National Geographic Special was a Snoozer

[James DiEugenio]

I did not watch this one.  But according to Matt Douthit, I did not miss much.

Why even do stuff like this? At this late date.

I mean thank God for :What the Doctors Saw" on Paramount Plus. I understand "JFK Revisited" is also playing there.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/house-of-omission

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I did not watch this one.  But according to Matt Douthit, I did not miss much.

Why even do stuff like this? At this late date.

I mean thank God for :What the Doctors Saw" on Paramount Plus. I understand "JFK Revisited" is also playing there.

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/house-of-omission

I had the same impression as Matt...that the program's creators were bending over backwards to avoid mentioning anything that might fuel talk of conspiracy. 

But I take exception to one paragraph in Matt's review.

He writes: "Strangely, when we get to Parkland Hospital, zero of the treating staff are interviewed for the program. Did they not interview these people because they have been insistent since day one that the President was shot from the front? They could’ve interviewed Dr. Ronald Jones, who’s still very much alive. Dr. Jones said in 1983: “If you brought him in here today, I’d still say he was shot from the front.” 

Well, yikes, this is misleading. Not one of the Parkland doctors, outside perhaps Crenshaw, took a look at the wounds and "insisted" that the President was shot from the front. What he should have written was that the Parkland staff thought the wounds gave the appearance of having been inflicted from the front. That's not the same. Doctors and nurses (and unfortunately I now know a bunch of them) might insist on the accuracy of what they saw, but know far better than to insist on the accuracy of what they have come to believe at a quick glance. That was Jones' point: that it LOOKED like the shot or shots had come from the front. He would never insist that they had come from the front. That's not his role. And for good reason. Any emergency room doctor insisting their first impression is correct should be fired immediately, as they are a threat to their patients. 

I know this from personal experience.

I was feeling quite weak and went into an urgent care facility. The doctor said I had an upper respiratory infection, and that I would get better with a few days' rest. But I didn't recover with rest. A few days later I contacted my normal doctor. This was during the COVID scare so he would only meet me over ZOOM. After going through my symptoms, he concluded I had a heart condition and referred me to a cardiologist. The cardiologist wouldn't see me for two weeks. I called back after two days and said I was getting worse. His secretary then said well I can move you up to ten days from now. The next day I could barely walk to the bathroom without fainting. So I agreed to go to a local hospital. After sitting outside for hours taking COVID tests, etc, they finally let me in. One doctor said she thought I had internal bleeding. She did a quick check and ruled out a lower GI leak. Then another doctor jumped in and said it must be an upper GI leak. And scheduled an elaborate procedure where he sent a camera down my throat for the next day. I was extremely weak, and could barely move without assistance. And yet they refused me food and water for 19 hours in preparation for this procedure, which was to be performed because this doctor had a gut feeling, literally. Of course, he was wrong. This procedure revealed no internal bleeding. So they went back to the first thought, and were going to release me and bring me back in a few days for a more elaborate procedure involving my lower GI. But then another doctor called me and said he'd had a look at my bloodwork and that he suspected I actually had leukemia. I was then transferred to a cancer hospital;, where they performed more tests. And determined that yessiree I had leukemia. 

So what's the point? If any of the first four doctors involved in my treatment had insisted that their first impressions were right, and I believed them, I would have died. Doctoring involves much guesswork. And no one knows this better than doctors. Which leads them to routinely defer to experts.

And who are the experts regarding the exact cause of death, and the nature of gunshot wounds, and so on? Not emergency room doctors. Not surgeons. Forensic Pathologists. Now it's true that Finck was the only Forensic Pathologist at Bethesda and that he arrived there a bit late. But that doesn't change the fact that doctors are trained to defer to pathologists, and wouldn't insist on anything that can be contradicted by an expert. 

 

Edited January 7 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

A. Dr. Jones never further clarified what he told the ARRB about the left temple. B. Is there any good reason to disregard Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel? I also can't tell if that guy has passed away or not.

Edited January 8 by Micah Mileto

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

A. Dr. Jones never further clarified what he told the ARRB about the left temple. B. Is there any good reason to disregard Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel? I also can't tell if that guy has passed away or not.

Jones has made it clear in numerous interviews that he didn't get much of a look at the wound, and really just saw a mass of bloody hair. He is not a conspiracy theorist as far as I know. He, among many, has continued to claim the throat wound looked like an entrance, however. 

As far as Akin, my recollection is that he said nothing controversial for 25 years or so after the assassination. I don't remember his precise story, to be honest. But I know he was not in a position to notice wounds not observed by others, at Parkland or Bethesda. If he thought he saw something important in 1963, moreover, he should have written it down. Because coming forward decades later and claiming you saw a wound nobody else saw, that is not apparent on the autopsy photos or x-rays, is not gonna convince anyone serious about the case, IMO. 

I mean, I don't remember the exact numbers, but studies have shown that roughly twice as many people claimed they'd attended the Woodstock Music Festival than actually attended. This is just human nature...exaggerating one's place in history...placing oneself closer to famous events. Heck, we should suspect that if a similar study had been performed in the Dallas area in 1973, it would have reflected a similar disparity, and shown that far more people had claimed to watch the motorcade than had actually watched the motorcade, and far more women had claimed to smile at JFK and have him smile back, than could fit into a stadium. 

So it wouldn't surprise me a bit if Akin exaggerated his role, and juiced up his story to make it more exciting...

That's pretty much par for the course. 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I was then transferred to a cancer hospital;, where they performed more tests. And determined that yessiree I had leukemia. 

 

Oh my gosh Pat, I am so sorry about your feeling awful and about your leukemia. I had  no idea that you are sick. Hopefully the docs can do something for you.

I had a situation similar to yours. I was getting sicker and sicker and the doctors had no idea what to do... just guesswork. Over time I kept getting more and more sleepy, nodding off all the time. Plus it was getting harder and harder to walk.

I finally got myself admitted to the hospital.

Even the doctors there were confused. All the symptoms pointed to heart failure, but the test for that showed my heart to be in great shape. One doctor insisted that all I needed to do was lose weight. The thing is, I wasn't sick because I was fat... I was fat because I was sick! I hadn't been able to exercise in years. (I've had to exercise my whole life to keep my weight down.)

The great thing about being hospitalized for something unusual is that they will bring in one specialist after another without having to wait for weeks between appointments. I was lucky that my insurance covered the LARGE hospital in the area because they have a lot of resources and lots of specialists. I think it was on day three that the right specialist looked at all my charts. He diagnosed me with respiratory failure and secondary polycythemia due to central (not obstructive) sleep apnea. In laymen's terms, my brain was forgetting to tell my lungs to breath. This resulted in blood saturation levels of around 75% during the day (above 95% is normal) and much worse at night. At night my respiratory rate was only one breath per minute(!), and my oxygen saturation would drop to 35% between breaths. Which is like... death. LOL (Below 70% is considered a medical emergency.)

Prognosis isn't awesome, but I'm far better than I was before, now that I'm receiving therapy.

But you're right, even doctors can be wrong but think they are right.

 

[Chris Bristow]

Dr Akin made several comment to the WC regarding the wound he saw in the occipital parietal:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw
him?
Dr. AKIN.
The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered. with brain substance extruding.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe
below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in
the back of the head?
Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't.
I could not see the back of the President's head
as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull frag-
ments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet
hit his head?
Dr. AKIN. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit,
so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or
at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and
fast opinions about that either.

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Dr. AKIN.
The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered. with brain substance extruding.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe
below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in
the back of the head?
Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't.
I could not see the back of the President's head
as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull frag-
ments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

Err… doesn’t this support Pat’s argument? Akin says the occipitalparietal region was shattered with brain extruding, then goes on to admit that he couldn’t see the actual “back” of the head. JFK was on a table, so doesn’t that put the wound in the rear parietal region above the ear? 

This reminded me a bit of Clark’s testimony. Clark is easily one of the more problematic witnesses for Pat’s theory, but there’s one passage where Clark states that the wound was “above” the entrance that Specter mentioned was slightly above the EOP. 

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 ram. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital proturberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it? 
Dr. CLARK - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present. 

Edited January 8 by Tom Gram

[Chris Bristow]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Err… doesn’t this support Pat’s argument? Akin says the occipitalparietal region was shattered with brain extruding, then goes on to admit that he couldn’t see the actual “back” of the head. JFK was on a table, so doesn’t that put the wound in the rear parietal region above the ear? 

This reminded me a bit of Clark’s testimony. Clark is easily one of the more problematic witnesses for Pat’s theory, but there’s one passage where Clark states that the wound was “above” the entrance that Specter mentioned was slightly above the EOP. 

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Clark, would your observations be consistent with some other alleged facts in this matter, such as the presence of a lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 ram. on the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital proturberant--that is to say, could such a hole have been present without your observing it? 
Dr. CLARK - Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present. 

When Akin says he could not see the back of the head "as such", he was referring specifically to the question about seeing "any other bullet wound" below the "Gaping hole" specter mentions. He said he could not see the other wound because of all the blood and bits of bone sitting below the occipital parietal wound. He  specifies that he was talking about the neck.
  It seems Akin was not contradicting what he just said about the occipital parietal wound, he was just talking about not seeing a second wound below the "Gaping wound" due to the blood and bits of bone. 

 Specter  asked Clark and other witnesses about seeing a separate entry hole just above and 2.5cm right of the occipital protuberance. Specter asks "if that wound could have been present without your observing it?" Clark replies "yes, with the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp such a wound could be present." He seems to be saying the 'blasted out occipital parietal could have obscured the entry wound at the protuberance. The location of that occipital parietal wound as above and out from the protuberance wound fits the reported location the occipital wound.
 The occipital parietal wound was reported by so many as being in the right rear. So it was largely visible on the side of the head behind and above the ear and also extended back behind the visible head near the protuberance. 

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Dr Akin made several comment to the WC regarding the wound he saw in the occipital parietal:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw
him?
Dr. AKIN.
The back of the right occipitalparietal portion
of his head was shattered. with brain substance extruding.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. With respect to the head wound, Dr. Akin, did you observe
below the gaping wound which you have described any other bullet wound in
the back of the head?
Dr. AKIN. No; I didn't.
I could not see the back of the President's head
as such, and the right posterior neck was obscured by blood and skull frag-
ments and I didn't make any attempt to examine the neck.

------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER. Did you have any opinion as to the direction that the bullet
hit his head?
Dr. AKIN. I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit,
so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or
at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and
fast opinions about that either.

Thanks, Chris. That confirms my recollection. He didn't say anything out of line with the others. He didn't get a look at the back of the head, but thought the wound he saw (presumably towards the back of the head) could have been an exit wound. What I didn't remember, however, is that he specified that he did not see an entrance wound. I suspect that's why I never found his latter day claims credible. In looking at Palamara's book, I see there's an FBI memo from 1984 that draws into question Akin's mental state. While one might be tempted to dismiss this as a smear, one should realize no similar memos were created on McClelland, or Crenshaw. It's just hard to believe Akin was seeing things clearly. According to Livingstone, Akin told people Clark saw an entry wound in the temple. Well, this makes little sense. From the very first time Clark spoke on the head wound (the press conference) to the last time he spoke on the head wound (his WC testimony) Clark made clear that he suspected it to be a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. (I have concluded he was correct.) In any event, IF he had seen a temple wound, it seems clear he would have said so at the time. 

Now, I know some are saying to themselves that his mentioning a temple wound would have indicated a shot from the left and a shooter other than the one from behind. But that was not Clark's concern at the time, as he and Perry had no problem presenting the throat wound as a possible entrance, and the head wound as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, OR the exit of a bullet entering at the throat. So, no, there was no effort by Clark to support the single-assassin solution, at least not in those first few days. 

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh my gosh Pat, I am so sorry about your feeling awful and about your leukemia. I had  no idea that you are sick. Hopefully the docs can do something for you.

I had a situation similar to yours. I was getting sicker and sicker and the doctors had no idea what to do... just guesswork. Over time I kept getting more and more sleepy, nodding off all the time. Plus it was getting harder and harder to walk.

I finally got myself admitted to the hospital.

Even the doctors there were confused. All the symptoms pointed to heart failure, but the test for that showed my heart to be in great shape. One doctor insisted that all I needed to do was lose weight. The thing is, I wasn't sick because I was fat... I was fat because I was sick! I hadn't been able to exercise in years. (I've had to exercise my whole life to keep my weight down.)

The great thing about being hospitalized for something unusual is that they will bring in one specialist after another without having to wait for weeks between appointments. I was lucky that my insurance covered the LARGE hospital in the area because they have a lot of resources and lots of specialists. I think it was on day three that the right specialist looked at all my charts. He diagnosed me with respiratory failure and secondary polycythemia due to central (not obstructive) sleep apnea. In laymen's terms, my brain was forgetting to tell my lungs to breath. This resulted in blood saturation levels of around 75% during the day (above 95% is normal) and much worse at night. At night my respiratory rate was only one breath per minute(!), and my oxygen saturation would drop to 35% between breaths. Which is like... death. LOL (Below 70% is considered a medical emergency.)

Prognosis isn't awesome, but I'm far better than I was before, now that I'm receiving therapy.

But you're right, even doctors can be wrong but think they are right.

 

Thanks, Sandy. I'm glad you're feeling better. I know what it's like to face low numbers like that. By the time I was finally hospitalized, my hemoglobin was at 4. which some nurses said was the lowest they'd ever seen. At this point, it's unlikely the leukemia will return. But I developed a disease as a response to the stem cell transplant that is also life-threatening. So I will probably be on immune-suppressants from here on out. 

[Chris Bristow]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks, Chris. That confirms my recollection. He didn't say anything out of line with the others. He didn't get a look at the back of the head, but thought the wound he saw (presumably towards the back of the head) could have been an exit wound. What I didn't remember, however, is that he specified that he did not see an entrance wound. I suspect that's why I never found his latter day claims credible. In looking at Palamara's book, I see there's an FBI memo from 1984 that draws into question Akin's mental state. While one might be tempted to dismiss this as a smear, one should realize no similar memos were created on McClelland, or Crenshaw. It's just hard to believe Akin was seeing things clearly. According to Livingstone, Akin told people Clark saw an entry wound in the temple. Well, this makes little sense. From the very first time Clark spoke on the head wound (the press conference) to the last time he spoke on the head wound (his WC testimony) Clark made clear that he suspected it to be a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. (I have concluded he was correct.) In any event, IF he had seen a temple wound, it seems clear he would have said so at the time. 

Now, I know some are saying to themselves that his mentioning a temple wound would have indicated a shot from the left and a shooter other than the one from behind. But that was not Clark's concern at the time, as he and Perry had no problem presenting the throat wound as a possible entrance, and the head wound as a tangential wound of both entrance and exit, OR the exit of a bullet entering at the throat. So, no, there was no effort by Clark to support the single-assassin solution, at least not in those first few days. 

Just to clear up this point, he did get a look at the back of the head in terms of the occipital parietal wound in the right rear, right posterior. It was only the supposed 'other' bullet hole below the occipital wound that he did not see due to excessive blood there.
 Akin had mental problems decades after his testimony in 1963. But there is nothing I have found to disqualify his statements made 20 years prior.  
 When it comes to doctors assumptions about where the shot came from I don't pay much attention. It is just a guesswork based on what they saw or didn't see on 11/22 and in the Z film reaction of JFK.  
The location is the big issue because so many of them saw the blowout near the occipital area. Some like Baxter went further and wrote on 11/22 that the occipital bone itself was "Missing".
 With testimonies being repeated many times over several decades by 20+ witnesses there will be some contradictions, but that is to be expected. There are just far too many accounts of a wound near the occipital to be explained away with conjecture. This person lied, that person just got it wrong, some just went along with the majority, etc. 
18 or more staff from trauma room 1 saw a wound that does not exist in the official photos and x-rays. Conservatively 6 more at the autopsy came forward after the non disclosure statements were lifted by the HSCA. I don't include testimony that is questionable, like Stringer's failing memory in his ARRB deposition.
 In the end there is no credible way to explain 24 witnesses who saw the blasted out area of the occipital parietal. I have heard all the arguments and it amounts to a lot of speculation, cherry picking, appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks. It does not add up and points to a big lack of credibility.
  The attack on Crenshaw by the esteemed Journal of American Medical Associations, is in itself proof that doctors who supported the O.C wound location  could have their reputations and careers put in jeopardy. The claim that Crenshaw might not have even been in the room that day, basically accusing him of being a complete xxxx, confirms that cheap attacks on the Parkland staff were required to discredit them. It also puts in question the stories of the few who likely recanted to protect their careers.
  The absurd yet often repeated claim that those Parkland doctors were too busy trying to save his life to correctly locate the O.C wound(I think that was from Bugliosi?) is another example of the weak arguments needed to discredit the doctors. It was Jenkins himself who drew the attention of the others to a wound he deemed unsurvivable. So yes they were made aware of the wound that so many said was in the O.C.
 Clark calling off the resuscitation of the president based on the wound he said was "A blasted out area of the occipital parietal" is proof that he, a neurosurgeon, took a good enough look to make the historic decision to give up on the POTUS.    
 Of course I am just rehashing the basis of the longstanding debate we all know very well, but the question of the O.C wound has a mountain of support and very weak counter arguments. 
  A great deal of research is needed to address all the claims made and clear the muddied waters. In the end there is no doubt that the Parkland issue is valid and points very strongly to a coverup of an occipital wound. 

  Imo, the fact that on the weekend of 11/22 the prime suspect was a previous Soviet defector, would be enough to instigate, at least temporarily, a coverup of any evidence that points to a conspiracy. Simply to navigate around the possibility of a conflict with Russia that could lead down a path to nuclear warfare. Hustling his body out of Parkland without allowing Dr Rose to do an autopsy may have been the first step in a coverup designed to protect us from nuclear war.
 So no deep state plot to kill JFK is needed and Oswald could be part of a 2 man conspiracy. Oswald firing 3 shots from the TSBD. Not saying that to promote a new theory, just looking for  the simplest possible scenario.
 
   

[Micah Mileto]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---”On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that the FBI interviewed him during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the “historic accident” of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self-initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the government’s obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a “nut.” AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL’s HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President’s forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the President’s forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN’s comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul’s hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI’s fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]”

 

Where does it say any specific thing against his credibility? Sounds like the FBI, like most dirty rotten humans, will just call anything they don't agree with a mental illness.

 

Also,

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCdMKfthXw

Edited January 9 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

Is this Akin? Did he die in 1986 at the age of 56 shortly after telling the FBI about the forehead wound? https://www.myheritage.com/names/gene_akin

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---”On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that the FBI interviewed him during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the “historic accident” of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self-initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the government’s obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a “nut.” AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL’s HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President’s forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the President’s forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN’s comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul’s hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI’s fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]”

 

Where does it say any specific thing against Dr. Akin's credibility? Sounds like the FBI, like most dirty rotten humans, will just call anything they don't agree with a mental illness.

 

Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCdMKfthXw

 

 

He lost his license. He's changed his name. He's been arrested multiple times, and says he thinks the government has been harassing him since the Kennedy assassination, when he was a minor witness at best. AND, to top it off... He was verbally abusive to the FBI. Even if what he said made perfect sense, he does not sound like a stable man. As he told the Warren Commission he did not see an entrance wound, and as none of the other doctors reported such harassment, ,moreover, it is really very silly to assume he was being harassed for what he told the Warren Commission.  

There's just no there there. His latter-day statements regarding an entrance wound  are not credible. 

Edited January 9 by Pat Speer

[Micah Mileto]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Wow, just wow. Evidence, please. I don't care what the Mormon Nazis at the FBI think, I want specific information indicating that Akin could've been capable of fabricating information or being delusional, and no such information was provided in that report. If he saw a left temple wound, he could've told others about it pre-1981.

Edited January 9 by Micah Mileto