On The Trail Of Delusion

[Martin Weidmann]

The McAdams site had some revealing insights on Gary Aguilar's "Back-of-the-Head" witness claims. Here's a few ...

Witness		Aguilar's Claims		McAdams Site
Dr Marion Jenkins		skull wound rearward on the right side		So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's not sure which.
Dr James Carrico		Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath		As he did with Jenkins, Aguilar ignores the "right side" statement This from 7 HSCA 278. So it seems it was *above* the ear, extending "almost from the crown of the head."
Dr David Osborne		Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull"		But Aguilar does not mention -- perhaps because he's not aware of -- Osborne's interview with the HSCA. It's Record Number 180-10102-10415, Agency File Number 013623.    The document reports "In regard to the head wound Osborne said that there was no question that the bullet entered the back of the head and blew the top off of the head."    Why Aguilar would list so clear a "top of the head" witness as being a "back of the head" witness is puzzling.
Capt James Stover		Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull"		The interesting thing about this is the fact that Aguilar could classify a witness who quite clearly said "top of the head" as a "back of the head" witness. "Stover recalled seeing . . . a severe wound to the top of the head."
Dr Robert Grossman		He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput		So while Groden and Livingstone admit that Grossman remembered seeing two wounds, the "large defect in the parietal area above the right ear" is tossed down the Memory Hole. The wound that Grossman remembered in the occiput has become, in Groden and Livingstone's retelling, the "large" wound. [When Dr Clark showed Grossman the President's head, Grossman recalled]: "Then it was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited. Globe interview also has Grossman saying "I could have been wrong" about the smaller ("about one-and-a-quarter inches in diameter") occiput wound.
Dr Charles Baxter		[In] a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." [In testimony], that sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44)		Or Baxter has simply decided that "occipital" was wrong. Baxter [in testimony] then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off."
Dr Paul Peters		"...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput... It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect.		[At] the National Archives in 1988 to view the autopsy photos and x-rays for NOVA, he said: "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong."

Seems a desperate attempt to discredit these witnesses....

[Jon Banks]

Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?

It seems to me that Eisenhower was worried about a type of Congressional/military industrial alliance where defense spending and arms programs became a type of jobs program or politically beneficial program for some groups against the interests of the country. Sort of what Madison warned about when he talked about "factions" influencing policy too much.

In the same speech, he said this: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."

Not exactly a peacenik <g>.

As I mentioned in the other thread, Eisenhower gets too much credit for his reluctance the use military force. Covert Ops expanded under his Presidency and he played a big role in the US getting committed to Vietnam (and later lobbied for military escalation during the Johnson years).

[Bill Chapman]

And since when does one have to be a professional to see where a hole is and how big it is?

FYI, somebody said many of the senior doctors were away at some sort of conference, which by necessity increased the proportion of interns in the OR that day

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald wanted historical credit not legal responsibility for his heinous crimes.

And you know this how? Talk to the dead much, do you?

Are you really suggesting that photos of the person who is accused of killing the President are not "relevant" when they depict him holding the murder weapon and displaying Commie literature? 

Of course, the photos are relevant, but maybe not in the way you think they are. What forensic evidence is there that the weapon Oswald is holding in the photograph is in fact the murder weapon or, for that matter, even the same weapon that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Even most CTers disagree with that since they allege the photos were faked to make Oswald appear guilty (i.e. they were incriminating).

Personally I think the photos are probably real, but the backstory is most likely bogus. How else can it be that a BY photo was found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage room, which not only was of far better quality than the others  but also had writing on the back from a person who was never identified. In a scenario where Oswald had the photos taken by his wife and developed them himself at his place of work, why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos and why in the world would he give a copy to George DeMohrenschildt, if the latter had nothing to do with any of it. Do you know of many would be assassins who, after allegedly committing attempted murder, gives an incriminating photo of himself holding the murder weapon to a man he hardly knew?

Oswald thought he had all the time in the world to come clean.  The one card that he still held after his arrest was his confession.  He wasn't going to give that up within 48 hours before he even had a lawyer to negotiate a deal to save his hide from Old Sparky.

Are you psychic or just making stuff up because it's convenient?

'why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos'
_Oswald was not an expert. He was a trainee. Problem solved. Booyah.

[Martin Weidmann]

'why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos'
_Oswald was not an expert. He was a trainee. Problem solved. Booyah.

One of the best LN oversimplifications I have ever seen. 
It illustrates exactly just how superficial their way of thinking really is.

[Bill Chapman]

One of the best LN oversimplifications I have ever seen. 
It illustrates exactly just how superficial their way of thinking really is.

It indicates just how overly-cluttered Oswald arse kissers noggins are.

[Bill Chapman]

Good idea to STFU unless you can prove Oswald developed the print(s).

Good idea to CC that knee-jerk demo to Weidmann, since he was the one JAQing the idea of Oswald as print expert..

[Martin Weidmann]

Good idea to CC that knee-jerk demo to Weidmann, since he was the one JAQing the idea of Oswald as print expert..

When you make up stuff, at least try to make it somewhat believable. Since you didn't, I'm sure you can show us all where exactly I said that Oswald was a print expert?

Or alternatively, be exposed, yet again, as the liar you truly are.