JFK: Destiny Betrayed

[Steve Roe]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the film we show the actual illustrations that people drew for the HSCA.

We show the interview with Sibert.

We mention the lie in the HSCA volume 7.

This is all out there in the declassified record.  

There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.

And when you add in the particle trail evidence, that shows further that there was a front to back shot.

Add on the Z film, and the testimony of Holland and Bowers, and the photos of all those people running to the GK, and the saw smoke in the air and the people who smelled smoke, plus the Z film, then its pretty much a done deal. When you throw in the brain weight issue, I mean please.

And Mike Chesser has been working on something about those x rays that is very interesting, and also about the brain weight.

 

DiEugenio said this: There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.

Cyril Wecht in his HSCA testimony said this: 

Mr. CORNWELL. And if the single-bullet theory is not correct, how many bullets, in your view, did strike the two occupants of the car?
Dr. WECHT. Of course, then--let me answer that, I believe that the President was struck definitely twice, one bullet entering in the back, and one bullet entering in the back of the head. I believe that Gov. John Connally was struck by a bullet, and I believe that another bullet completely missed the car. I think that there were four shots most probably fired. I eagerly await with extreme anticipation the results of the consulting firm that I understand your committee has retained in Boston, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, concerning their interpretative studies of the motorcycle policeman's tape from that day; as to whether or not they have definitely found evidence of four shots having been fired. But I think your question was, how many bullets struck the occupants, and I think that there is definite evidence for three. There is a possibility of more, but I can't really introduce evidence that would corroborate that; more than three.

 

Cyril Wecht is now in the ever-growing conspiracy, now including the HSCA. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I don't think this made it into the film.

Jeremy Gunn was the chief counsel for the ARRB and is an attorney.

As most people who know him, or read about him, understand he is kind of conservative by nature.

He told Horne that Spencer was the best witness they interviewed.

That is saying something when you look at the roster of about 13 witnesses the ARRB talked to in this regard.

[Ron Bulman]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

In the film we show the actual illustrations that people drew for the HSCA.

We show the interview with Sibert.

We mention the lie in the HSCA volume 7.

This is all out there in the declassified record.  

There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.

And when you add in the particle trail evidence, that shows further that there was a front to back shot.

Add on the Z film, and the testimony of Holland and Bowers, and the photos of all those people running to the GK, and the saw smoke in the air and the people who smelled smoke, plus the Z film, then its pretty much a done deal. When you throw in the brain weight issue, I mean please.

And Mike Chesser has been working on something about those x rays that is very interesting, and also about the brain weight.

 

Bingo.  Dr. McLelland said the rear exit wound was big enough he could see about 1/3 of the brain was missing.  How did it weigh more than the average male brain?  Between stardust, an entry wound in the hair line over the right eye observed by Mantik and Chesser (agreed upon?) in the extant x-rays at the National Archives, and one in the temple hairline above/slightly in front of the right ear I'm persuaded.  I'm not a PhD Radiologist or Neurologist that's been to the National Archives and observed the few x-rays available.  They are.  Two head shots from the right front.  One from the rear.  Simultaneously.  Coordinated.     

[Chuck Schwartz]

Ron, yes, that is what Dr. Mantik said/wrote.  And , besides being a PhD , Dr. Mankik is also a MD.

[Pat Speer]

On 12/17/2021 at 9:43 AM, James DiEugenio said:

In the film we show the actual illustrations that people drew for the HSCA.

We show the interview with Sibert.

We mention the lie in the HSCA volume 7.

This is all out there in the declassified record.  

There was a blow out hole in the rear of the skull that the HSCA tried to cover up.

And when you add in the particle trail evidence, that shows further that there was a front to back shot.

Add on the Z film, and the testimony of Holland and Bowers, and the photos of all those people running to the GK, and the saw smoke in the air and the people who smelled smoke, plus the Z film, then its pretty much a done deal. When you throw in the brain weight issue, I mean please.

And Mike Chesser has been working on something about those x rays that is very interesting, and also about the brain weight.

 

What do you mean by blow out hole in the rear of the skull, Jim? 

Because your friend Milli agrees with me that most of the drawings of this "blow-out" are garbage.

[David G. Healy]

42 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

What do you mean by blow out hole in the rear of the skull, Jim? 

Because your friend Milli agrees with me that most of the drawings of this "blow-out" are garbage.

what's this pot shot time? It is evidence, yes? In the WC materials. That evidence is open game... And you don't have the reach nor the wherewithal to do anything about it. Lifton did it to ya, Mantik too, now Stone and DiEugenio next.... they all have the reach and the last, the production money, distribution money, PR money, timing, know-how and they know the MARKET(having a good script writer with content knowledge -- timing and pacing. Not to mention, they took on 1964 WCR conclusions evidence in particular CE399, without that the door is wide open to conspiracy...

Tell us you applaud that!

[John Butler]

2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

what's this pot shot time? It is evidence, yes? In the WC materials. That evidence is open game... And you don't have the reach nor the wherewithal to do anything about it. Lifton did it to ya, Mantik too, now Stone and DiEugenio next.... they all have the reach and the last, the production money, distribution money, PR money, timing, know-how and they know the MARKET(having a good script writer with content knowledge -- timing and pacing. Not to mention, they took on 1964 WCR conclusions evidence in particular CE399, without that the door is wide open to conspiracy...

Tell us you applaud that!

How many witnesses do you need to verify something.  2?  Or, maybe 4, or 8?  In the case of the rear head wound there are over 40 witnesses at Parkland and others out on the street.  Is 40+ not enough?  What about 100?

It doesn't matter to some folks once they decide their versions of events is correct.  They will even invent things to prove themselves correct.  

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

what's this pot shot time? It is evidence, yes? In the WC materials. That evidence is open game... And you don't have the reach nor the wherewithal to do anything about it. Lifton did it to ya, Mantik too, now Stone and DiEugenio next.... they all have the reach and the last, the production money, distribution money, PR money, timing, know-how and they know the MARKET(having a good script writer with content knowledge -- timing and pacing. Not to mention, they took on 1964 WCR conclusions evidence in particular CE399, without that the door is wide open to conspiracy...

Tell us you applaud that!

LOL. I've mopped the floor with all your heroes, Dave. 

But enough with the sword fight.

I created that slide after Ms. Cranor was inspired or induced to write an attack article on me in which she critiqued my chapters on the head wounds. She spent much of the time complaining that I had created a straw man argument--and that nobody really thinks the "blow-out" wound was restricted to the bottom of the back of the head. That slide proved she was wrong, as the drawings most cited by CT's as proof of a blow out wound depicted the wound on the far back of the head, and on the far back of the head only.

If you want to make an argument the large head wound was at the top of the back of the head, then go at it. But to continue citing drawings that show it low on the back of the head as proof it was actually at the top of the back of the head is decidedly uncool, and is the kind of crap one finds in the Warren Report. 

[Pat Speer]

3 minutes ago, John Butler said:

How many witnesses do you need to verify something.  2?  Or, maybe 4, or 8?  In the case of the rear head wound there are over 40 witnesses at Parkland and others out on the street.  Is 40+ not enough?  What about 100?

It doesn't matter to some folks once they decide their versions of events is correct.  They will even invent things to prove themselves correct.  

No one is inventing anything here. The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say we know the location of the wound based on the witnesses, when many of the witnesses placed it in places no one actually believes, and a number of others accepted the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

 

[John Butler]

23 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

How did it weigh more than the average male brain? 

I recall back in anthropology days in college brain weight can vary from 1100 to 2000 grams.  I don't think Kennedy had his brain weighed prior to the JFKA.  So, if 1/3 was missing then you would have from the largest parameter something like 1400 grams left.  That might be why that brain weight was chosen. 

What I am trying to say is Kennedy's brain weight is a mute issue.  Einstein had a brain weight of 1100 grams.  Don't hold me to that due to poor memory which is getting worse.

Shape and condition are more important.  Any defect visible is more important.     

Edited December 19, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

3 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

No one is inventing anything here. The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say we know the location of the wound based on the witnesses, when many of the witnesses placed it in places no one actually believes, and a number of others accepted the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

 

There is good agreement in the Parkland staff that the wound was at the back of the head and most said the occipital/parietal.  Can't make the top and side out of that.  No way.  You can show as many phoney pics and drawings as you want.  

Too many people have watched that stupid fraud, the Zapruder Film, over the decades.  It is the slickest piece of work the real conspirators ever did for the cover up.

[John Butler]

What's this?

[Jonathan Cohen]

40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

No one is inventing anything here. The point is that you can't have it both ways. You can't say we know the location of the wound based on the witnesses, when many of the witnesses placed it in places no one actually believes, and a number of others accepted the accuracy of the autopsy photos.

 

Pat, forgive me if you spell this out on your Web site, but I'm curious: factoring out descriptions by witnesses and doctors for the moment, can you square the damage to JFK's head as seen in the Zapruder film with the extant autopsy photos and x-rays?

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Pat, forgive me if you spell this out on your Web site, but I'm curious: factoring out descriptions by witnesses and doctors for the moment, can you square the damage to JFK's head as seen in the Zapruder film with the extant autopsy photos and x-rays?

Yep. 

[James DiEugenio]

Click here and scroll down: neither of those drawings are at the bottom of the back of the head.

And they are both from Bethesda.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination.html

No one expects eyewitness testimony to be as precise as a marching band when there was a direct effort to suppress that testimony and  those memories within weeks of the crime.  And not only did that happen, but it has continued to happen decades later. For instance: 1988 for PBS and Nova.