JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

If this bit of information "confirms" that McClelland's memory was "shot", then maybe he could be wrong about the Saturday morning phone call from Humes.

Maybe. As you know, I'm a big picture guy. I try to look at all the information and not just base it on one latter-day statement. in this case, however, McClelland backs up the recollections of Humes and Perry, in that Humes said he called the hospital, and Perry indicated he'd received the calls from Humes while at the hospital. (You're probably all over this, but do we know at what point Perry left Parkland on Friday night? Because it would almost certainly have been before the beginning of the autopsy. If so, it follows that any call to Perry at the hospital re the autopsy would have been performed on Saturday, not Friday.)

It just makes sense, IMO. The autopsy was not performed ideally, or under ideal conditions. Calling Perry to discuss the wounds should have been done on Friday night. But was that Humes' SOP? No, he had not done a forensic autopsy, and had no SOP. It seems probable, then, that Humes didn't want to disturb Perry at home, that he went to bed in the early morning of the 23rd, and called Perry later that morning. 

Now, does this mean I think everything was on the up and up? Absolutely not. By the end of the autopsy, the doctors knew about three wounds, seemingly unrelated. A back wound that they couldn't track through the body. A small wound on the back of the head that they never tracked through the brain. And a large gaping wound on the top of the head. And then, of course, there were the wounds to Connally. And yet, the newspaper and radio reports said but three shots were fired. So Humes started trying to make things fit, as opposed to what he was supposed to do--report on what he saw. So he reported that the back of the head wound connected to the top of the head wound, without tracking these wounds, and then, after confirming with Perry that the tracheotomy obscured a neck wound, that the back wound connected to the throat wound.  

More problematic by far, IMO, than the possibility Humes called Perry on Friday is that several witnesses said they saw Humes (or Finck, I forget) probe the wound on the back of the head and that it came out at the throat. Now, tellingly, the HSCA pathology panel dismissed this possibility without investigation. But I think there may be something there. Humes would later be dismissive of probing wounds in the neck, saying you'd be as likely to create a false track as an actual track. This doesn't come from Forensic books and journals. As a result, I believe he was talking from personal experience, in that he probed the back of the head wound and saw the probe come out the throat wound, and then decided that this must have been a mistake, seeing as it suggested Kennedy had been hit three times: back, back of the head/throat, and top of the head. If so, it follows that he then decided to pretend no probing of wound on the back of the head, or neck, had been performed. That this is so, moreover, is added credence by the fact they never got around to probing the brain to see if a bullet entered low on the back of the head by the cerebellum, and then exploded from the top of the cerebrum. This demands explanation and only makes sense once one realizes the damage to the brain described in the supplemental autopsy report is incompatible with the trajectory Humes pushed in his initial report, and suggests instead that the large brain wound was caused a by a tangential blow to the top of the head, that is, a different bullet than that causing the small wound low on the back of the head. 

The Clark Panel and then HSCA FPP of course recognized this problem, and decided the best way to resolve this issue was claim the bullet entering the back of the head did so four inches higher than determined at autopsy. Desperate times require desperate measures. 

Of course, all this--the true story of Kennedy's wounds, IMO--has been buried under a mountain of mud for decades now, as but a handful of those on the LN side of the fence will even look at this (John Canal was an exception) and but a handful of those on the CT side of the fence will stomach any evidence based on the official evidence they just know--because the likes of Livingstone and Groden have told them so--are fake. 

 

[Micah Mileto]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I tried looking for any sign of Perry's work schedule, but I couldn't find anything useful. Perry told the WC that he was in the "administrator's office" when he was called. The Death of a President said the call happened "shortly after midnight".

[James DiEugenio]

I just saw a bootleg site that was showing JFK Revisited, even though they should not. Since Showtime has screening rights now.  I told the producer.

He said, this is coming up about five times a week.

I guess in a bad way that is kind of good?

[Micah Mileto]

delete

Edited January 26, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[W. Tracy Parnell]

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the ARRB's Quest for Dr. Burkley's Lawyer's Papers (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I have to say, Fred Litwin has now become the new John McAdams.

People have sent me his stuff from that utterly stupid forum Quora.

He was going after the film, and man was it pathetic.

So I dropped about 13 posts on him in a row showing how utterly weak and pathetic his attempts to belittle the film are.

I think him and Roe got together on Quora with Roe using an assumed name of Andrew Jackson, I suspect its either him or the other quack, Paul May.  I mean in this day and age to try and defend CE 399 is simply fruity. 

[Micah Mileto]

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the ARRB's Quest for Dr. Burkley's Lawyer's Papers (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Neither mentioned how Paul O'Connor said he remembered Burkley discouraging the pathologists from examining the throat wound.

[James DiEugenio]

And I don' t think he is the only one Micah.

The Illig switcheroo is a real puzzler.  Just recall, Burkley was dead at that time and I think Illig was also.

Third point, I have a quiet contact with the Burkley family.  He told me the Secret Service would visit the guy each year for an interview.  This went on until he passed. Hmm.

In my opinion, and this is why we posed the question to Horne, if Burkley had been alive, and if the ARRB was a criminal inquiry, Jeremy and Doug should have granted him immunity.

Edited January 28, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

A few people in the Secret Service facilitated the assassination of JFK, more were then involved in the cover up.  Their leadership didn't answer to the President but the Treasury.  They confiscated the 11/22 Parkland film and got Perry to change the throat wound from one of entrance to possibly an exit (officially).  When the AARB came about instead of following it's congressional directive they decided it's time to destroy our remaining files on the subject. jmo.

[James DiEugenio]

I am really glad we got Samoluk and Tunheim on the record about the Secret Service knowingly breaking the law.

Its really strange how few people point that out but I think its really important.

[James DiEugenio]

I cannot thank Ed Curtin enough.

This is the third place his fine  review of JFK Revisited has been posted at.

First his blog, then Rockwell and now here.  Kudos to Ed.

https://countercurrents.org/2022/01/jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass-by-oliver-stone/

[Ron Bulman]

On 1/29/2022 at 10:32 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I cannot thank Ed Curtin enough.

This is the third place his fine  review of JFK Revisited has been posted at.

First his blog, then Rockwell and now here.  Kudos to Ed.

https://countercurrents.org/2022/01/jfk-revisited-through-the-looking-glass-by-oliver-stone/

This is an excellent review.  I just went back and finally read the whole thing.  Concise yet still detailed and insightful.

Is the four hour version still supposed to come out in February?  Maybe the two hour version to be offered on venues beyond Showtime?

[James DiEugenio]

The four hour one has been pushed back to March 6th.  I don't know why exactly but I think it may be to give them more time to build a campaign around it.

There is much more in that one.  

Ed Curtin is going to review that one also.

 

[James DiEugenio]

This article does two things.  It sums up the extraordinary international debate over JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass.  Much of it abroad that you may not be aware of.

It also includes what had happened here in the USA, where, with few exceptions, the attacks on the film are not on anything that is in the film itself. They are borrowed from discredited sources like Max Holland.

This included my reply to the latest piece of flotsam from a guy named Jamis Kirchick.  This might be the worst one yet because this  hack used the Canadian quack, Fred Litwin.  In order to smear the film for something it does not do.  Which is to characterize anyone's sexuality.  Therefore this is a deliberate diversion from the facts in the film which Kirchick does not wish to address.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-unprecedented-debate-over-jfk-revisited

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-unprecedented-debate-over-jfk-revisited

 

Jim,

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. The claim that Jim Garrison at one time had a theory about a homosexual assassination conspiracy... is that untrue? I've seen it mentioned so many times by CTers that I thought it must be true. Yet I never heard Garrison say a word about it, so I figured it must have been an old, undeveloped theory.