orange-sized hole at the end of the autopsy, but that his fellow mortician saw an orange-sized hole at the end of the autopsy. They traveled together. They were sitting together. So why does he do this? Because he NEEDS to have a witness to the head wound before that ghoul Humes "expanded" the wound. It's weak weak weak weak. Yet these xrays - especially the anterior - are used by Pat in order to prove what happened in Dallas... The x-rays are authentic and absolute proof of two head shots. Once again Pat... Not a soul says anything was wrong from the man's ear forward on either side... WHAT! The Newmans, Kilduff and Zapruder said as much before any of the Parkland witnesses had uttered a peep. Now look at the orientation of this xray... there SHOULD be jaw and teeth to the right if the xray was truly lateral... You have an imaginative mind, David. The jaw and teeth were cut off the x-ray AS PUBLISHED. They are on the x-rays in the archives. You state the head was tilted back 30-35 degrees for this image... yet I do not think it was the head but the angle of the xray that was taken like that... otherwise we'd see jaw, no? Just as an experiment, I thought what if the lateral was actually posterior? All I am saying is that these bits of evidence are DESIGNED to take us down the wrong path is we believe they are representative of DALLAS... once we drop that notion and listen to the people who were there... a real picture emerges. DJ (btw - I sent this to Mantik who doesn't think this is realistically possible... which is fine. I am simply making the point... we do not know what transpired to get us to these images. Mantik and I disagree on much, but we both believe the x-rays are those of Kennedy on 11-22-63. In our discussion at the Harper fragment at the Pittsburgh conference, he cleared up something else as well: the white patch he sees on the x-rays does not cover up the "blow-out" hole he believes was on the back of the head. Mantik believes the "blow-out" was in the middle of the back of the head. The "white patch,"however, is on the right side of the skull, from just above the ear on back. (Dr. John Fitzpatrick says it is actually a piece of overlapping bone.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 where did the autopsy doctors say there was an entrance wound in the cowlick area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 where did the autopsy doctors say there was an entrance wound in the cowlick area? ??? There wasn't one in the cowlick area. Are you gonna argue that there was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pat, sorry - apparently you don't understand what I am getting at.This is reported as an OFFICIAL photowhere is the testimony that validates this, compared to the testimony thatdoes not?We can find plenty of the latter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 my response seems to have vanished... and I haven't the time to reconstruct it... Suffice to say it ended with Middle back of the head - Dr. Mantik among other professionals in the Med field Middle REAR back of head - Dr. McClellend among other professional ER doctors from a distance of 3 feet and closer within 15 minutes of the injury Middle REAR back of head - Nurse Bowron among other nurses and ancillary personnel attending to JFK's body at an ER from a distance of LESS than 2 feet within 10 minutes Middle REAR back of head - Clint Hill SS Agent among other SS agents describing the same kind of wound - professionals, many ex soldiers, police, FBI - WITHIN 10 SECONDS within 1 foot ---- The Secret Service REFUSES to allow the law of TX to be followed or coroner Rose to do his job. Kellerman* testifies to agreeing on meeting the party at the mortuary when he actually lies and orders the body to AF-1 --- Front right and front middle of head, open top - xrays taken at Bethesda under the command of the Surgeon General of the Navy and The Commanding officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital Adm Galloway... Also attending and conducting the circus Adm Burkley... also Navy... given over to the Secret Service for safe keeping. AFTER a flight on a NAVY craft flown by NAVY pilots and taken to a NAVY hospital up to 85 minutes before he officially gets there and 42 minutes before the FBI and SS claim to have carried him in.... When does HUMES say he gets him? Q. During the autopsy, was the room quiet and hushed or noisy and bustling? How would you describe the scene? A. It varied. We were there for a long time. We were there from about 6:00 or 6:30 in the evening until 5 o'clock the next morning Q. Dr. Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy? A. I didn't look at my watch, if I even had a watch on, but I would guess it was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately. Entire right front middle and back - xrays taken at Bethesda. SOS Top and right side of head - Pat Speer from believing the medical evidence is real and representative of the injuries sustained in Dallas... Dude... whatever. We are all entitled... I'm done here. *Mr. KELLERMAN. This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it." With that Dr. Burkley walked in, and I said Doctor, this man is from some health unit in town. He tells me we can't remove this body." The Doctor became a little enraged; he said, "We are removing it." He said, "This is the President of the United States and there should be some consideration in an event like this." And I told this gentleman, I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed." So, he frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home. Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?" And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir." But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance. I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Pat, sorry - apparently you don't understand what I am getting at. This is reported as an OFFICIAL photo where is the testimony that validates this, compared to the testimony that does not? We can find plenty of the latter If you go to the history matters or Mary Ferrell sites, you will find the ARRB testimony of Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Stringer. None of them expressed any doubt that these were the photos taken on 11-22-63. Reed and Custer also spoke to the ARRB, and said the x-rays were the ones they took on 11-22-63. (Admittedly, Stringer had problems with the brain photos taken at a later date.) There is also, of course, the inventory dated 11-10-66 signed by Humes, Boswell, Stringer, and Ebersole, in which they numbered and described the photos and x-rays, and signed them off as authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now