So is David Lifton's Final Charade just going to be lost to history?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Are you willing to regard JFK balling his fists in front of his throat and deducing it was in response to the throat shot?  No?  Why not?

There was no "throat shot" at all, of course. Because if there had been such a shot, at least one bullet (and probably two) would have been plucked from JFK's body at the autopsy. But no whole bullets were found in his body.

The "throat shot" is (and always has been) a fantasy invented by conspiracy theorists.

 

Edited February 10 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Witnesses are not unbiased coins.

 

You're right... witnesses are MORE RELIABLE than unbiased coins. Which is why we know that the back-of-head witnesses got it right.

It's nonsense to believe that a witness could be less reliable than a random coin toss.* That could happen only in Bizarro World.

 

*An exception would be if conditions are such that witnesses are fooled into believing the opposite of the truth. An optical illusion, for example.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

According to Pat Speer, fourteen throat entrance wound witnesses and sixteen low back wound witnesses all got it wrong.

How does that impact calculations?

 

Well, any time there is a large number of corroborative testimonies, it's going to make their positions more likely to be true. But these situations don't easily lend themselves to the coin-toss proof that I used for the back-of-head wound. Well, not the first one for sure.

For the back-of-the-head wound situation, there is a clear demarcation between the two choices, which are:  1) There is a large hole on the back of the head; or 2) There is no hole on the back of the head. This lends itself well to the coin-toss proof.Further, even if the hole location is borderline -- in the cowlick area -- which might or might not be described as back-of-the-head, it doesn't affect the conclusion of the coin-toss proof. Because the back-of-head autopsy photos show the cowlick area.

In contrast to that, the throat wound witnesses would have to draw conclusions more subjective than a hole-there-or-not-there choice. I've read that exit wounds can be small. If that's true, then it certainly would be subjective. It is true that there is related evidence indicating that the throat wound is an entrance, but that complication just makes the coin-toss proof even less appropriate for the case.

As for the back wound location, it's hard to set a demarcation line between T3 and the upper back (where it was placed at one time) because they are so close to each other. But with all 16 witnesses pointing to T3, they are very likely right. If we assumed their reliability to be the same as a coin toss, the odds of them all being wrong would be:

     (1/2)^16 = 1/65,536

or 1 in 65,536 odds that they all got it wrong.

Now if the alternate location is that base of the neck and not the upper back, then I'd say that the odds I calculated are pretty reliable.

Of course, the hole locations in the jacket and shirt, are further proof of the T3 location.

 

[Ron Bulman]

Math was my bane in college, I got lost in logarithms, barley passed.  Though I somehow made an A in Statistics. 

Anyway, if Dr. Malcom Perry, an ER doctor experienced in gunshot wounds, says 3X in the press conference at 1:00 immediately after JFK was pronounced dead, the throat shot was an entry wound.  Does that carry extra weight, in logical thinking?

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

Agreed - that's why it's important to state the assumptions --- independence etc...

 

The conditions for my coin-toss proof are as follows:

• Throw out witnesses who aren't sure or who are discredited. (For example, one witness said the wound was on the left side. I throw that one out even though it would have benefited my side of the argument.)
• Early statements only. Not later ones because they can be influenced.
• No cherry picking or misrepresentation.
• The Question: Did the witness see a large hole on the back of the head or not? (Independently of whether or not the hole extended beyond that.)

That said, note that my number of witnesses -- 50, of whom 40 saw a hole on the back -- are approximate at this point. However, my estimate is conservative in that I'm pretty sure that the percentage of witnesses who saw a hole on the back is greater than the 80% (40/50) in my estimate.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not so great with math (and perhaps that is one of the reasons why I became a lawyer).

But the math below is something I have no problem understanding (and this isn't even 1/3 of the occipital-parietal witnesses).

And if Speer and his confederates do not post numbers like those I have posted below, the obvious conclusion is that they can't.

The government is so threatened by this evidence because it unravels the photographic forgery and autopsy fraud that was perpetrated in relation to the assassination, and that forgery and fraud can mean only one thing -- a high level government conspiracy.

 

Dealey Plaza Witness Marilyn Willis:

 

Dealey Plaza Witness Charles Brehm:

 

Secret Service Agent Paul Landis:

 

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney:

 

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill:

 

Parkland Doctor Robert McClelland:

 

Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell:

 

Parland Doctor Charles Crenshaw:

 

Parkland Nurse Phyllis J. Hall:

 

Parkland Doctor Paul Peters:

 

Parkland Doctor James Carrico:

 

Parkland Doctor Ronald Jones:

 

Parkland Nurse Doris Nelson:

 

Parkland Doctor Richard Dulaney:

 

Parkland Doctor Robert Schorlemer:

 

Parkland Doctor Marion Jenkins:

 

Parkland Doctor Kemp Clark:

 

Parkland Doctor Kenneth Salyer:

 

Parkland Doctor Adolph Giesecke:

 

Parkland Doctor Don Curtis:

 

Parkland Doctor William Zedlitz:

 

Parkland Nurse Patricia Hutton Gustafson:

Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron:

 

Ambulance Driver Aubrey Rike:

 

FBI Agent Francis O'Neil:

 

FBI Agent James W. Sibert:

 

Bethesda X-Ray Technician Jerrol Custer:

 

Bethesda Autopsy Technician Paul O'Connor:

 

Bethesda Autopsy Photographer Floyd Riebe:

 

Bethesda X-Ray Technician James Jenkins:

Bethesda Mortician Tom Robinson:

 

Bethesda Autopsy Technician Dennis David:

 

------------------------------------------------
This is a link to Dr. Gary Aguilar's compilation of the earliest testimony of the Parkland AND Bethesda witnesses -- http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm -- and the following chart is in part based upon the the witness accounts outlined in the article by Dr. Gary Aguilar:
--------------------------------------------------
DR. GARY AGUILAR'S APPENDIX - TABLES AND FIGURES:

https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_tabfig.htm

 

 

Edited February 10 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

And of considerable importance to the question of the throat wound is Dr. Perry's reaction upon first being shown the autopsy photograph depicting a large, jagged tear in JFK's throat. Perry immediately disavowed it, calling it a "butcher job." 

This constitutes evidence of the autopsy fraud and body mutilation (to alter evidence of frontal entry wounds and to remove bullets and shrapnel) that the government and government assigns are so desperate to cover up...

 

PARKLAND DOCTOR MALCOLM PERRY DISAVOWS JAGGED THROAT WOUND:

From Robert Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference:  

[…] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case.

[…]

From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A:

As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done.

[...]

 

Edited February 10 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

And if Speer and his confederates do not post numbers like those I have posted below, the obvious conclusion is that they can't.

 

Wow, that's an impressive compilation, Keven. You should dedicate a thread for it and make it the OP.

Of course, the anti-alteration ideologues will just sweep it all under the rug to protect their precious preconceptions and biases. <rolleyes>

 

[Mark Ulrik]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

*An exception would be if conditions are such that witnesses are fooled into believing the opposite of the truth. An optical illusion, for example.

You're catching on. Another example is the earwitnesses. A large chunk thought the shots came from the front, while another large chunk thought the opposite. Is this proof of more than one shooter? Math doesn't provide an easy answer here either. Sounds can be very deceptive.

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

You're catching on. Another example is the earwitnesses. A large chunk thought the shots came from the front, while another large chunk thought the opposite. Is this proof of more than one shooter? Math doesn't provide an easy answer here either. Sounds can be very deceptive.

 

I wouldn't use my coin-flip approach in situations where witnesses can be easily fooled.

 

[Cliff Varnell]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

It could be, but I think that could be a reaction to being hit in the upper back.

Because that’s what people do when they’re struck in the back — they naturally ball their fists in front of their throat so they won’t get hit in the back again?

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Just out of curiosity, suppose the first shot that hit JFK was the upper back hit. How would you expect him to react differently than what we see in Zapruder with the elbows raising?

After a moment of shock, I’d expect him to arch his back and reach for the area struck while crying out in pain.

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I take Bennets affidavit establishing a terminus ad quem, time no later than, for the back hit, which means the back shot was before Z313.

Immediately before — consistent with 55 other “bang...bang-bang” ear witnesses.

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Bennet saw the back shot there when he looked.

He wrote that he saw the shot hit, not that he saw it after it hit.

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don’t see evidence of JFK reacting to another hit between the elbows-raising and Z313, therefore I reason that first hit, the one of the elbows raising, was the bullet in his back. 

Bennett saw it strike immediately before the head shot(s) — why would we see a reaction to the back shot when the head shot(s) occurred a split second later?

[Paul Bacon]

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Bennett saw it strike immediately before the head shot(s) — why would we see a reaction to the back shot when the head shot(s) occurred a split second later?

I wonder if the forward movement of JFK's head and body at Z312, and Dan Rather's observation "moved violently forward", is actually a result of the back shot...?

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

That said, note that my number of witnesses -- 50, of whom 40 saw a hole on the back -- are approximate at this point. However, my estimate is conservative in that I'm pretty sure that the percentage of witnesses who saw a hole on the back is greater than the 80% (40/50) in my estimate.

Sandy, have you factored into your odds calculation the below from Dr. Aguilar? According to Dr. Aguilar, all of the witnesses would have seen a gaping wound in the upper part of or to the right of the back of the head, but that does not mean the BOH photograph is not authentic if a flap at the top or right side covered up part of what was visible prior to the flap pulled up in that photograph. 

In that reconstruction, the witnesses who saw a gaping wound lower in the back of the head would indeed run counter to BOH photo authenticity, but those witnesses who saw the gaping wound high, or at the top right, in the back of the head, not so. Could you rerun your calculations with new counts of the witnesses based on Dr. Aguilar's framing of the issue? Would that change your claimed proof from astronomical odds that the BOH photo must be faked? 

"Here is our friend Dr. Aguilar in an email to me last week (and yes, he said I could quote him):

"'Re the 'back of the head blowout' controversy, I think you put your finger on it, Pat: Jack's scalp flaps fell backward as he lay on the gurney, face up, at Parkland. (And at Bethesda, too.) It was likely NOT a blown-out exit wound; the Z film wasn't altered, etc.'"

 

(Pat Speer, 2/7/24, https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30120-so-is-david-liftons-final-charade-just-going-to-be-lost-to-history/page/8/#comment-527924)

 

 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Because that’s what people do when they’re struck in the back — they naturally ball their fists in front of their throat so they won’t get hit in the back again?

After a moment of shock, I’d expect him to arch his back and reach for the area struck while crying out in pain.

Immediately before — consistent with 55 other “bang...bang-bang” ear witnesses.

He wrote that he saw the shot hit, not that he saw it after it hit.

Bennett saw it strike immediately before the head shot(s) — why would we see a reaction to the back shot when the head shot(s) occurred a split second later?

Here is what Bennett wrote on the day of the shooting.

(notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." 

Note that he says he saw "a shot that hit", and not that he saw the actual impact of the shot. As one cannot actually see "a shot," the possibly exists he meant to say "THAT a shot had hit." This is supported, moreover, by his next sentence, in which he describes the shot hitting the President in the head as the "second shoot."

Note also that he loves the word immediately and uses it repeatedly. This is not an articulate person. 

And here is what someone--(probably a secretary)--typed up the next day.

(11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head.  I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.”

Note that here--after word had gotten out that there were three shots, not two--Bennett is supposedly specifying that he heard a second shot and saw it hit the President. Now, did he actually write this--or was this something typed up by a secretary from his notes and approved by one of his superiors?

And here is what he had to admit to the Warren Commission. 

(Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.)

And here is what he is purported to have told the FBI.

(1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) “He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.” 

So here, according to the FBI, in a report no one was to see or even know about for some time after, Bennett claimed he did not see the shot itself, which only makes sense, but looked up and noticed a hole in the President's coat. This leaves open that this hole was created by the first bullet. 

He is not a star witness for any theory, IMO, and most certainly not for the debunked LN theory the first shot missed.

Edited February 10 by Pat Speer