Hit List-- The Systematic Murders of JFK Witnesses

[Bill Fite]

37 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:

That’s what I meant by corrupting the police and coroners, if needed.

ok understood  thanks

[Pat Speer]

On 7/31/2024 at 10:45 PM, Robert Morrow said:

My *opinion* is that there was a large gaping hole in the lower back of JFK's head. This was at least a blow out hole from a shot from the Grassy Knoll and maybe also a near simultaneous shot from the rear (maybe).

I discount the change in opinion of Carrico and Jenkins because Gerald Posner (and whoever else) was playing mind games with them showing them doctored/fabricated/altered/false photos and head X-rays. That is like being lied to.

When you have a coup, and the government is involved, and if Lyndon Johnson was involved (and he was) ruthless fabrication of fake evidence and ruthless destruction of real evidence will occur.

So I think it is a mistake to believe the changes of opinions of Doctors Carrico and Jenkins.

I also do not think there was a "mass hallucination" of witnesses who only dreamed they saw a large gaping hole in the back of JFK's head (witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda and Diana Bowman, the nurse who cleaned up JFK). The probability that all of these different people from different organizations Sibert (FBI), Clint Hill (Secret Service) Diane Bowman (nurser), doctors, x-ray techs, were wrong is slim. It is the weight of numbers like in "Me Too" sex abuse case. If 30 different women who don't know each other all say you are an abusive sex pervert, you probably are.

If 25-30 people (not 2 or 3) all say there was a large blow out wound (or even entrance wound) in the lower rear of JFK's head, then there probably was that.

You're relying on second hand info, Robert. 

If you did as much digging into this as you have LBJ you would realize that the supposed occipital blow-out is a con. 

There is no indication whatsoever that people like Carrico, Jenkins, Sibert, and Hill ever inspected  the low occipital area of JFK's skull and thought it was missing. 

What they saw, IMO, is what is shown on the right below...this...

 

Edited August 2 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 8/1/2024 at 6:15 PM, Pat Speer said:

There is no indication whatsoever that people like Carrico, Jenkins, Sibert, and Hill ever inspected  the low occipital area of JFK's skull and thought it was missing. 

 

Oh really? Here's what they said. (Note that the words occipital and cerebellar refer to areas LOW in the back.)

 

CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD:

In his first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura." (6H6)

 

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)

 

FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT:

In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA Sibert claimed, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head.", and "...a large head wound in the upper back of the head with a section of the scull (sic) bone missing..." (HSCA REC # 002191)

 

SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL:

Described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

 

On 8/1/2024 at 6:15 PM, Pat Speer said:

What they saw, IMO, is what is shown on the right below...

this...

 

They all described a gaping hole on the back of the head, with both doctors saying it was low enough for cerebellum tissue to be dripping from it.

In contrast, Pat says that what they saw was the back-of-the-head with no wound whatsoever.

Yeah, right Pat. And I have some beach-front property here in Utah that I'd like to sell you.

 

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh really? Here's what they said. (Note that the words occipital and cerebellar refer to areas LOW in the back.)

 

CHARLES JAMES CARRICO, MD:

In his first mention of JFK's skull wound to the Warren Commission on 3/25/64, Carrico said, "There seemed to be a 4 to 5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue." (6H3) And... "The (skull) wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the right occipitoparietal area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura." (6H6)

 

MARION THOMAS JENKINS, MD:

In a contemporaneous note dated 11-22-63, Jenkins described "a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) (sic), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound." (WC--Exhibit #392)

 

FBI AGENT JAMES SIBERT:

In an affidavit prepared for the HSCA Sibert claimed, "The head wound was in the upper back of the head.", and "...a large head wound in the upper back of the head with a section of the scull (sic) bone missing..." (HSCA REC # 002191)

 

SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL:

Described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

 

 

They all described a gaping hole on the back of the head, with both doctors saying it was low enough for cerebellum tissue to be dripping from it.

In contrast, Pat says that what they saw was the back-of-the-head with no wound whatsoever.

Yeah, right Pat. And I have some beach-front property here in Utah that I'd like to sell you.

 

I should have known you would go back and pull out the same old cherry-picked stuff. 

Remember... even McClelland said he failed to suspect the shot came from the front prior to his viewing the Zapruder film... 

Well, this is important because Mantik and his minions propose there was a wound too large to be an entrance wound in a location inconsistent with its being an exit wound for a shot fired from behind. In their view this wound MUST have been an exit wound for a shot fired from in front. 

Well, think about it. In proposing these witnesses failed to identify an obvious exit wound for a shot fired from the front, the Lifton, Fetzer, Mantik, Horne school of JFK silliness holds these men were either too stupid or too ascared to state what is obvious to anyone. 

Now I have talked with Lifton and Fetzer about this over the years and both of them told me that the prime Parkland witnesses--essentially Carrico, Baxter, Perry, Jenkins, and Clark--and even people like Hill, were scared little rabbits and liars. 

Do you agree? Are the doctors who got the best look at Parkland who went on to describe a wound seemingly on the back of the head in their early statements cowards and liars for not stepping up and  arguing with the conclusions of the Warren Commission?

Or maybe just maybe the wound they saw was NOT in a location which would lead them to immediately assume the shot came from the front?

Edited August 3 by Pat Speer

[Joe Bauer]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL:

Described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)

If Clint Hill were shown the top left photo that we are all seeing above...what would he say?

Uh, well, yes...this is exactly what I saw when I first looked down at the president's head?

"The right rear portion of his head was missing."? And what this picture shows is correct?

Or might he say the gaping open wound with his brain exposed he observed was definitely farther back?

If the Z film wasn't altered, what I have seen a thousand times was that bone flap that is shown in the above left side photo being blown out and exactly were that photo shows it to be.

But this is clearly not "the right rear portion" of JFK's head. It's more like the right upper-mid level side of JFK's skull.

Hill is still alive. Can't someone show him the photos above and simply ask him if what these two pics show is what he saw when he first looked down at JFK's obliterated skull?

Maybe he will look at the pics and say something like... "uh...I was wrong. The bone flap hole "is" the "gaping wound" that I saw."?

Or, maybe Hill will say "this isn't what I saw."   ???

 

Edited August 3 by Joe Bauer

[Paul Cummings]

On 8/1/2024 at 8:15 PM, Pat Speer said:

You're relying on second hand info, Robert. 

If you did as much digging into this as you have LBJ you would realize that the supposed occipital blow-out is a con. 

There is no indication whatsoever that people like Carrico, Jenkins, Sibert, and Hill ever inspected  the low occipital area of JFK's skull and thought it was missing. 

What they saw, IMO, is what is shown on the right below...this...

 

Still going to the well with this photo? You'll use this instead of the doctors testimony?

[Joe Bauer]

Has Clint Hill seen the top left photo above?

Has Hill been quoted as saying the skull bone damage the photo depicts is the "one and the same wound" he saw with his inches away close up view of JFK's head that afternoon while first seeing JFK's body and head slumped into Jackie Kennedy's lap in his moving car leap into the back seat and then while draping his coat over JFK at Parkland 5 minutes later?

Shouldn't Hill's sworn WC testimony regarding exactly what he saw of JFK's head wounds from just inches away that day be just as valid as any others who also saw JFK's head wound from mere inches away?

Edited August 3 by Joe Bauer

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Paul Cummings said:

Still going to the well with this photo? You'll use this instead of the doctors testimony?

If you look at the photo on the right--the one in which the scalp is not being held up--you will see that the top of the back of the head is not visible. This is consistent with the x-rays. The crown of the skull was fractured but still attached to the scalp. It fell into the skull in this photo, but would flop out when JFK was on his back. This would make the wound appear far more rearward that it is shown on the photo at left--in which the skull flap is held up.

A number of witnesses viewing the so-called back of the head photo have said they thought the photo at left was deceptive and that scalp was pulled up to conceal the hole. The implication was that the hole was where scalp is visible on the photo. My photo exhibit proves they were right. The top part of the scalp in the photo at left would not have been seen by those viewing JFK while he was lying on his back. Those pushing that the hole was LOW on the skull however have considered this treason, because their pet theory holds that the low back of the head in this photo was added in as a matte--something which has been proved to be untrue. 

As we've seen, however, countless times in recent years, people generally prefer the myth to the facts, when the facts might force them to admit they'd been duped. 

 

Edited August 3 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

If Clint Hill were shown the top left photo that we are all seeing above...what would he say?

Uh, well, yes...this is exactly what I saw when I first looked down at the president's head?

"The right rear portion of his head was missing."? And what this picture shows is correct?

Or might he say the gaping open wound with his brain exposed he observed was definitely farther back?

If the Z film wasn't altered, what I have seen a thousand times was that bone flap that is shown in the above left side photo being blown out and exactly were that photo shows it to be.

But this is clearly not "the right rear portion" of JFK's head. It's more like the right upper-mid level side of JFK's skull.

Hill is still alive. Can't someone show him the photos above and simply ask him if what these two pics show is what he saw when he first looked down at JFK's obliterated skull?

Maybe he will look at the pics and say something like... "uh...I was wrong. The bone flap hole "is" the "gaping wound" that I saw."?

Or, maybe Hill will say "this isn't what I saw."   ???

 

Thanks, Joe.

Hill would almost certainly say that is what he saw. He has pointed out the wound location many times over the years, and he inevitably points to a location on the top and side of the head above and behind the right ear--where skull is obviously missing in the photo.  

[Joe Bauer]

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Thanks, Joe.

Hill would almost certainly say that is what he saw. He has pointed out the wound location many times over the years, and he inevitably points to a location on the top and side of the head above and behind the right ear--where skull is obviously missing in the photo.  

I see. Hills hand locations are pretty specific to the upper right side "middle" head wound location in the pic.

Even farther out from the ear towards JFK's face.

STILL....Hill said so many times early on and in his WC testimony the specific description..."the right rear portion of his head was missing."

When Hill touches the area of his own skull that are not even the straight middle line of the right side and are even to the right of that line...

I can't totally reconcile that even Hill can see that blow out area is nowhere near the right rear area of the skull. It is a middle right side location.

So, when Hill says "the right rear portion of his head was missing" he is saying this was the bone flap blow out area? 

Using the term "right rear" kind of throws you when you see him touching the upper middle right side of his head.

[Paul Cummings]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

If you look at the photo on the right--the one in which the scalp is not being held up--you will see that the top of the back of the head is not visible. This is consistent with the x-rays. The crown of the skull was fractured but still attached to the scalp. It fell into the skull in this photo, but would flop out when JFK was on his back. This would make the wound appear far more rearward that it is shown on the photo at left--in which the skull flap is held up.

A number of witnesses viewing the so-called back of the head photo have said they thought the photo at left was deceptive and that scalp was pulled up to conceal the hole. The implication was that the hole was where scalp is visible on the photo. My photo exhibit proves they were right. The top part of the scalp in the photo at left would not have been seen by those viewing JFK while he was lying on his back. Those pushing that the hole was LOW on the skull however have considered this treason, because their pet theory holds that the low back of the head in this photo was added in as a matte--something which has been proved to be untrue. 

As we've seen, however, countless times in recent years, people generally prefer the myth to the facts, when the facts might force them to admit they'd been duped. 

 

I don't prefer myth over truth. That photo isn't JFKs head wound.

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, Paul Cummings said:

I don't prefer myth over truth. That photo isn't JFKs head wound.

Which photo? 

You should realize that the photo at the left is the one people think is fake, and the photo at right is a photo of JFK's back, with the head (which is frequently cropped off the photo when published) in the photo as an after-thought. Several years back I discovered that the morph gifs of the back of the head photos proved the top of the back of the head was a flap that was being held up by Boswell's hand. Well, I reasoned, if this is true then this flap would not be covering up the top of the back of the head when the hand was not holding It up. I then remembered that there was a version of the back photo in which the head can be seen. I performed the comparison I have shared and voila! it's clear the top of the back of the head in the boh photo is being held up by the hand, and that the photos show the same body.

SO... if the photo at right--which perfectly matches the other photo except for the skull flap's being held up--is of a different body--then that would necessitate the evil "they" using a body with the top of the back of the head missing... which makes no freakin' sense if the purpose of this fakery was to convince people the shot came from the rear and exit from the front of the head. 

[Pat Speer]

55 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I see. Hills hand locations are pretty specific to the upper right side "middle" head wound location in the pic.

Even farther out from the ear towards JFK's face.

STILL....Hill said so many times early on and in his WC testimony the specific description..."the right rear portion of his head was missing."

When Hill touches the area of his own skull that are not even the straight middle line of the right side and are even to the right of that line...

I can't totally reconcile that even Hill can see that blow out area is nowhere near the right rear area of the skull. It is a middle right side location.

So, when Hill says "the right rear portion of his head was missing" he is saying this was the bone flap blow out area? 

Using the term "right rear" kind of throws you when you see him touching the upper middle right side of his head.

Hill continues to say the right rear portion was missing while pointing it out in the location shown above. I believe he is talking about the top of the head when viewed from above. In such case the area he points out as missing was the right rear portion. 

[Paul Cummings]

15 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Which photo? 

You should realize that the photo at the left is the one people think is fake, and the photo at right is a photo of JFK's back, with the head (which is frequently cropped off the photo when published) in the photo as an after-thought. Several years back I discovered that the morph gifs of the back of the head photos proved the top of the back of the head was a flap that was being held up by Boswell's hand. Well, I reasoned, if this is true then this flap would not be covering up the top of the back of the head when the hand was not holding It up. I then remembered that there was a version of the back photo in which the head can be seen. I performed the comparison I have shared and voila! it's clear the top of the back of the head in the boh photo is being held up by the hand, and that the photos show the same body.

SO... if the photo at right--which perfectly matches the other photo except for the skull flap's being held up--is of a different body--then that would necessitate the evil "they" using a body with the top of the back of the head missing... which makes no freakin' sense if the purpose of this fakery was to convince people the shot came from the rear and exit from the front of the head. 

The left. Your research is flawed if you've come to the conclusion it's JFK's headwound.

Edited August 3 by Paul Cummings

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

The left. Your research is flawed if you've come to the conclusion it's JFK's headwound.

The experts hired to study the photos concluded the photos are consistent with one another. 

Those viewing the body have for the most part said the photos depict what they saw...with one major exception--the back of the head photo. A number of those viewing the photos have said they thought the scalp was being pulled up to conceal the rear-most portion of the wound. 

The comparison I've provided proves they were correct. 

There is a faction in JFK-land that wants you to believe the witnesses thought there was a hole in the middle of the back of the head, and that the top of the back of the head was intact. Years ago, Millie Cranor, Jim D's go-to person on the medical evidence, was asked to debunk my website or some such thing. In any event, her main complaint was that I spent so much time arguing against this low boh blow-out, when she claimed no one was really pushing this. She failed to realize that the Lifton Fetzer Mantik Horne wing has been pushing this for decades.