David Josephs Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Just can't do it can you Pat...? What evidence in the WCR related to the medical procedures proves to you that there was a second shot as opposed to surgery done by HUMES.. The description of the top of the head is a 5-6cm trough and the complete disconnection of every bit of tissue that holds the brain within the skull and skull to the scalp The description of the mid brain relates to the Corpus callosum and the 3rd ventricle The description of the BASE of the brain involves the slicing of the brain stem - completely, dissecting the Cerebral penduncle from the 3rd ventricle both of which are right next to the cerebellum which doctors at Parkland said was extruded from the wound... (they mentioned nothing of the 2+ inch trough thru his head from the frontal to occipal lobes of the brain or a 5 inch hole in the top right - those were created at Bethesda. So once and for all Pat, Andric or whoever... explain how these descriptions of the wound and where they lay in/on the skull/scalp/brain related to more than one shot... when these items were not seen at Parkland. HOW was the entire left side of the brains connective tissue detached from the scalp and skull when there was no damage noted to the left side of the head in Bethesda? HUMES: When viewed from above the left cerebral hemisphere was intact. There was engorgement of blood vessels in the meninges covering the brain. We note that the gyri and sulci, which are the convolutions of the brain over the left hemisphere were of normal size and distribution. http://aclandanatomy.com/abstract/4010576 - explains all of the structures within the cranial vault and the following gives you an idea of what needed to be cut on the UNDAMAGED LEFT SIDE so the brain could fall out with a minimal of sawing... the HOLE IN THE HEAD is but one small piece of this operation PAT.... Without the cutting of the connections between the scalp and the skull, the entire left side could NOT be pulled from the skull... not just by extending a few lacerations... Pat... take amoment and learn the process of separating the scal pfrom skull and brain from vault... with no damage to the brain on the left side, what he is describing is impossible unless these cuts were done already... Stop running away and changing the subject PAT.... you keep claiming the evidence shows more than one bullet - PROVE IT. HUMES: To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury.We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it HUMES: (1)There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves. This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the tip of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm. The base of the laceration was situated approximately 4.5 cm. below the vertex in the white matter. By the vertex we mean--the highest point on the skull is referred to as the vertex. (DJ: Now Pat - Humes here is saying that this laceration - which runs the entire length of JFK's Brain - extends 5-6cms into the brain...yet he follows with the BASE of the same laceration, as measured from a point HIGHER than the brain, the VERTEX of the skull, and yet the depth is LESS than is seen within the brain itself.... what do you think "it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 or 6 cm" means?) The area in which the (2) greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, In addition, there was (3) a laceration of the corpus callosum Exposed in this laceration were portions of the ventricular system in which the spinal fluid normally is disposed within the brain When the brain was turned over and (4) viewed from its basular or inferior aspect, there was found a longitudinal laceration of the mid-brain through the floor of the third ventricle, just behind the optic chiasma and the mammillary bodies.This laceration partially communicates with an oblique (4) 1.5 cm. tear through the left cerebral peduncle. This is a portion of the brain which connects the higher centers of the brain with the spinal cord which is more concerned with reflex actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Vince, can you contact Clint Hill and ask him if he can recall what he told Specter, RE his WC testimony? Since you complemented him somewhat on his book, we may be more responsive to you than in the past. Tell him we all want to see his response here in this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 Sorry for the typo, meant HE may be more responsive to you than in the past. And was that a strange 60 minute interview he did back in 75 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 17, 2014 Author Share Posted January 17, 2014 (edited) John- hahahaha; Hill hates me (well, maybe dislike--he returned my Christmas card from 2012 "refused!!!!!!!") Anyway: his brain has definitely been, shall we say, "massaged" by his association with his co-author, Lisa McCubbin: they now have two partnerships- a professional company "McCubbin Hill LLC" AND a romantic one: he is 82 and she is 49 (his son is 56) and he is still married (NOT gossip or talking out of turn: they both openly admit this online, in press interviews, etc). As others have noted, Hill is now saying things at odds with his original statements. Keep in mind, it was MY 22-page letter to Hill in 2005 that literally awoke a sleeping giant: for better or for worse (I opt for the latter), Hill AND Blaine wrote their books (plural) to defend themselves and the agency they covet so much. All projects---INCLUDING A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE SCHEDULED FOR THIS YEAR---have McCubbin (who formerly dated Blaine's SON) as co-author/ co-producer. I have it from an insider that a bad actor playing JFK tells the agents in Tampa "Get those God-damned charlatans off my car!"---!!!! Oh, brother... McCubbin lived in Qatar in the Middle East for a number of years and Blaine currently has oil interests in Yemen (their good friend, fellow former agent and Texas trip veteran Walt Coughlin works for Hunt Oil to this day). McCubbin then promptly moved right next door to Hill in Virginia, leaving her high school sweetheart hubby...and the rest is history. Edited January 17, 2014 by Vince Palamara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Day-um, what kind of guy refuses a Christmas card? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 well said Robert, but he once signed pictures of himself jumping on the back of the limo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Hill and Blaine regularly sign Zapruder film frames, Altgens photos, Moorman photos, Nix slides, and, as Barbara Bacherman has sworn is true, an autopsy photo of JFK. Nice guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Thanks Vince. And speaking of autographs, I would like to send Hill a copy of his WC testimony, and ask him to sign that for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 He would probably return it "refused" or "I changed my mind" haha I DO have his e-mail, snail mail, and phone number...but I am persona non grata with him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) He would probably return it "refused" or "I changed my mind" haha I DO have his e-mail, snail mail, and phone number...but I am persona non grata with him You really aren't surprised by this, are you? You talked to a bunch of old SS agents, basically telling them you were a kid and wanted to know what they thought, and then you used their statements to suggest that some of their friends and co-workers were complicit in the murder of President Kennedy, which these men viewed as the worst day of their lives. I mean, that is what happened, right? That's a lot for an old dude to deal with. If your conclusions were correct, then they'd been played for suckers by their long-time employer, and had essentially been failures. If your conclusions were incorrect, then they'd been played for suckers by you. You had to have known they'd choose the latter scenario. Edited January 18, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 I wouldn't say it was that cut and dry, but I can definitely see why the wouldn't want to go bowling with me any time soon. Because of them, JFK is dead, conspiracy or no conspiracy. I see Hill and Blaine smiling and traveling the world making huge (we are talking HUGE) money, spawned by a 22-page letter I sent Hill in the Summer of 2005. Blaming JFK for his own death is pretty vulgar; I feel no pity for them. The vast majority of people who have read my book (minus Blaine disciples and maybe some lone-nutters [like they are going to admit anything?]) come away both impressed and disturbed. Most of these gentlemen have passed on and, for those still living, they are in league with Blaine, attending conferences and yucking it up in photographs and so forth. They're doing just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't say it was that cut and dry, but I can definitely see why the wouldn't want to go bowling with me any time soon. Because of them, JFK is dead, conspiracy or no conspiracy. I see Hill and Blaine smiling and traveling the world making huge (we are talking HUGE) money, spawned by a 22-page letter I sent Hill in the Summer of 2005. Blaming JFK for his own death is pretty vulgar; I feel no pity for them. The vast majority of people who have read my book (minus Blaine disciples and maybe some lone-nutters [like they are going to admit anything?]) come away both impressed and disturbed. Most of these gentlemen have passed on and, for those still living, they are in league with Blaine, attending conferences and yucking it up in photographs and so forth. They're doing just fine. I pretty much agree. I've read a lot of statements on this issue over the years, both in your book and elsewhere. It used to be that JFK wanted the agents off the car unless they thought it was necessary. For suspicious reasons, this has now been spun into his "ordering" the agents off the car, and thereby being responsible for his own death. It is indeed vulgar. I don't think Hill believes it, as he usually says no one would have been riding on the back in Dealey no matter the circumstances, but Blaine seems to want people to believe it, if just to draw attention away from the failures of the agents. Edited January 18, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Pat et al - what do you make of the Belmont memo? Apparently a bullet lodged behind JFK's ear was found at the Bethesda autopsy but never entered into evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 CLINT HILL TALKING ABOUT THE JFK AUTOPSY AND...VINCE PALAMARA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bqE0rPJyGI GERALD BLAINE TELLS TALL TALES: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oALbLw4U7U0 GERALD BLAINE TELLS MORE TALL TALES: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23K1J_cMt2c Gerald Blaine fibs: THE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS DID NOT BLOCK PUBLIC'S VIEW OF JFK! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZjF3KMPUsU GERALD BLAINE AND CLINT HILL TALK ABOUT...VINCE PALAMARA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbD1shPmla8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Pat et al - what do you make of the Belmont memo? Apparently a bullet lodged behind JFK's ear was found at the Bethesda autopsy but never entered into evidence. Belmont was repeating second-hand information. The largest fragment recovered at autopsy was purportedly lodged behind Kennedy's right eye. This leads me to suspect there had been a slight miscommunication. The FBI files are full of such miscommunication, IMO. 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