Jump to content
The Education Forum

DiEugenio, Cranor, and the mole (my mole) - 3/31/20


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Most anything is "possible"...  maybe if we ask ourselves - how likely is it that Huber touched anything on the RIGHT side of his head given the injuries on that side?

More surprising is the xray's anatomical left compared to the table image of a virtually untouched left side.

FWIW here is Huber in what look's like the Parkland ER room...  maybe it will help with lining up the photos we have supposedly of JFK in that room...

Chris - I for one have a difficult time accepting that an experienced priest mistakenly said LEFT instead of RIGHT and then never corrects it?  His statement was a pretty big deal which was why it received so little traction from the FBI et al....

DJ

289769837_PrietHuber-lastritesandlefttemplewound.thumb.jpg.f01b59f3616454be700f851c92c5bfdb.jpg

TBH you did the right thing posting the image, it illustrates how absurd the mistake would be. I feel that way viewing it, but, everything we have read or seen trains our minds to believe that the right side of JFK’s head (left as we look) is dart board. 
i am so bought in to a fatal shot from the south knoll and potentially another from the north knolll (where popular evidence suggests shots came from) its difficult to fathom something else. 
The last thing I would want to do is discredit an eye witness who potentially had more reason to he honest than many we take as credible. It makes my mind wonder about the Zapruder film and how potentially influential or misleading that could be in the scheme of things. I am satisfied people are firing from at least 3 locations, purely on the tremendous research people have conducted since the assassination.  The one person you would expect 100% to identify this is Jackie. Perhaps the Dr’s at Parkland also.’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 297
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On 7/31/2020 at 3:56 AM, Micah Mileto said:

Not only that, but Jenkins also told Livingstone that the spinal cord was removed during the autopsy.

Jenkin's claim was denied by Dr. Boswell, as well as Dr. Robert Karnei, another autopsy witness. Dr. Humes refused to comment. As summarized in Livingstone's 1992 book High Treason 2:

[Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence]

[...]

Spinal Cord

Jenkins describes removing the spinal cord with a Stryker saw, but Dr. Karnei does not remember it having been removed. When I tried to ask Dr. Humes if it had been removed, he hung up on me.15 Dr. Boswell told me that the cord was not removed.16

The question of removal and examination of the spinal cord is important because this would tell us if the tuberculosis Kennedy had been exposed to as a child had been reactivated by the steroids he was being given, and only examination of the tissues of the spinal cord would tell this.

Normally during an autopsy the spinal cord is removed and its condition is reported.

Livingstone interviewed Dr. Karnei on 8/27/1991, Dr. Humes on 9/5/1991, and Dr. Boswell 8/7/1991.

[...]

[Chapter 7. Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei]

[...]

"Nobody got a look at the spine area?"

"Not that I remember. I don't remember anybody going into the spinal area to take a look there."

[...]

"In the end, don't you think they performed a complete and good autopsy?"

"I think it was as complete as they were allowed to do. I mean, normally they would have gone into the spinal column and taken the spinal cord and all that sort of thing. And they were not allowed to do that. And there was no way they could have looked at the spinal column there to see if there was any disease in the spinal column."

"They didn't remove the spinal column?"

"No. No. Not that I can remember. I am almost sure they did not touch the spinal column. [...]

[...]

"So the spinal cord was not removed, so there was no opportunity to take tissue samples from it or study whether or not he might have actually had TB of the spine?"

"No, I don't remember the spinal column ever being touched."

[...]

[Chapter 11. James Curtis Jenkins]

[...]

Later the spinal cord was removed-a Stryker saw cut both sides of the vertebral column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord.12

Both Dr. Boswell,13 and Dr. Robert Karnei, who was present in the autopsy room, deny that the spinal cord was removed. Once again it sounds as though we are talking about two different autopsies.

Part of the problem of trying to solve a case with so much conflicting evidence is the way people's minds play tricks on them. A lot of the witnesses did not see certain things because they were momentarily out of the room or otherwise occupied, so they will compensate by making certain assumptions in their mind which then become fact. If they think that Robert Kennedy was limiting the autopsy and they did not see the spinal cord removed, for instance, then they may state that the spinal cord was not removed because Robert did not want it done.

It is very common under stress for people's minds to imagine that they saw something they did not or to block out the memory of certain events. Jackie K as climbing on the trunk or Nelly Connally going up a flight of stairs.

I am not suggesting that that is what happened here, and that the spinal cord was in fact removed. I don't know at this point. The cord is not properly mentioned in the autopsy report, wheras normally it would be.

From Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case:

[Appendix J, Encyclopedia of Medical Events And Witness Testimony by Harrison E. Livingstone and Katlee Link Fitzgerald]

[...]

SPINAL CORD

[...]

Doctor Robert Karnei: The spinal cord was not removed. He was quite strong about this. (Aug. 27, 1991)

Jim Jenkins: said that later the spinal cord was removed separately-use of Stryker saw but both sides of the vertical column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord (a: June 6, 1991) Jenkins thinks the brain stem was severed before it arrived at the autopsy because when they removed it from the head, the spinal cord did not come with it. He also said during the same interview that he did not recall removing the spinal cord and that he would have removed it (a: May 29, 1991)

However, approximately 90% of the time the spinal cord will separate from the brain when the brain is removed.

For what it's worth.  (Don't shoot the messenger.)  James Jenkins' presentation @ JFK Lancer NID 2013.

"The damn thing fell out in my hand!  That statement was made by Dr, Humes o.k. Remember that Humes and Fink were actually the people who were working with the head, the head wounds.  That was the statement and as I said before it was a statement that kinda surprised me but as they took the brain out he handed it to Dr. Boswell who was across the table from me.  Since I had been assisting with Dr. Boswell, I was the only corpsman at that point in time that was working with Dr. Boswell.  I followed Dr. Boswell to the bucket of formalin where we infused the brain.  My first impression was the damage to the brain does not corrolate with the extensive damage to the skull.  What I mean with that was the right interior portion of the brain was damaged and there was some tissue missing.  The brain, due to the trauma apparently was in that area kinda gelatinous and that pretty much stands to reason because when you traumatise the brain it's not like traumatising a muscle or something like that where you get bruising and so forth.  The brain actually has a large amount of fluid in so it kinda becomes mushy and gelatinous.  That was what I saw.

The other thing, I didn't think that the brain was large enough.  I had the impression that it was smaller than what it should be coming out of the cavity that it came out of.  Now these were just impressions on my part.  That was a first sight, first impression type thing.  Dr. Boswell carried the brain to our bucket where we infused the brain.  How we did it is important, because our normal method was we had a stainless steel bucket, fill the bucket approx half full of formalin.  We had created a gauze sling that went over the top of the bucket, we laid the brain upside down in that sling.  We had two needle apparatus that came from a supply of formalin that was up on the top of the cabinets and what we did with it was we took those needles and we infused the brains through the two internal carotids at the base of the brain.  Those carotids were retracted and it was extremely difficult, and as a matter of fact we had one of the residents come in, which was the chief resident, because Dr. Boswell and Dr. Humes did not do this menial type thing of placing these suture needles in and so forth.  So what we did was we infused the brain, and it was extremely difficult because of the condition of the carotids.  In my experience when vessels are severed for a period of time they retract, especially arteries because of the way they're constructed, and over a period of time it's almost like they begin to close off themselves.

The other thing I noticed was the brain stem, where the brain stem was cut to remove it from the cranium.  The brain stem looked like it had been cut from two different sides, from each side met in the middle.  I can relate that because if you've ever tried to cut something from the right side and go back and cut it from the left side it never, almost invariably never is the same level and this is what the brain stem looked like.  You know, I've been asked many times about this and did I think that the brain had been removed prior to autopsy?  Taking into consideration the abnormal things that I just described...........I feel like it was!  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

i am so bought in to a fatal shot from the south knoll

 

Indeed Chris, the south knoll has amazing possibilities... 

I did this (image at the bottom of post) a while back to show how far to his left he was facing at the time... the yellow line.

I believe some of my arrows should also be pointing to the left temple...   we forget that between 6:30 and 8pm what happened in Dallas becomes what happened in Bethesda...  virtually obliterating "original" wounds in place of created ones....

I took Hume's descriptions and put them on an anatomically correct image...  either 3-5 bullets hit the man and/or Humes performed a sloppy craniotomy prior to 8pm..  but then I did the same thing for Tippit...  look at #4 compared to Tippit....  eerie.

I think this is still applicable to this topic...  ???  here is Humes' description:

"We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the sagittal 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 (1 & 2) 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.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a
(3) laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is 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 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.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.

(4) When the brain was turned over and 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 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."

207332980_Brainandskulldetail-IllustratedwoundsaccordingtoHUMES-smaller.thumb.jpg.43c0aae1840545166b6eb75f3058e68d.jpg

 

1473766524_tippitheadshotautopsydescriptionnotintherightplace.thumb.jpg.a66780ba7a3214ae1b119760ed2c48c8.jpg

 

 

730632934_southknollshots-smaller.thumb.jpg.3fffaf638a8586f229e83fb978b2df67.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

longitudinal

 

24 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

 

Indeed Chris, the south knoll has amazing possibilities... 

I did this (image at the bottom of post) a while back to show how far to his left he was facing at the time... the yellow line.

I believe some of my arrows should also be pointing to the left temple...   we forget that between 6:30 and 8pm what happened in Dallas becomes what happened in Bethesda...  virtually obliterating "original" wounds in place of created ones....

I took Hume's descriptions and put them on an anatomically correct image...  either 3-5 bullets hit the man and/or Humes performed a sloppy craniotomy prior to 8pm..  but then I did the same thing for Tippit...  look at #4 compared to Tippit....  eerie.

I think this is still applicable to this topic...  ???  here is Humes' description:

"We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the sagittal 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 (1 & 2) 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.
The area in which the greatest loss of brain substance was particularly in the parietal lobe, which is the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere.
The margins of this laceration at all points were jagged and irregular, with additional lacerations extending in varying directions and for varying distances from the main laceration.
In addition, there was a
(3) laceration of the corpus callosum which is a body of fibers which connects the two hemispheres of the brain to each other, which extended from the posterior to the anterior portion of this structure, that is 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 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.
Those on the right were too fragmented and distorted for satisfactory description.

(4) When the brain was turned over and 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 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."

207332980_Brainandskulldetail-IllustratedwoundsaccordingtoHUMES-smaller.thumb.jpg.43c0aae1840545166b6eb75f3058e68d.jpg

 

1473766524_tippitheadshotautopsydescriptionnotintherightplace.thumb.jpg.a66780ba7a3214ae1b119760ed2c48c8.jpg

 

 

730632934_southknollshots-smaller.thumb.jpg.3fffaf638a8586f229e83fb978b2df67.jpg

I certainly think you are much more qualified to talk about the biology than me. I watched this video a week or so ago which popped up on youtube, the angles made a lot of sense to me on the throat and fatal shot, trajectories from the south knoll are explained scientifically, in a way that made my Zapruder assumptions seem absurd. 
There were clearly shooters at the North Knoll (grassy), I just wonder if the president was shot more times than we realise. I don’t see how you miss from the picket fence at that range with a stationary or almost stationary limo. It makes the crime so much worse somehow, even though the result is the same. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Richard,

I have no idea why Lifton ever thought  I did not write that article about Dylan.  But it was simply impossible since I had no communication at all with Mili between when I first learned of the song going up in public, and when my article was posted. Also, I like giving our contributors their earned credit. .  Mili Cranor has been a contributor for a long time.  I would never do such a thing since I want to keep her on board.

I didn't even consider it for a moment. There is no reason to do that, no plausible reason whatsoever.

You have mentioned Milicent Cranor on BOR several times, I've seen her writing on your site. So she has several pieces there and you have supported her work. Then, in addition, you have many excellent writings over at K&K and clearly do not need people to write things for you anymore than you would take credit for someone else's work.

It simply does not make any sense. No reason to do it, and really the only thing David Lifton's post and accusation did was cause me to think he is not credible and may have some kind of agenda.

I have seen another person trashing you lately (within the last week) and it was uncalled for. I believe it may be some kind of jealousy, actually. Your current work with Oliver Stone is recent, and I tie personal attacks I am seeing to that. There is no other plausible explanation for these attacks and the simplest answer, Occam's Razor, is petty jealousy.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

 

I have seen another person trashing you lately (within the last week) and it was uncalled for. I believe it may be some kind of jealousy, actually. Your current work with Oliver Stone is recent, and I tie personal attacks I am seeing to that. There is no other plausible explanation for these attacks and the simplest answer, Occam's Razor, is petty jealousy.

 

I’ve been a frequent critic of Jim DiEugenio for:

1) His statement some years ago that the location of JFK’s T3 back wound is “unknowable” when it’s the most readily known fact in the case.  If he produces a video for K&K correcting his stand on the issue I’ll beat his sycophants to the draw in my praise.

2) His inability to grasp JFK’s blunders with the Bay of Pigs and the overthrow of Diem in Vietnam.

3)  His truly absurd denial of Trump-Russian collusion in the 2016 Presidential election.  He posits a “deep state” plot to deny Trump the presidency when there was clearly a “deep state” campaign to hype Hillary’s e-mail non-scandal and bury the Steele Dossier/Russian-DNC hack stories prior to the election.

That DiEugenio can’t handle criticism of his work is his problem.

As far as jealousy goes, ain’t anybody got sht on me, pal.  In 1980 I set off THE global DIY youth protest movement— hardcore punk rock.  Blow me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You think accusing someone of jealousy without the courage of confronting them directly shows class?

 

I didn't accuse you of jealousy. I don't even know who you are. 

My comments about jealousy was directed at David Lifton.

At any rate, you're full of piss and vinegar and seem to be very angry but unsure why, or who to be angry at, and for what reasons. 

I will proceed to ignore you:

"Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get filthy and the pig likes it."

“If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.”
—Proverbs 29:9

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I do believe I’m the only one who has criticized DiEugenio in the past week.

You are incorrect. I was not referring to you. I do not know who you are.

The other person I was referring to who went unnamed, and will remain unnamed, made some comments about DiEugenio on another platform recently.

He said that we need to "get rid of Jim" and that he needs to go the route of Fetzer.

Again, I wasn't referring to you and I do not know who you are.

Here is a screenshot of what that person said about Jim. I am not going to name him because I do not wish to engage in personal attacks or internecine squabbles and feel it is beneath me and a waste of time.

What I can say is this: It was not about you, but you assumed it was about you, which is weird. Then you told me to blow you, which is trashy and dumb.

image.png.e52bb990032d1605528e7aaa0c0f7ca7.png

My final word on this to you is this:

I was not referring to you. I really do not know you and don't have any interest in attacking you.

Edited by Richard Booth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

You are incorrect. I was not referring to you. I do not know who you are.

The person I was referring to who went unnamed, and will remain unnamed, made some comments about DiEugenio on another platform recently. He said that we need to "get rid of Jim" and that he needs to go the route of Fetzer.

Again, I wasn't referring to you and I do not know who you are. Anyway, for whatever that's worth, you will probably go back to thinking I was talking about you and I will go back to not knowing who you are.

I stand corrected, and I apologize.  

Please understand that I’m only 1 of 2 DiEugenio critics on this Forum, and since I recently blasted one of his RussiaGate denial posts I jumped the gun.

No hard feelings I hope, good luck on your research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

’m only 1 of 2 DiEugenio critics on this Forum

Well that at least makes your comment less weird. Thanks for apologizing and given that you did apologize I will add some other things here where my typical inclination would be to ignore.

I don't follow threads here on the subjects you mentioned (the medical evidence and things related to Russiagate or Trump) so I simply am not familiar with things you may have posted.

Regarding Jim DiEugenio, I think he has presented a great deal of well written research over the years and there could possibly be things that we disagree on. If there are, I don't even focus on that--I focus on those things he's said or wrote about that I find interesting and correct. The same can be said for other researchers, I follow them when they write things that I think are correct. I don't badger them or hold things against them when I believe they're wrong because people are flawed.

There are probably researchers whose material I follow and enjoy who are in total disagreement with one another. 

Ultimately the worst thing about this community is the tendency for there to be cliques that fight with each other over the most absurd things. I've seen that in my own area of research (which is not JFK related) and it seems to exist in any and every community, it must be a normal human trait. That is unfortunate and it speaks to why a lot of people are silent or do their work alone without talking to others or networking.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RIchard:

Getting back to your original post, the other thing that puzzled me about Lifton's accusation was that he said there was a mole in my camp.  

This again is not possible.  I live alone. I don't even have a dog or cat. And I very seldom, maybe once every 2 months, have someone over to my place.  Since that is where I work, there could not be a mole. 

Anyway, thanks for your nice comments.  And for your support of K and K.  And I agree with you that there are many petty rivalries that exist in the critical community. Try and avoid them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

 

Ultimately the worst thing about this community is the tendency for there to be cliques that fight with each other over the most absurd things. I've seen that in my own area of research (which is not JFK related) and it seems to exist in any and every community, it must be a normal human trait. That is unfortunate and it speaks to why a lot of people are silent or do their work alone without talking to others or networking.  

I don’t find my disagreements with Jim DiEugenio absurd or petty.  In the pursuit of historical truth it is imperative that we are clear on the facts regarding the Bay of Pigs, the overthrow of Diem, the partition of Laos in ‘62, the prima facie case for JFKA conspiracy, and Trump/Russian collusion in the 2016 election.

DiEugenio avoids these weighty, substantive historical discussions with me because I’ve proven him wrong on all of them.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell
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...