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

[Sandy Larsen]

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, your reply responds to something different than what I said, and what I understand Dr. Aguilar to have meant. 

I was not referring to a flap covering up the entire back of the head or any blown-out exit hole in the middle of the back of the head. I was referring to a limited flap coverup of only a small part of the total back of the head, to the top or top-right, in the BOH photos, but not most of the visible back of the head in the BOH photos. That is what I thought I made clear in the way I worded it; that is what Pat Speer has been saying in these discussions recently though I am not sure you have been aware of that; and that is what I assumed Dr. Aguilar meant, though I do not presume to speak for Dr. Aguilar and hope I do not have him wrong on that.

 

Greg,

Your further questioning got me to re-read what I wrote, and now I see that there was a misunderstanding on my part. As it turns out, Aguilar never mentions the situation #1 that I described in my post, where there is a flap hanging down from about the cowlick area. He describes only situation #2, which is Dr. Salyer's theory. My apologies for that.

And so Dr. Aguilar agrees with Dr. Salyer's theory. He believes that the flap of scalp is attached at the hairline of the neck, and that gravity pulls it down (when Kennedy is lying face up) thus exposing the skull wound.

Since I got this from an very recently written article by Dr. Aguilar, I assume it is what he believes today.

Now, here you are saying that what you meant is "a limited flap coverup of only a small part of the total back of the head." To me, that sounds like either #1 or #2 as I described in my first post, except that it isn't as wide as #2.

Either way, it cannot be seen in the photo. The BOH autopsy photo shows that there is no "limited flap" on the back.

 

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

But you rebut entirely a claim that is not, in this discussion, being made by anyone at issue--you cite someone else's notion of an entire gaping hole in the back of the head covered up by a flap. You then attribute that to Dr. Aguilar, then argue for that being implausible and/or impossible (with which I agree with you on that point--but that is not what was at issue in the question I asked you).

 

I attribute it to Dr. Aguilar because he said it was something he and other researcher had long believed. Here is the pertinent excerpt:

Near the end of the film Dr. Salyer made a suggestion that some of us skeptics have long believed plausibly explains why the Parkland doctors and autopsy witnesses said JFK’s wound was right-rearward. A flap of JFK’s scalp had fallen backward, Salyer said, and it “bunched up” at the base of Kennedy’s occiput.

Since the autopsy report documented that there were large scalp tears, and since JFK was lying face-up on the Parkland gurney, as well as on the autopsy table, it only makes sense that gravity would have drawn a torn flap downward to reveal what was present, a rearward skull defect described by both Parkland and Bethesda witnesses.

[Emphases mine.]

Aguilar says, "some of us skeptics have long believed." He doesn't say, "some skeptics have long believed." To me that means he is among the skeptics who believe it.

 

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Dr. Aguilar said in his quoted words to Pat Speer:

"'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.'"

Yet you set up a straw man, claiming that Dr. Aguilar is saying what he explicitly said is "likely NOT" the case: a blown-out exit wound in the back of the head. You wrote (bold is my added):

Except the problem there was you don't quote Aguilar.

 

When Dr. Aguilar says, "Not a blowout exit wound" I take that as meaning the scalp opening is not a blowout wound. Just the skull hole is a blowout wound.

It's extremely hard to believe that, after decades of studying and trying to convince top-of-the-head wound advocates that the wound was actually on the back, Aguilar would do a 180.

Okay, I just re-read Dr. Aguilar's review of JFK: What the Doctors Saw, published last month on Kennedy's & King. And he is, as usual, defending the back-of-head wound proponents throughout. He definitely has not done a 180.

Read it and weep, Greg.

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

You're forgetting about the brain, Tom. One of the rarely discussed aspects of the case is that the Clark Panel moved the wound to the top of the head to get around the incredibly inconvenient fact that the brain showed no signs of transit of a bullet on a low to high trajectory. The photos should have showed something like the wound on the left. Note that the brain remained intact above the well-defined entrance of the bullet on the left.

 

But instead the photos showed a groove along the top of the head starting inches above the EOP entrance. As a consequence I don't see any chance for a new panel's signing off on the EOP entrance absent that panel's simultaneously claiming there was more than one head shot. 

This is a valid point. I have not looked at the brain evidence very closely, and the arguments in your chapter on the brain make a lot of sense. 

My main question on this is do we really have enough evidence available on the brain for a definite conclusion? The photos are not publicly available: all we have is drawings and various witness statements.

The brain was also not sectioned, so is there really enough evidence in the photos, let alone the HSCA drawing, to truly exclude a wound pattern compatible with an EOP entrance and atypical wound track/exit? I know Henry Lee gave a hard “no” to a similar question in JFK Revisited, which makes sense, but I really have no idea. 

You’ve pointed out several features characteristic of a top-of-head impact in descriptions of the brain wounds, but are there any plausible alternatives?

My point about a hypothetical new “Clark Panel” is that the history of the JFK case almost guarantees that any lone-assassin compatible explanations for the autopsy materials will be heavily prioritized over arguments suggestive of conspiracy, even if the latter are more logical and in-line with the medical evidence overall.

I’ll take a closer look at the brain materials and see if I can come up with anything.

[Pat Speer]

11 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Pat, your argument on the blow-by-blow of how the autopsists' EOP/rear-hairline bullet hole was disappeared and the new bullet hole was found at the cowlick--and how that came about without for the first three years anyone reporting that--was stunning to read. My M.A. thesis adviser at Cornell, Martin Bernal, devoted attention to not only the substance of contested scholarly interpretations but also to what he called the "sociology of scholarship", how changes in ideas get accepted and changed in scholarly disciplines.

It is like a retired US federal marshal who was my father's closest friend in his final years told me, speaking from long experience: "Greg, in every town and city there are a few families who run everything."  

In academic disciplines there are usually some major figures with positions and lots of graduate students. Any new idea in a field put forth by, say, some bright graduate student, will take traction if one of the major names in the field endorses it and tells the rest of the field, "look at this". Whether that happens, so far as I have seen, is largely accident, it depends on some major name deciding they like something and deciding to make that public endorsement. If no major figure proactively does that, the work gets published and a few will read it, but--news flash--most scholars do not read most of what is published in their field, they read only what is being done on their specific research question or niche, and may read some of what a few major names of their field publish generally, but not unrecognized names. They don't have time or energy to read unrecognized names. Once a theory attached to a new name is brought to wider attention by one of the major names, then the past publications of that new name may be looked up and read. I honestly think there is a significant percentage of peer-reviewed journal articles with a lot of work and expense going into their publishing that are hardly read by anyone. Of course everyone scans abstracts or may take a 3/4 second glance but that's it for some articles indefinitely.  

There is a long-time member of the research community with whom I frequently discuss Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Although scientists are supposed to drop theories answering questions when a better theory comes along to answer these questions, they rarely do. In fact, Kuhn found that new theories, which represented what he called a "paradigm shift," are almost universally rejected for years and even decades after their first publication by those who had previously embraced the old theory, and sometimes fail to take hold until the proponents of the old theory have departed the scene. 

Needless to say, this happens with JFK research as well. Over the years I have uncovered and demonstrated that

1) Michael Baden testified with his exhibit upside down and spewed tons of nonsense in his subsequent books and statements about the case...and yet he is still cited by some as an authority. 

2. Michael Kurtz invented numerous interviews for his final book The JFK Assassination Debates...and yet a number of prominent writers continue to recite his obviously fabricated quotes as evidence.

3. The vast majority of witnesses claiming they saw JFK at the time of the first shot said he reacted to this shot...and yet a sizable percentage of theorists and writers continue claiming the first shot missed, and that JFK continued calmly waving to the crowd after this shot. 

There's probably 50 more. And hundreds more including the work of others, such as yourself...

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy I read the Aguilar link and I see you are right that Aguilar's flap suggestion for the BOH photograph goes down farther in the back of the head than I think Pat Speer's does.

Its not a matter of "weeping". I don't regard myself as having a dog in this fight, just want to know the truth sensibly whatever it is. What I'm opposed to is attempts to suppress or bully into silence informed discussion presented from divergent points of view, such as from some quarters, Pat Speer's. May intelligent, informed discussion flourish and may the best arguments win. The only weeping from me in that case would be tears of joy.   

[Pat Speer]

44 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy I read the Aguilar link and I see you are right that Aguilar's flap suggestion for the BOH photograph goes down farther in the back of the head than I think Pat Speer's does.

Its not a matter of "weeping". I don't regard myself as having a dog in this fight, just want to know the truth sensibly whatever it is. What I'm opposed to is attempts to suppress or bully into silence informed discussion presented from divergent points of view, such as from some quarters, Pat Speer's. May intelligent, informed discussion flourish and may the best arguments win. The only weeping from me in that case would be tears of joy.   

To be clear, Gary and I are not in lockstep. I believe he thinks the hole went further down on the back of the head than I do. But I know for fact he doesn't think the body was altered to hide the true nature of the wounds, nor that the films and photos showing a hole at the top of the head were faked. There are basically two schools of thought on this. One holds that the back of the head was blown-out--a hole in the middle of the back of the head from a bullet entering the front of the head, and that all the photos and films have been faked or some such thing, and all the witnesses describing a large defect near the ear were hallucinating. This is preposterous, IMO. The second school includes folks like Gary, Tink, Randy Robertson, and Dr. Doug DeSalles. These men think there was a hole at the top of the head which stretched to the top of the back of the head, and that the autopsy photos, x-rays and Z-film, while misleading in some aspects, are most likely authentic. I am a student at this second school. While I don't agree with these men on everything, we agree that the official medical evidence provides us all we need to demonstrate that the WC was a hoax, and the HSCA a perpetuation of this hoax. 

As far as the quote I provided from Gary...it was not supposed to be controversial. He was merely agreeing that the bone flaps apparent on the photos and x-rays may have opened up at Parkland, and given the impression that the wound was more rear-ward than as shown in the back of the head photos. This should not be a big deal. That so much fuss came as a result just goes to show what we're up against. The spirit of Lifton/Fetzer (essentially, the urge to prove conspiracy by claiming the evidence is fake--which is a de facto acknowledgement that the evidence suggests no conspiracy) lives on. And I refuse to submit to it. Perhaps we need to redefine what is meant by a conspiracy theorist. I am a conspiracy theorist because I firmly believe the official evidence suggests a conspiracy. But Lifton/Fetzer et al are conspiracy theorists because they believe the official evidence suggests no conspiracy, and that this evidence must thereby be fake. IOW, the whole alterationist school is built upon their fundamental belief that the WC and HSCA interpretations of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film are CORRECT. And in that regard, they have more in common with LNs than CTs like myself. 

And that is why they find me a threat, and have made me a target. Because they know if I am correct, and that the official evidence does in fact suggest a conspiracy, well, then, their belief everything was faked makes little sense. 

I am so sorry to have upset their apple cart. OK. OK, Not really...

Edited February 11 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Its not a matter of "weeping".

 

No, of course not. I was just using an old poker idiom that seemed to fit.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

IOW, the whole alterationist school is built upon their fundamental belief that the WC and HSCA interpretations of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film are CORRECT.

 

That's nonsense.

We believe photos were altered because they disagree with what most witnesses saw. And we believe that the WC and HSCA interpretations of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film contradict reality.

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's nonsense.

We believe photos were altered because they disagree with what most witnesses saw. And we believe that the WC and HSCA interpretations of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film contradict reality.

 

You are speaking as a member of a "we" to which you don't really belong, Sandy. 

Lifton believed the interpretations of the autopsy doctors et al were correct--but that the body was altered to fool them.

Then Groden and Livingstone countered with but no it wasn't the body that was altered but the photos showing no hole on the back of the head. And Groden said further that the Z-film does show a blow-out on the back of the head.

And then Lifton and Fetzer et al said but no the Z-film does not show a blow-out on the back of the head, so it must also be fake.

And then Horne came up and said yeah the body was altered but not to fool the doctors, as they were the ones actually altering the body. 

And then I said huh well no one is really talking about what the evidence shows, and spent years reading a hundred thousand or more pages of medical texts and forensics articles.

And, guess what, the supposedly altered evidence was proof for conspiracy all the freakin' time. 

Edited February 12 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

20 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And, guess what, the supposedly altered evidence was proof for conspiracy all the freakin' time. 

You appear to labor under the impression the Lone Nut cover-up was meticulously planned, rather than a contingency not completely thought through.

Just because the SBT doesn’t work with phony measurements — taken in violation of several autopsy protocols — doesn’t make them true.

Edited February 12 by Cliff Varnell

[Aaron Sharpe]

On 2/7/2024 at 3:45 AM, Pat Speer said:

The case for conspiracy is strong even without the head wound evidence. Maybe even stronger. 

But a case for conspiracy that embraces the head wound evidence--and points out that the wounds depicted in the photos and Z-film are inconsistent with the WC's shooting scenario, and strongly suggestive--proof really--of two heads wounds, and thus two shooters, is a sure winner, IMO. 

Pat, 

You are the world's worst at PR. Why did you not direct me to your website, which is frankly breathtaking. Sincerely, one of the most comprehensive JFKa sites I've ever come across in style, organization, and content. It's really something. 

I've spent quite a bit of time reading your Reason to Doubt chapter. Not sure I'm ready to abandon belief in the existence of a rear head blow-out, but I do plan to read the Reason to Believe chapter (and many others after that). I look forward to reading your take on Oswald's paper bag, which is something that's always bothered me.

I will cede one point: The case for a conspiracy in this murder is plenty strong even without wading into the waters of photo, x-ray, and video alteration. In fact, spelunking into these rabbit holes (even if there is something there, plenty there) might repel a lot of "normies" (those who haven't spent a lot of time looking into the assassination in detail) who would otherwise quickly accept conspiracy at face value. 

For now, I cannot discount the likelihood of a large rear exit wound. Perhaps I am biased toward particular witnesses, but then what is the point of credibility? The Parkland witnesses are among the most credible people in the history of credibility. While anyone, including learned professionals, can certainly make a mistake (or, more cynically, spin tales for notoriety or conformity), I've always found Dr. McClelland in particular to be perhaps the most believable witness in this entire affair. I again came across a video of him just this morning relating in great detail the damage to the back of the head and the cerebellum he saw coming out of the wound there. Considering the time he spent and his position at the table in Trauma One, it's extremely difficult to believe he could have imagined this wound. 

The back-of-the-head autopsy photo is just extraordinarily problematic.