Fred's Flim-Flam Written by Matt Douthit at Kennedys & King with an Afterword by James DiEugenio- powerful!

[Gerry Down]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

It doesn't matter what you think they could have seen or not seen, David. What matters is what they said. And neither JBC nor Nellie's statements "support" the SBT. You can finesse arguments and assert that their statements do not single-handedly destroy the SBT. That's kosher. But you cannot pretend their statements "generally support" something they insisted did not happen. That is the opposite of support. By way of comparison, to claim their statements "generally support" the SBT would be like saying Chief Justice Warren's statements "generally support" Oswald's innocence. It just isn't true, and you would attack anyone who said it was true. 

In his WC testimony, Connally said the shooting was about 10-12 seconds long. We can see from the Zapruder film that the time between the 2nd and 3rd shots is 5 seconds (Z224-Z313). This means, according to Connallys own time estimate, the time period between shots 1 and 2 would be around 5 to 7 seconds. And this time period of 5 to 7 seconds aligns with Connallys recollection that on hearing the first shot he had time to consider it as an assassination attempt, turn to his right, fail to see JFK and then begin to turn to his left before he is then shot. That would require a good 5 seconds or so to do. 

The above timing sequence, or something similar to it, is required to prop up the SBT. And so it would seem that Connallys testimony does indeed generally support the SBT. Now you could argue that there were 2 shots fired, from 2 different assassins, very close together around Z190 to Z224. But Connallys own time estimate, as relayed to the WC, does not support 2 shots that close together. Connalys own testimony pushes the 1st shot much earlier than Z190 which is the time you mention most on your website as a time for the first shot. 

[Pat Speer]

29 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

In his WC testimony, Connally said the shooting was about 10-12 seconds long. We can see from the Zapruder film that the time between the 2nd and 3rd shots is 5 seconds (Z224-Z313). This means, according to Connallys own time estimate, the time period between shots 1 and 2 would be around 5 to 7 seconds. And this time period of 5 to 7 seconds aligns with Connallys recollection that on hearing the first shot he had time to consider it as an assassination attempt, turn to his right, fail to see JFK and then begin to turn to his left before he is then shot. That would require a good 5 seconds or so to do. 

The above timing sequence, or something similar to it, is required to prop up the SBT. And so it would seem that Connallys testimony does indeed generally support the SBT. Now you could argue that there were 2 shots fired, from 2 different assassins, very close together around Z190 to Z224. But Connallys own time estimate, as relayed to the WC, does not support 2 shots that close together. Connalys own testimony pushes the 1st shot much earlier than Z190 which is the time you mention most on your website as a time for the first shot. 

That's some fine cherry-picking there, Gerry. It's just not accurate.

(11-27-63 televised interview with Martin Agronsky, transcript printed in the 11-28-63 New York Times.) ”It all happened in such a brief span"

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) "When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”

(4-21-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 4H129-146) (When asked about the timing of the shots) “It was a very brief span of time…so much so that again I thought that whoever was firing must be firing with an automatic rifle because of the rapidity of the shots…"

(11-23-66 press conference) "I think there was more than half a second between the shots. I think there was probably almost close to two seconds between the time President Kennedy was hit by the first shot and the time I was hit."

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Ron Bulman]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I have brought this up repeatedly. For whatever reason (discretion?) they did not weigh the brain at autopsy. The brain they weighed was infused with formalin. This would probably add 15 to 20% in weight to the brain. Assuming JFK had a larger than average brain before he was killed--let's say 1500g (which is not nearly as rare as some would like us to believe)--and that it was missing a third of the right side of the brain when weighed, the expected weight would be over 1400g. 

So it's a lot of smoke about (almost) nothing. If these folks claiming the brain was switched or stolen spent some time reading about brain injuries, they would soon realize that the brain injuries reported in the autopsy report (along with those demonstrated in the HSCA's drawings) were inconsistent with the trajectory of the bullet as purported by both the WC and HSCA. 

Ironically, the brain is the smoking gun that proves conspiracy. I recently obtained a document that no one else had seen or could remember seeing. It was the HSCA's contact report with Dr. Russell Fisher, the leader of the Clark Panel. In it, he admits what the Clark Panel report concealed. He admits he tried to gain access to the brain in 1968 but was told by the Justice Dept. that it was not available, and that he then spoke to an attorney for the Kennedy family (almost certainly Burke Marshall), and was told they had no knowledge of the whereabouts of the brain. He told the HSCA as well that the Clark Panel's examination of the head wounds was "a lot less satisfying" without the brain. 

This was kind of shocking to read because Fisher and his acolytes had long insisted that the brain was unnecessary, and had begun saying so before the HSCA had even begun its own search for the brain. This report tells us why. Fisher had tried to gain access to the brain, and had failed. In 1972, Wecht stirred things up again. So they all got in lockstep to shoot down Wecht because--by golly--they couldn't have Wecht succeed where their hero Fisher had failed. Or something like that. 

Pat, the brain weight in particular, and the fact it is missing and wasn't sectioned have been perplexing to me for years.  I've not read in depth on the subject, e.g. your site, what maybe your friend Dr. Mantik (just kidding!) may have written.  Seems like maybe something by Doug Horne, Best Evidence (?), Eye of History or elsewhere.

I thought I'd read a doctor or two or three, maybe a nurse at Parkland (through the softball sized exit wound in the rear of the head) and a corpsman or two plus maybe one of the FBI guys, Sibert or O'Neal (?) said that close to half of the brain was gone.  Not 1/3 of the right side.

This is what still troubles me.  If JFK had an oversized brain of 1500g, entirely possible imho given his wit and intellect, as opposed to a normal male average weight of 1370.  Then say just 1/3 less of that total brain would be 1000g.  15-20% added from soaking in formalin would be 1150-1200.  Noticeably lower than average.

Would a pointed tipped copper jacketed bullet passing straight though have caused a loss of 300-350g, or more?

The bigger question you kind of alluded to is, why the hell they didn't weigh it at Bethesda that night?  Isn't that normal autopsy protocol for a brain injury?

[Joe Bauer]

5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Pat, the brain weight in particular, and the fact it is missing and wasn't sectioned have been perplexing to me for years.  I've not read in depth on the subject, e.g. your site, what maybe your friend Dr. Mantik (just kidding!) may have written.  Seems like maybe something by Doug Horne, Best Evidence (?), Eye of History or elsewhere.

I thought I'd read a doctor or two or three, maybe a nurse at Parkland (through the softball sized exit wound in the rear of the head) and a corpsman or two plus maybe one of the FBI guys, Sibert or O'Neal (?) said that close to half of the brain was gone.  Not 1/3 of the right side.

This is what still troubles me.  If JFK had an oversized brain of 1500g, entirely possible imho given his wit and intellect, as opposed to a normal male average weight of 1370.  Then say just 1/3 less of that total brain would be 1000g.  15-20% added from soaking in formalin would be 1150-1200.  Noticeably lower than average.

Would a pointed tipped copper jacketed bullet passing straight though have caused a loss of 300-350g, or more?

The bigger question you kind of alluded to is, why the hell they didn't weigh it at Bethesda that night?  Isn't that normal autopsy protocol for a brain injury?

Exactly.

Here are some factual accounts of JFK's brain matter losses starting with the head shot.

JFK brain matter sprayed up and out. With chunks and pieces seen inside the car interior. On the seat, floor and interior upholstery.

The two DPD motorcycle cop escorts behind the limo reported they felt JFK's brain matter hit their upper bodies.

Jackie climbed onto the car trunk to grab a chunk of her husband's brain to hold until she handed it to a Parkland doctor in the ER.

Much oozing from JFK's head throughout the drive to Parkland.

Several attendees in the ER room stated they saw brain matter oozing out of JFK's head wound. Actually falling away.

Bethesda autopsy Dr. James Humes stated that JFK's brain just fell into his hands when he went to remove it.

Bethesda Navy Corpsman Paul O'Conner testified under oath that most of JFK's brain wasn't left inside his skull while he was at JFK's head location to assist in the autopsy. Just "a handful" of eviscerated chunks.

So, the formaldehyde extra weight excuse is the best one they can find to explain the official autopsy report of JFK brain weight being listed at 1400 to 1500 grams?

PLEASE!

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Exactly.

Here are some factual accounts of JFK's brain matter losses starting with the head shot.

JFK brain matter sprayed up and out. With chunks and pieces seen inside the car interior. On the seat, floor and interior upholstery.

The two DPD motorcycle cop escorts reported they felt JFK's brain matter hit their upper bodies.

Jackie climbed onto the car trunk to grab a chunk of her husband's brain to hold until she handed it to a Parkland doctor in the ER.

Much oozing from JFK's head throughout the drive to Parkland.

Several attendees in the ER room stated they saw brain matter oozing out of JFK's head wound. Actually falling away.

Bethesda autopsy Dr. James Humes stated that JFK's brain just fell into his hands when he went to remove it.

Bethesda Navy Corpsman Paul O'Conner testified under oath that most of JFK's brain wasn't left inside his skull while he was at JFK's head location to assist in the autopsy. Just "a handful" of eviscerated chunks.

So, the formaldehyde extra weight excuse is the best one they can find to explain the official autopsy report of JFK brain weight being listed at 1400 to 1500 grams?

PLEASE!

 

 

 

 

Let's say Kennedy's brain weighed 1500g before the shooting. We can break that down to something like 600g left hemisphere, 600g right hemisphere, and 300g cerebellum. No one worth listening to claimed or believed the entire right side of the brain was missing. The descriptions of the missing brain make out that roughly half the right cerebrum  was missing. That leaves 300g, 1200g in total. Add 20% on to account for the formalin infused into the brain, and that's 1440g. 

The whole brain weight argument is a waste of time. A lot of the so-called experts' claims about the medical evidence are poorly thought out, and wastes of time. There is a HUGE problem with the brain's not being sectioned, and then later disappearing, however. This is a HUGE problem. But the brain weight problem is just something people latch onto and repeat because it sounds good. But it is a minor problem, at best. 

Edited February 12, 2023 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

10 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Connally was adamant in getting hit by a separate shot from JFK from the moment he could speak to the public at Parkland to the last. His wife agreed.

And I still wonder WHY CTers refuse to admit this fact:

John Connally HIMSELF could not possibly have KNOWN FOR CERTAIN whether he was hit by the same bullet that struck JFK due to the fact that Gov. Connally DID NOT SEE John Kennedy at the point in time when Kennedy was first struck.

Therefore, based on his own personal observations, how can John Connally KNOW that the SBT is untrue. He can't. He couldn't. And he didn't.

I don't yet recall speaking to a single conspiracy advocate who will admit to the fact I just outlined in the above paragraph. Why is that?

~strokes chin in bewilderment~

Another Fact:

Governor John B. Connally's anti-SBT stance was derived almost totally from his wife Nellie's adamant anti-SBT opinions. And I don't see how anyone can possibly argue otherwise.

 

10 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

And the Z-film supports [separate shots hitting JFK & JBC] completely.

No it doesn't.

Edited February 12, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

11 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

So the 1500g brain weight we always hear about refers to a brain that was weighed a week after the assassination? I guess it'd be well soaked by then and weigh heavier than a fresh brain.

Yes. That's correct.

This "Brain Weight" topic has been hashed out here at EF multiple times in the past....including just last month:

------------------

DVP SAID:

The answer to the oft-asked question of "Why did JFK's brain weigh so much?" can likely be found right there in the supplementary autopsy report (on Page 544 of the Warren Report).

The very first words of that supplementary report are:

"Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms."

So it would seem as if JFK's brain was only weighed AFTER it had been fixed in the liquid (formalin) solution. So that's probably the answer right there---the brain absorbed much of the formalin solution, which added a certain amount of weight to the brain. Why the brain wasn't weighed prior to its being soaked in the watery solution is anyone's guess.

Also see Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History (on Pages 282 to 285 of Endnotes), for some interesting information regarding the topic of "Brain Weights". (I've culled some excerpts from those pages below. Click for a bigger view.)

David Von Pein
January 2, 2023

 

Edited February 12, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Joe Bauer]

 

I am going to go back to James Humes actual words regarding his handling of JFK's brain from initial inspection to removal.

I thought I had read where even he had some reservations about it's damaged state.
I do remember him most often acting arrogant and irritated at many questions presented to him regards his autopsy.

However, when Humes was confronted with the fact that he nor anyone weighed JFK's brain and yet did weigh the other major organs during the autopsy...he lost that arrogance and assumed a more humble "lost for words" demeanor which I think has more importance than nothing.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Denny Zartman]

I'm sorry that happened and I hope you're feeling better now, @Joe Bauer.

[Joe Bauer]

On 2/12/2023 at 4:42 AM, Denny Zartman said:

I'm sorry that happened and I hope you're feeling better now, @Joe Bauer.

Oh, thanks Denny.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Charles Blackmon]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

This is a HUGE problem. But the brain weight problem is just something people latch onto and repeat because it sounds good. But it is a minor problem, at best. 

All of the so-called "minor" problems (rifle ownership, brain weight) plus a large number of "major" problems (missing bullets, no sectioning of brain/lost brain, witnesses to activity on the knoll, planting of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit crime scene, etc etc) add up to an official story that is a gigantic con job.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

All of the so-called "minor" problems (rifle ownership, brain weight) plus a large number of "major" problems (missing bullets, no sectioning of brain/lost brain, witnesses to activity on the knoll, planting of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit crime scene, etc etc) add up to an official story that is a gigantic con job.

Agreed. And I wrote what amounts to five or six books arguing as much. I share a sensibility with some LNs, however, in that I am appalled at how people sharing my conclusion there was more than one shooter and that Oswald was set up, will grasp at any claim, and argument, and hold it up as a fact, when, in fact, the majority of CT arguments are garbage. 

Now, of course, the LN side is equally desperate to shut down CT arguments, and often behaves in the same manner.

As, but one example, the LN side is incredibly reluctant to admit ANY of the evidence presented by the WC was bogus, or that ANY of the numerous DPD and FBI agents involved in the case fibbed about anything. It's clear to me that such people are not serious students of the case, but are simply "defenders." Quite often, they are Uber-patriotic, and view the challengers to the official story as dangerous and anti-American. 

I, and I suspect others on this forum, are indeed patriots and view it as my patriotic duty to call bs on what is obviously bs. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Agreed. And I wrote what amounts to five or six books arguing as much. I share a sensibility with some LNs, however, in that I am appalled at how people sharing my conclusion there was more than one shooter and that Oswald was set up, will grasp at any claim, and argument, and hold it up as a fact, when, in fact, the majority of CT arguments are garbage. 

Now, of course, the LN side is equally desperate to shut down CT arguments, and often behaves in the same manner.

As, but one example, the LN side is incredibly reluctant to admit ANY of the evidence presented by the WC was bogus, or that ANY of the numerous DPD and FBI agents involved in the case fibbed about anything. It's clear to me that such people are not serious students of the case, but are simply "defenders." Quite often, they are Uber-patriotic, and view the challengers to the official story as dangerous and anti-American. 

I, and I suspect others on this forum, are indeed patriots and view it as my patriotic duty to call bs on what is obviously bs. 

Absolutely.    And - if I may - I'm beginning to seriously dislike the constant LN vs CT, like there is no in-between (and I'm afraid there never will be).

LN v/s CT is going nowhere... it's like 1914-1918... dig in and keep shooting, not advancing an inch (in 60 years).

I really try to respect both sides, but what the use if they don't respect each other.... 

I'm just here because it's fascinating to see how things were handled in the early stage, how did the commissions work, how did it affect peoples lives, etc (and sometimes looking at some details if I find it interesting).  No more, no less (and often boring to old-timers).

 

 

 

   

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Let it be clear what is going on here. In DiEugenio's afterward, he is citing unproven allegation and suspicion toward two named persons as logical grounds for not responding to substantive criticism or engagement of points of evidence. That is so wrong on multiple levels. First, it is the ad hominem logical fallacy, also known as "poisoning the well": attack the character of the source or the messenger as a means of persuading an audience to not hear or register the content of a message.

And second, look at the structure of these particular ad hominems: it is not even a claim of evidence of any character aspersion toward either of the individuals targeted, Litwin and Roe. It is expressed suspicion, with DiEugenio smearing without evidence (by expressing suspicion) and then casting it as Litwin's, and Roe's, burden of proof to disprove those suspicions to DiEugenio's satisfaction. What a rhetorical method: fling an unproven suspicion, any unproven suspicion, and lay it on the target as their burden to disprove! And if they don't, that proves the content of their writing is not to be read! 

The allegation against Roe is especially ludicrous to the point of nonsensical. Roe published articles written by himself on a website identified as roeconsulting. DiEugenio finds a deep mystery in Roe's failure to adequately explain what form of business entity "roeconsulting" is. How that question has even the slightest relevance to anything is not explained. There is no mystery as to Roe being the author of Roe's articles. Someone unsophisticated might consider "roeconsulting" maybe is a sole-proprietor LLC (limited liability corporation) set up as a structure for tax purposes as a way to register income versus expenses. Who cares? Why should it be Roe's obligation to explain his tax or business-entity website registration choices to DiEugenio's satisfaction as a condition not to be publicly smeared by DiEugenio in his large-circulation influential online magazine?

If there are errors in the film, it advances discussion to find them and correct for them. Ideally, the correction comes in-house or friendly sources. If those systems fail and errors get published into the public domain, then even hostile criticism, if it improves accuracy by fact-checking errors, should be welcomed, even valued. Indexes of banned books and authors, forbidden reading and lists of persons declared on "ignore" that loyal followers are expected to "ignore" as well, is how cults operate. Ad hominem toward persons as a form of argument, with exceptions only in cases of allegations which are relevant and accompanied by actual proof when aired, should not be happening.  

Edited February 13, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Guest]

On 2/12/2023 at 6:46 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Let it be clear what is going on here. In DiEugenio's afterward, he is citing unproven allegation and suspicion toward two named persons as logical grounds for not responding to substantive criticism or engagement of points of evidence. That is so wrong on multiple levels. First, it is the ad hominem logical fallacy, also known as "poisoning the well": attack the character of the source or the messenger as a means of persuading an audience to not hear or register the content of a message.

And second, look at the structure of these particular ad hominems: it is not even a claim of evidence of any character aspersion toward either of the individuals targeted, Litwin and Roe. It is expressed suspicion, with DiEugenio smearing without evidence (by expressing suspicion) and then casting it as Litwin's, and Roe's, burden of proof to disprove those suspicions to DiEugenio's satisfaction. What a rhetorical method: fling an unproven suspicion, any unproven suspicion, and lay it on the target as their burden to disprove! And if they don't, that proves the content of their writing is not to be read! 

The allegation against Roe is especially ludicrous to the point of nonsensical. Roe published articles written by himself on a website identified as roeconsulting. DiEugenio finds a deep mystery in Roe's failure to adequately explain what form of business entity "roeconsulting" is. How that question has even the slightest relevance to anything is not explained. There is no mystery as to Roe being the author of Roe's articles. Someone unsophisticated might consider "roeconsulting" maybe is a sole-proprietor LLC (limited liability corporation) set up as a structure for tax purposes as a way to register income versus expenses. Who cares? Why should it be Roe's obligation to explain his tax or business-entity website registration choices to DiEugenio's satisfaction as a condition not to be publicly smeared by DiEugenio in his large-circulation influential online magazine?

If there are errors in the film, it advances discussion to find them and correct for them. Ideally, the correction comes in-house or friendly sources. If those systems fail and errors get published into the public domain, then even hostile criticism, if it improves accuracy by fact-checking errors, should be welcomed, even valued. Indexes of banned books and authors, forbidden reading and lists of persons declared on "ignore" that loyal followers are expected to "ignore" as well, is how cults operate. Ad hominem toward persons as a form of argument, with exceptions only in cases of allegations which are relevant and accompanied by actual proof when aired, should not be happening.  

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette