Jump to content
The Education Forum

Jim Marrs: New study of JFK autopsy reveals falsification of x-ray


Recommended Posts

So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

Bethesda%20players%20-%20DJ%20chart_zpsb

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 31
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The extant x-rays, in particular the right lateral x-ray and the anterior x-ray showing the 6.5 mm metal piece, are frauds in my opinion.

The right lateral x-ray shows an absence of bone extending along the right and top sides of the skull and an absence of right front forehead bone. Jackie said that from the front, JFK didn't appear to be wounded. The Parkland docs did not describe damage corresponding to this x-ray. Autopsy photos do not correspond to this x-ray. That's all before I get to Mantik's analysis of the rear-skull depiction in this x-ray. I defer to Mantik; he's got a PhD in physics. Neither Randy Robertson nor any other medical expert who has examined this x-ray can lay claim to Mantik's knowledge of physics, which bears heavily on interpreting this x-ray. I go with Mantik.

As for the 6.5 mm metal piece depicted in the anterior x-ray, Humes said he never saw this item. Humes, who constructed a mighty fabrication, couldn't buy this lie; it was too far over the top for him. My understanding from Robert P. is that a frangible round wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section on the skull. My understanding from other writers is that a copper-jacketed round also wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section.

At the end of the day, neither of the two x-rays about which I write have any significance in the law. They are not evidence within the meaning of the law. They are mere films, asserted to have meaning.

are frauds in my opinion. I agree. Just on the basis of, if there had been an xray clearly showing a 6.5 bullet in JFK's head, it would have been known about on 11/23/63, or before. One of the autopists would have seen it on 11/22 and we would all know about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extant x-rays, in particular the right lateral x-ray and the anterior x-ray showing the 6.5 mm metal piece, are frauds in my opinion.

The right lateral x-ray shows an absence of bone extending along the right and top sides of the skull and an absence of right front forehead bone. Jackie said that from the front, JFK didn't appear to be wounded. The Parkland docs did not describe damage corresponding to this x-ray. Autopsy photos do not correspond to this x-ray. That's all before I get to Mantik's analysis of the rear-skull depiction in this x-ray. I defer to Mantik; he's got a PhD in physics. Neither Randy Robertson nor any other medical expert who has examined this x-ray can lay claim to Mantik's knowledge of physics, which bears heavily on interpreting this x-ray. I go with Mantik.

As for the 6.5 mm metal piece depicted in the anterior x-ray, Humes said he never saw this item. Humes, who constructed a mighty fabrication, couldn't buy this lie; it was too far over the top for him. My understanding from Robert P. is that a frangible round wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section on the skull. My understanding from other writers is that a copper-jacketed round also wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section.

At the end of the day, neither of the two x-rays about which I write have any significance in the law. They are not evidence within the meaning of the law. They are mere films, asserted to have meaning.

Well, Jon, the frangible bullet would not leave a cross section of the actual bullet anywhere but, I'm not so sure what would become of the bullet jacket itself, especially when you consider any lethal frangible bullet in 1963 would have been a crude design, at the least. This is why I posted the photo of the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet. As I pointed out, the jacket of these bullets was made from two pieces that were joined just behind the nose, and many of these jackets also had a deep cannelure groove at about the point where the bullet was inserted into the casing. The section of jacket between the join and the cannelure might very well be the fragment seen in the x-ray, if it did indeed exist.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Pat, how you like to leave out bits of information. Custer also told the ARRB that the x-ray he recalled seeing of JFK's neck was not in the x-rays he viewed.

According to Custer, the x-ray of the neck he saw showed many small fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae.

Geez, Robert. Custer told the ARRB he thought he'd made a number of x-rays that either never existed or are no longer in the archives. The question raised by Mantik is on the authenticity of the x-rays currently in the archives. He thought Custer was with him on this. He started quoting Custer on this 20 years ago. The problem is that Mantik, and the other researchers dealing with Custer, only showed Custer the cropped and computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA. When shown the non-cropped, non-computer-enhanced originals (or presumed originals, if you will), by the ARRB, however, Custer spotted his personal marker on the x-rays, and said that yessirree these were Kennedy's x-rays, and not only that, but the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment was behind the right eye, where it was retrieved during the autopsy. In other words, he rejected Mantik's key findings.

So how did Mantik respond to this? He continued quoting Custer's earliest statements, in which he questioned the authenticity of the x-rays.

If an LN did this kind of thing--quoting a witness in support of his theories, without noting that that witness subsequently gave sworn testimony in opposition to his theories--you'd flip out. I know David a little. I don't consider him an enemy by any means. But when he routinely deceives his readers on this and other points, it makes me feel like someone needs to set things straight.

Geez, Pat, nice display of psycho babble. You've neatly skirted the fact that Custer distinctly recalled seeing an x-ray of JFK's neck showing many bullet fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae. Must be a sore point with the LN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The extant x-rays, in particular the right lateral x-ray and the anterior x-ray showing the 6.5 mm metal piece, are frauds in my opinion.

The right lateral x-ray shows an absence of bone extending along the right and top sides of the skull and an absence of right front forehead bone. Jackie said that from the front, JFK didn't appear to be wounded. The Parkland docs did not describe damage corresponding to this x-ray. Autopsy photos do not correspond to this x-ray. That's all before I get to Mantik's analysis of the rear-skull depiction in this x-ray. I defer to Mantik; he's got a PhD in physics. Neither Randy Robertson nor any other medical expert who has examined this x-ray can lay claim to Mantik's knowledge of physics, which bears heavily on interpreting this x-ray. I go with Mantik.

As for the 6.5 mm metal piece depicted in the anterior x-ray, Humes said he never saw this item. Humes, who constructed a mighty fabrication, couldn't buy this lie; it was too far over the top for him. My understanding from Robert P. is that a frangible round wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section on the skull. My understanding from other writers is that a copper-jacketed round also wouldn't have deposited such a cross-section.

At the end of the day, neither of the two x-rays about which I write have any significance in the law. They are not evidence within the meaning of the law. They are mere films, asserted to have meaning.

Well, Jon, the frangible bullet would not leave a cross section of the actual bullet anywhere but, I'm not so sure what would become of the bullet jacket itself, especially when you consider any lethal frangible bullet in 1963 would have been a crude design, at the least. This is why I posted the photo of the 6.5mm Carcano M37 "Magistri" frangible range bullet. As I pointed out, the jacket of these bullets was made from two pieces that were joined just behind the nose, and many of these jackets also had a deep cannelure groove at about the point where the bullet was inserted into the casing. The section of jacket between the join and the cannelure might very well be the fragment seen in the x-ray, if it did indeed exist.

the frangible bullet would not leave a cross section

I'm not so sure what would become of the bullet jacket itself,

might very well be the fragment seen in the x-ray,

if it did indeed exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh Pat, how you like to leave out bits of information. Custer also told the ARRB that the x-ray he recalled seeing of JFK's neck was not in the x-rays he viewed.

According to Custer, the x-ray of the neck he saw showed many small fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae.

Geez, Robert. Custer told the ARRB he thought he'd made a number of x-rays that either never existed or are no longer in the archives. The question raised by Mantik is on the authenticity of the x-rays currently in the archives. He thought Custer was with him on this. He started quoting Custer on this 20 years ago. The problem is that Mantik, and the other researchers dealing with Custer, only showed Custer the cropped and computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA. When shown the non-cropped, non-computer-enhanced originals (or presumed originals, if you will), by the ARRB, however, Custer spotted his personal marker on the x-rays, and said that yessirree these were Kennedy's x-rays, and not only that, but the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment was behind the right eye, where it was retrieved during the autopsy. In other words, he rejected Mantik's key findings.

So how did Mantik respond to this? He continued quoting Custer's earliest statements, in which he questioned the authenticity of the x-rays.

If an LN did this kind of thing--quoting a witness in support of his theories, without noting that that witness subsequently gave sworn testimony in opposition to his theories--you'd flip out. I know David a little. I don't consider him an enemy by any means. But when he routinely deceives his readers on this and other points, it makes me feel like someone needs to set things straight.

Geez, Pat, nice display of psycho babble. You've neatly skirted the fact that Custer distinctly recalled seeing an x-ray of JFK's neck showing many bullet fragments in the vicinity of C3/C4 vertebrae. Must be a sore point with the LN.

What? Are you in third grade? You think my disagreeing with you on a few points makes me a LN? Haven't we been over this before? Several times now? Or have the Northern Lights dimmed your memory?

FWIW, I've presented at numerous conferences, including the Bethesda conference last year at which I exposed the single-bullet theory as a hoax from the get-go... I have also argued extensively that the medical evidence--the autopsy photos and x-rays, etc--strongly suggests (actually proves, IMO) there were two shooters. I have also taken a detailed look at the HSCA trajectory analysis and neutron activation analysis, and have proved both to have been grossly in error, if not deliberate frauds.

So quit with the bullying tactics. I'm a thousand miles upstream of where you'll ever be.

And, oh yeah, for what it's worth, I cite Custer's testimony on my website as possible support for my theory a bullet came down the neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Thanks.

I've always understood that x-rays are reflected by bone, metal, or other dense and hard matter and are absorbed by soft tissue.

As for the four x-ray depictions you present, I'm curious about the lower-right one. Is that supposedly a lateral view of JFK's skull? If it is, I must say it looks like the x-ray of a cross between a homo sapien and a simian, given what appears to me to be protruding bones above and below the mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Thanks.

I've always understood that x-rays are reflected by bone, metal, or other dense and hard matter and are absorbed by soft tissue.

As for the four x-ray depictions you present, I'm curious about the lower-right one. Is that supposedly a lateral view of JFK's skull? If it is, I must say it looks like the x-ray of a cross between a homo sapien and a simian, given what appears to me to be protruding bones above and below the mouth.

that is a strange looking bone structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

Bethesda%20players%20-%20DJ%20chart_zpsb

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Hang on here... dead serious :mellow:

Those are the connections at Bethesda and surrounding that night...

Humes claimed the autopsy started with body at 6:45.

FBI/SS bring in a casket at 7:17

The actual start is 8pm...

This is how all these people were actually connected.... and who ordered who to do what, to sign what, to go and be here and there.

Sorry, but what's so funny? :unsure:

(Have you read Best Evidence? my bad if not... I did this while reading it to remember who everybody was)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

Bethesda%20players%20-%20DJ%20chart_zpsb

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Hang on here... dead serious :mellow:

Those are the connections at Bethesda and surrounding that night...

Humes claimed the autopsy started with body at 6:45.

FBI/SS bring in a casket at 7:17

The actual start is 8pm...

This is how all these people were actually connected.... and who ordered who to do what, to sign what, to go and be here and there.

Sorry, but what's so funny? :unsure:

(Have you read Best Evidence? my bad if not... I did this while reading it to remember who everybody was)

David that "if - then" comment by Glenn was in reference to another thread we had a lot of laughs over. Was not about your diagram.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BREAKING NEWS [posted on Facebook by Jim Marrs]

NEW STUDY OF JFK AUTOPSY REVEALS FALISIFICATION OF X-RAY

Recent find adds weight to conspiracy theories of government cover-up in the Kennedy assassination

By Jim Marrs

author of Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy

August 19, 2015

A bullet fragment depicted in an autopsy X-ray used to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy recently has been found to be a faked artifact superimposed on the X-ray sometime after JFK’s autopsy.

Such tampering with official evidence could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of high-level federal officials and adds considerable weight to the claims of government cover-up in that tragic event

The X-ray fabrication was the topic of a 2015 paper by Dr. David Dr. Mantik published in issue three of Medical Research Archives, an international scientific peer-reviewed journal publishing articles in all disciplines of medicine, with a focus on new research.

Oswald, an ex-Marine who had attempted to defect to Russia in 1959, was identified in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson’s handpicked commission headed by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren as the lone assassin of President Kennedy. The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald had used a 6.5 mm Italian WWII carbine to shoot Kennedy from the sixth-floor of a book depository building in downtown Dallas on November 22, 1963.

In 1968, amid controversy over the commission’s conclusion, the Justice Department selected four prominent medical experts to review the JFK autopsy evidence. This became known as the Clark Panel, named after then-Atty. General Ramsey Clark.

Although, the panels’ report was delayed until after the New Orleans JFK conspiracy trial led by Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison, in 1969 it concluded that the Warren Commission had been correct in its major findings though some issues remained in question, such as the location of the president’s head wound.

Interestingly, it was this Clark Panel report that first mentioned a fragment said to be from a 6.5 mm bullet found in the anterior-posterior (AP) X-ray of Kennedy’s skull. The image of this fragment became a critical piece of evidence, although it was not mentioned anywhere in the 26-volumes of the Warren Commission nor in the original autopsy report.

The fragment in question has been described as “the most curious—and unsolved—mystery in the history of diagnostic radiology.”

Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics consultant to the House Select Commission on Assassinations (HSCA), created by Congress in 1976 in the midst of continuing controversy over Kennedy’s death, studied this fragment and concluded the object could not be metal and that he had never seen the cross-section of a bullet deposited in such an odd fashion on a skull X-ray. “I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is,” reported Sturdivan. “One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and un-deformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it.”

Mystery indeed, as the HSCA had relied on the authenticity of this fragment as key evidence in connecting the 6.5 mm bullet piece to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Furthermore, the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), formed by Congress in 1994 to study all government documents relating to the assassination, the three JFK autopsy doctors testified under oath that they had never seen such a fragment during the autopsy.

The mystery deepened in 2015 with the work of Dr. David Mantik, a California physician, who along with Dr. Cyril Wecht, a former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science, had studied the JFK X-rays and other material for nine days at the National Archives. “Hundreds of optical density measurements were made from the (supposed) original skull X-rays, with a specific focus on the 6.5 mm object that lies within JFK’s right orbit on the AP skull X-ray,” said Dr. Mantik.

After careful study, Dr. Mantik saw the fragment was strangely transparent. He realized this artifact had been added to the JFK X-ray in the darkroom. He explained it was accomplished by means of a double exposure of a 6.5 mm aperture, such as a 6.5 mm hole in a piece of cardboard. “[T]he first step was to imprint the image from the original X-ray onto a duplicate film (via a light box in the dark room). The second step was another exposure that imprinted the 6.5 mm image onto the duplicate film (i.e., superimposing it over the image of the original X-ray). This duplicate film was then developed to yield the image [as it appears in the X-ray]. This process inevitably produces a phantom effect, whereby objects (e.g., bullet fragments in this case) on the original film are seen separately [emphasis in the original] from the superimposed 6.5 mm image. On JFK’s AP skull X-ray, the original metal fragment (that lay at the back of the skull) can be seen separately through the 6.5 mm image.”

Dr. Mantik added that the double exposure was so unprofessional it produced a significant overexposure of the 6.5 mm image. He even found one tiny particle of bullet metal inside the 6.5 mm object, indicating the use of a well-known Hollywood technique using photographic double exposure.

Using studies of optical density, which differentiates the lightness or darkness of specific points on X-ray film, Dr. Mantik was able to determine that some time before the 1968 Clark Panel, someone in a darkroom had superimposed the fake bullet fragment onto Kennedy’s X-ray.

Following his extensive study of this issue, Dr. Mantik concluded, “This mysterious 6.5 mm image was (secretly) added to the original X- ray via a second exposure. The alteration of the AP X-ray was likely completed shortly after the autopsy. Its proximate purpose was to implicate Lee Harvey Oswald and his supposed 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine, to the exclusion of any other suspect, and thereby to rule out a possible conspiracy.”

Dr.Mantik said while the purpose of the X-ray alteration could only have been to “implicate the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine (supposedly owned by Oswald) in the assassination. Its ultimate purpose, however, awaits resolution by professional historians, who have been remarkably reticent about accepting responsibility for their task.”

In his paper, Dr. Mantik identified Dr. John H. Ebersole, the assistant chief radiologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital, as the one person who had the means and opportunity to devise the X-ray forgery. Dr. Ebersole, aided by X-ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed, took the X-rays of Kennedy’s head the night of the Autopsy. At that time no one saw any evidence of a bullet in the X-rays. Custer said the next day, contrary to protocol, he burned the page in the duty log concerning the taking of Kennedy’s X-rays on the order of Dr. Ebersole.

Custer also recalled that after the autopsy he was instructed by Dr. Ebersole to make X-rays of bullet fragments taped onto skull X-rays. However, no such X-rays were ever made public. Mantik opined that probably it was decided “alteration was easier to perform in the darkroom via a double exposure.”

Dr. Mantik also found that several weeks after the assassination, Dr. Ebersole was called to the Johnson White House ostensibly to assist in preparing a bust of Kennedy. “More likely, in my opinion, the reason for his summons to the White House was to see how he would react to the now-altered X-rays,” said Dr. Mantik. “Based on this episode then, the alteration must have occurred within several weeks (quite possibly immediately) after the assassination.”

He added that such actions might “explain why the radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, refused to discuss this artifact with me. After all, he was the single individual most likely to possess the required expertise and creativity to perform X–ray alteration.” Dr. Ebersole died in 1993, shortly after his conversation with Dr. Mantik.

JFK’S X-RAY VS. AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPH --- The vertical arrow on the X-ray, left, of the anterior-posterior (AP) right side of Kennedy’s skull previously has been identified as a fragment of a 6.5 mm carbine bullet and used to link the wound to the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald. Dr. David W. Mantik, after arduous study, found this evidence was a fabrication superimposed on the X-ray sometime after Kennedy’s autopsy. Also shown, at right, is an altered X-ray that Mantik prepared to demonstrate how objects could be superimposed on X-rays using techniques available in 1963.

In recent years, Custer has even questioned the validity of the X-rays themselves. In 1992, after studying the JFK X-rays in the National Archives, Custer decclared, “These are fake X-rays.”

Dr. Mantik’s conclusions have been supported by others, including Dr, Michael Chesser, an Arkansas neurologist, who noted, “I viewed the original autopsy skull X-rays at the archives this year [2015] and I confirmed his optical density readings of the lateral skull film, which support his conclusion that there was manipulation. Hopefully there will come a time when better copies of the autopsy x-rays and photographs will be made available for review by a wider audience and the evidence will speak for itself. I applaud Dr. David Mantik for his courage in reporting the truth.”

Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB’s chief analyst for military records including the Bethesda autopsy, commented. “The fact that Dr. Mantik's scientific paper on the forgery indicators present in the A-P skull x-ray has survived the rigorous gauntlet of scientific peer review is further indication that his arguments about the three surviving JFK skull x-rays are sound, and worthy of the most serious consideration. … t is no longer possible for others who are not radiologists, or MDs (like he is), or who do not hold PhDs in physics (like he does), to dismiss his work as that of a mere 'enthusiast.'”

n the mid-1990s, I recognized the scientific validity of his pioneering work on the JFK skull x-rays, and at my recommendation he was requested by Jeremy Gunn, the General Counsel for the ARRB, to prepare questions for the three JFK autopsy pathologists… The answers the three JFK pathologists provided to his questions, under oath, corroborated Mantik's assertions that the three skull x-rays in the official collection are indeed copy films (not originals), and are altered images,” said Horne.

He added, “The problem with the medical evidence has always been missing and tainted evidence---the destruction of some evidence, and the alteration of much of the evidence that remains in the record today --- [and] is representative of the fact that the U.S. government engaged in a massive cover-up of the way in which JFK died, and therefore intentionally engaged in selling the American people a false bill of goods in regard to how our government changed hands in November of 1963."

# # # #

this reads like a news release - is Marrs a journalist? is he a journalist with the backing of a legitimate publication?

i'm just curious - i have no opinion on his work, as i've read so little of it. I have no reason to doubt his wisdom; i'm just saying that it sounds official but without a byline. wondering why...

Marrs was a journalist. I suspect he put this together as a favor to Mantik, in hopes it will be placed in some news feeds. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. It's just that he misrepresents this new article on an old study as a new study, and leaves out a few important details, IMO.

"It's just that he misrepresents this new article on an old study as a new study"

yeah, that was my gut feeling. a little tacky, i guess, but nothing that'll send him to hell. I still found Mantik's findings interesting. I'll read some Marrs one day...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So who did Dr. Ebersole answer to?

Pretty sure it was Osborne Chief of Surgery as well as Humes for this Autopsy and then anyone above them.

I did this a while back to better understand the scene at Bethesda. hope it helps.

DJ

edit - PS - reading Ebersole's HSCA interview sheds a great deal of light... then see what Custer and Reed and even O'Connor has to say about Ebersole's abilities. He was about as good at Xrays as Humes was at performing an autopsy

Bethesda%20players%20-%20DJ%20chart_zpsb

if that's your idea of some kind of humor at an otherwise nationally sobering catastrophe, then i'm liking you more and more every time i read your stuff.

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

yay

(oops - don't look now, Ken - it's a dreaded If Then statement!)

if it's not, then - God, that's funny.

Yeah, it is, but it's not stated correctly.... How did you know I would read that?

Hang on here... dead serious :mellow:

Those are the connections at Bethesda and surrounding that night...

Humes claimed the autopsy started with body at 6:45.

FBI/SS bring in a casket at 7:17

The actual start is 8pm...

This is how all these people were actually connected.... and who ordered who to do what, to sign what, to go and be here and there.

Sorry, but what's so funny? :unsure:

(Have you read Best Evidence? my bad if not... I did this while reading it to remember who everybody was)

I'm just catching up to this thread. been too busy telling Greg what I think of him telling everyone else what he thinks of them thinking for themselves.

David, my apologies - from a distance (i never clicked on it) your diagram in fact did look to me like an analogy of the complete clusterf**k that sounds like occurred almost everywhere JFKs body went. I thought you were kidding.

to decipher that thing would take me some time - I'll have to read Best Evidence.

with Greg's approval, of course, since he feels relying on books is a sure sign of poor scholarship, which is odd coming from a man who has written a book with the hopes that someone will rely on it for some facts.

weird...

my reference to the If, Then statement was MY comment, "David, If that's your idea of some kind of humor, THEN ... " which reminded me of the other thread in which Ken struggled a wee bit. I got childish and took a shot at him. a bit hypocritical of me, truthfully.

but back to reality - isn't it odd that these such blatantly conflicting, otherwise totally reliable time figures by the two supposedly synchronized entities, Humes and the Feds, are so earnestly skipped over by those who find inconvenience with them...?

in a normal, generic murder trial based solely on testimony and circumstance, a discrepancy like that would almost guarantee a reasonable doubt all on its own.

it's ok, though. i still like you more the more i read your stuff. mainly because you have the personal integrity to not tell me or others who NOT to believe.

and you don't cram your stupid theory down our throats.

:)

and you can take a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no worries Glenn...

And I have to say, either read Best Evidence or Vol 4 of Horne's work which also includes the Zfilm analysis...

Great volume to own... as are the rest.

General Wehle and Lipsey are very interesting... Lipsey claims the hearse was a decoy and that he and Wehle choppered the body in... yet he never explains how the body gets from the loaded coffin in Dallas to the helicopter at Andrews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...