JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Carter Justice on March 05, 2024, 09:16:41 PM
-
I do not believe that LHO was the lone assassin of JFK. However, I can't understand why anyone in the government present day, would think it was necessary to keep the truth hidden. Anyone who was in a position of authority from when the plot was executed in 1963, has most likely passed. I know that the Government wants to keep everyone believing that they would never participate in something like this. Still, in today's age of whistleblowing, I think there would be more benefit to the politicians today to release the facts. They could say "See, they were bad, we are good." What are your opinions?
-
The "Deep State" Never reveals anything. Today, we find out through a FOIA and court battles that the US Govt has already flown over 300,000 illegals into the USA. "Covert" mandates endless silence.
-
I do not believe that LHO was the lone assassin of JFK. However, I can't understand why anyone in the government present day, would think it was necessary to keep the truth hidden. Anyone who was in a position of authority from when the plot was executed in 1963, has most likely passed. I know that the Government wants to keep everyone believing that they would never participate in something like this. Still, in today's age of whistleblowing, I think there would be more benefit to the politicians today to release the facts. They could say "See, they were bad, we are good." What are your opinions?
There never was a conspiracy because the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Oswald by his lonesome is the guilty party. A conspiracy narrative becomes necessary only when the proponent of a theory lacks any credible evidence to support their theory. For example, UFO believers have to argue that men in black are forever covering up discoveries of aliens to explain why no credible evidence exists to prove their theory that we are visited by green men from Mars. A government conspiracy is their answer. Same deal with the JFK assassination. CTers can't prove the involvement of others. They blame this on a conspiracy to frame Oswald and cover up the evidence. An endless cycle in which the inability to prove their theory is due to the cover up. They go hand in hand. Some governmental agencies contribute to this cycle of lunacy with their culture of secrecy. The CIA, FBI, and other government agencies have nothing to gain by being transparent. They always land on the side of nondisclosure. Arguably, there may still be informants in organized crime, Cuba, and Russia who were contacted for any information on Oswald and his possible connections to foreign governments or organized crime. The identity of those informants and their families could place them at risk even decades later. Nevertheless, you do pose a good question. Why do the CTers who go on and on and on here claiming they have solid "evidence" or arguments based on the record that cast doubt on Oswald's guilt never present those claims to current day law enforcement or media outlets? If they really believed that they had evidence in the homicide of the president of the United States, wouldn't they want to make their case to the authorities? But no. They forever hide on Internet forums. That lends a psychological insight that they may not really believe their own nonsense. They are caught up in some type of compulsion disorder that they can exercise on Internet forums without consequences such as being exposed as a potential mental case. It can be amusing, however, because they take their "evidence" very seriously and claim it can't be refuted but never accept the offer to reach out to the Dallas Police or other law enforcement agency. The contrast between their arrogance and insecurity is more interesting than their often idiotic theories.
-
There never was a conspiracy because the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Oswald by his lonesome is the guilty party. A conspiracy narrative becomes necessary only when the proponent of a theory lacks any credible evidence to support their theory. For example, UFO believers have to argue that men in black are forever covering up discoveries of aliens to explain why no credible evidence exists to prove their theory that we are visited by green men from Mars. A government conspiracy is their answer. Same deal with the JFK assassination. CTers can't prove the involvement of others. They blame this on a conspiracy to frame Oswald and cover up the evidence. An endless cycle in which the inability to prove their theory is due to the cover up. They go hand in hand. Some governmental agencies contribute to this cycle of lunacy with their culture of secrecy. The CIA, FBI, and other government agencies have nothing to gain by being transparent. They always land on the side of nondisclosure. Arguably, there may still be informants in organized crime, Cuba, and Russia who were contacted for any information on Oswald and his possible connections to foreign governments or organized crime. The identity of those informants and their families could place them at risk even decades later. Nevertheless, you do pose a good question. Why do the CTers who go on and on and on here claiming they have solid "evidence" or arguments based on the record that cast doubt on Oswald's guilt never present those claims to current day law enforcement or media outlets? If they really believed that they had evidence in the homicide of the president of the United States, wouldn't they want to make their case to the authorities? But no. They forever hide on Internet forums. That lends a psychological insight that they may not really believe their own nonsense. They are caught up in some type of compulsion disorder that they can exercise on Internet forums without consequences such as being exposed as a potential mental case. It can be amusing, however, because they take their "evidence" very seriously and claim it can't be refuted but never accept the offer to reach out to the Dallas Police or other law enforcement agency. The contrast between their arrogance and insecurity is more interesting than their often idiotic theories.
Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE has proven the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE". This same SCIENCE is admitted as "Evidence" inside courtrooms across the USA on a daily basis. The SBT being contrived inside a basement with a mock auto backseat and a school room pointer has always been nothing more than a Doc Brown visual aid.
-
I do not believe that LHO was the lone assassin of JFK. However, I can't understand why anyone in the government present day, would think it was necessary to keep the truth hidden. Anyone who was in a position of authority from when the plot was executed in 1963, has most likely passed. I know that the Government wants to keep everyone believing that they would never participate in something like this. Still, in today's age of whistleblowing, I think there would be more benefit to the politicians today to release the facts. They could say "See, they were bad, we are good." What are your opinions?
Since the assassination we've had a series of revelations/exposures by Congress and the media into government conspiracies/corruption. We all know the sad list: Vietnam, Watergate, Cointelpro, the CIA's "Family Jewels." Many of these revelations came from whistle blowers or evidence found by Congressional investigators or reporters. So the idea that all of these other conspiracies, conspiracies which would be smaller than a JFK assassination plot, would be discovered but this larger, more sinister assassination plot kept secret belies common sense. And we are talking about two or three generations of Americans over half a century? Nobody exposed this? For fame, money, ethics? No one?
The famous investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the idea of a CIA/government conspiracy, one promoted by Oliver Stone among others, in the assassination is absurd. It can't be done. There would be too many people involved, too many agencies and divisions and personalities; it's simply not possible to plan such a thing and carry it out and keep it all quiet. And I think Hersh would know something about how the CIA and other security agencies operate.
-
Since the assassination we've had a series of revelations/exposures by Congress and the media into government conspiracies/corruption. We all know the sad list: Vietnam, Watergate, Cointelpro, the CIA's "Family Jewels." Many of these revelations came from whistle blowers or evidence found by Congressional investigators or reporters. So the idea that all of these other conspiracies, conspiracies which would be smaller than a JFK assassination plot, would be discovered but this larger, more sinister assassination plot kept secret belies common sense. And we are talking about two or three generations of Americans over half a century? Nobody exposed this? For fame, money, ethics? No one?
The famous investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said the idea of a CIA/government conspiracy, one promoted by Oliver Stone among others, in the assassination is absurd. It can't be done. There would be too many people involved, too many agencies and divisions and personalities; it's simply not possible to plan such a thing and carry it out and keep it all quiet. And I think Hersh would know something about how the CIA and other security agencies operate.
It just became public knowledge that the US Govt flew 320,000 illegal aliens into 43 different airports over the course of the last yr. This clandestine "stuff" is Not new. With regard to, "...the idea of a CIA/government conspiracy, one promoted by Oliver Stone among others, in the assassination is absurd", displays memory loss or ignorance of "Operation Mongoose".
-
It just became public knowledge that the US Govt flew 320,000 illegal aliens into 43 different airports over the course of the last yr. This clandestine "stuff" is Not new. With regard to, "...the idea of a CIA/government conspiracy, one promoted by Oliver Stone among others, in the assassination is absurd", displays memory loss or ignorance of "Operation Mongoose".
Operation Mongoose was run out of the Kennedy White House. It was pushed by the Kennedys, especially RFK, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. This was no "Deep State" rogue operation; it was undertaken on orders of the President. There are entire books written on it; it's been exposed for decades. In any case, I don't know what this has to do with this supposed coverup of the assassination of JFK but it's your call (covert acts ordered by a President against a hostile foreign government during a "Cold War" is not in any way similar to the treasonous murder of your *own* president and then a half century coverup).
Once again: the assassination is the most investigated event/crime in US history. Multiple generations of Americans in government and in the media investigated it directly and indirectly. And multiple generations of Americans have served in the various agencies over the past 60 years such as the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon. The idea that you could keep the conspiracy quiet after all of this, all of these investigations, all of these men and women going into and out of the government is preposterous.
Finally, I have no idea how pointing to other government conspiracies that we know about is evidence that there was a conspiracy in the assassination that has been covered up. How does pointing out *other* exposed/revealed conspiracies, like Operation Mongoose, show that the JFK conspiracy has been hidden? In fact, it shows the opposite. All of these other revelations show how impossible it would be to suppress a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. People talk, investigations uncover it, documents are found. That's what happens.
-
The last comprehensive government investigation into the assassination concluded there was a conspiracy.
It was called the House Select Committee on Assassinations.
Are all the Nutters stuck in the 1960's?
-
Operation Mongoose was run out of the Kennedy White House. It was pushed by the Kennedys, especially RFK, after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. This was no "Deep State" rogue operation; it was undertaken on orders of the President. There are entire books written on it; it's been exposed for decades. In any case, I don't know what this has to do with this supposed coverup of the assassination of JFK but it's your call (covert acts ordered by a President against a hostile foreign government during a "Cold War" is not in any way similar to the treasonous murder of your *own* president and then a half century coverup).
Once again: the assassination is the most investigated event/crime in US history. Multiple generations of Americans in government and in the media investigated it directly and indirectly. And multiple generations of Americans have served in the various agencies over the past 60 years such as the CIA, the FBI and the Pentagon. The idea that you could keep the conspiracy quiet after all of this, all of these investigations, all of these men and women going into and out of the government is preposterous.
Finally, I have no idea how pointing to other government conspiracies that we know about is evidence that there was a conspiracy in the assassination that has been covered up. How does pointing out *other* exposed/revealed conspiracies, like Operation Mongoose, show that the JFK conspiracy has been hidden? In fact, it shows the opposite. All of these other revelations show how impossible it would be to suppress a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. People talk, investigations uncover it, documents are found. That's what happens.
You miss the point. The issue was whether the GOVT would ever work in concert with the MAFIA. It's obviously been done before.
If you do Not believe a JFK Assassination Conspiracy could have been kept under wraps for so long, tell me what DPD Motorcycle Cop we are seeing on the Darnell and Martin Films. Without a doubt, that is NOT Officer Haygood. The Haygood documented 12:35 radio transmission from his motorcycle DQ's his being that cop. I am waiting on you to ID that DPD motorcycle cop.
-
You miss the point. The issue was whether the GOVT would ever work in concert with the MAFIA. It's obviously been done before.
If you do Not believe a JFK Assassination Conspiracy could have been kept under wraps for so long, tell me what DPD Motorcycle Cop we are seeing on the Darnell and Martin Films. Without a doubt, that is NOT Officer Haygood. The Haygood documented 12:35 radio transmission from his motorcycle DQ's his being that cop. I am waiting on you to ID that DPD motorcycle cop.
Just because the government has done bad things is not evidence that they were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. After six decades there is no credible evidence of such. Steve's point is a good one. Many other government conspiracies were quickly exposed including arguably very simple ones like the Watergate break in and cover up. If the sitting president couldn't cover up Watergate involving a handful of numbskulls, then there is no possibility that an ongoing cover up of complex conspiracy to assassinate JFK continues. And why would current governmental officials perpetuate any such cover up? It's laughable. The cover up claim is just an excuse for those who have been unable to provide credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than LHO in this crime. They need a cover up to explain why there is no evidence.
-
Just because the government has done bad things is not evidence that they were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. After six decades there is no credible evidence of such. Steve's point is a good one. Many other government conspiracies were quickly exposed including arguably very simple ones like the Watergate break in and cover up. If the sitting president couldn't cover up Watergate involving a handful of numbskulls, then there is no possibility that an ongoing cover up of complex conspiracy to assassinate JFK continues. And why would current governmental officials perpetuate any such cover up? It's laughable. The cover up claim is just an excuse for those who have been unable to provide credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than LHO in this crime. They need a cover up to explain why there is no evidence.
Now we are getting into the "News" Media being complicit in a Cover-up.
And while we are on the subject of a Cover-up, I have recently discovered that the DPD Motorcycle Cop seen Walking across the entire railroad yard and then Down the Elm St Ext toward the TSBD is NOT DPD Motorcycle Officer Haygood as has been rubber stamped for the last 60+years. It is a FACT that Officer Haygood made a Documented 12:35 police radio transmission from his motorcycle on the Elm St curb. With 12:30 being the time of the Kill Shot, 5:00 is is Not enough time for Haygood to have: (1) rode his motorcycle down Elm St, *Darnell/Wiegman films*, (2) Dump his motorcycle at the Elm St curb, * Couch film* (3) Struggle to stand his motorcycle upright, *Couch Film*, (4) Run UP and ACROSS the grassy knoll, *Bell Film*, (5) Stop and then Stand atop the Triple Underpass, *Cabluck & Cancellare photos*, (6) WALK across the entire train yard, *Darnell and Martin Films*, (7) WALK down the Elm St Ext toward the TSBD, *Darnell and Martin Films* and then make his 12:35 radio transmission. This 12:35 transmission was Documented during the WC questioning of Haygood along with Haygood corroborating having made that same call. It is physically impossible for Haygood to do ALL of the above and be back at his motorcycle to make his 12:35 transmission. Which begs the question as to WHO is that alleged DPD Motorcycle Cop WALKING across the train yard and then making a (R) hand turn and WALKING down the Elm St Ext toward the TSBD. To date, there is NO DPD Cop known to have been inside that train yard less than 5 minutes after the Kill Shot. Plus, exactly Where is this Unknown DPD Cop's Motorcycle? For something like this to stand Unquestioned and Now Unanswered for 60 yrs is proof of a cover-up. That alleged Unknown DPD Motorcycle Cop is only a small piece of a much, much larger story.
-
You miss the point. The issue was whether the GOVT would ever work in concert with the MAFIA. It's obviously been done before.
If you do Not believe a JFK Assassination Conspiracy could have been kept under wraps for so long, tell me what DPD Motorcycle Cop we are seeing on the Darnell and Martin Films. Without a doubt, that is NOT Officer Haygood. The Haygood documented 12:35 radio transmission from his motorcycle DQ's his being that cop. I am waiting on you to ID that DPD motorcycle cop.
Yes, Royell, I think we all know that governments - not just the US - sometimes work with unsavory people out of perceived national security interest/concerns. In WWII, the FDR Administration worked with the Mob (Lucky Luciano's group) to protect US ports and facilities from Nazi sabotage. Hell, in WWII we worked with the mass murderer Josef Stalin, a person who made the mob look like Boy Scouts, in our interests. And then after WWII we allowed Nazi and Japanese war criminals, including Emperor Hirohito, to go unpunished out of national interest. It's a nasty world out there.
But none of this has anything to do with any coverup of the assassination over the past 60 years. The fact that "the government" did bad things "A" and "B" does not show they did bad thing "C" and "D". This is one of the basic problems with the conspiracy believers; they think exposing things like Operation Northwoods or Mongoose somehow is evidence of a government conspiracy behind the assassination. It simply doesn't. I can cite the horrible things that Castro did. Executing his opponents, suppressing his people. Would that be evidence he was behind the assassination? Of course not.
What does whether Haygood is on the film or not or the person on the radio have to do with a half century old coverup? You think your points proves that multiple generations of people in the government and outside could cover this up? They all would be silent? Nobody talked? After all of these investigations?
-
Just because the government has done bad things is not evidence that they were involved in a conspiracy to kill JFK. After six decades there is no credible evidence of such. Steve's point is a good one. Many other government conspiracies were quickly exposed including arguably very simple ones like the Watergate break in and cover up. If the sitting president couldn't cover up Watergate involving a handful of numbskulls, then there is no possibility that an ongoing cover up of complex conspiracy to assassinate JFK continues. And why would current governmental officials perpetuate any such cover up? It's laughable. The cover up claim is just an excuse for those who have been unable to provide credible evidence of the involvement of anyone other than LHO in this crime. They need a cover up to explain why there is no evidence.
If you visit the conspiracy sites you'll quickly see they are filled with posts about such ugly/nasty thing, real or imagined, the government did. Mongoose, Northwoods, MK-Ultra, this or that bad guy that was connected to the CIA or government. It's endless. They seem to think that if they can prove how horrible things were, how such evil people were around, that that is evidence they murdered JFK. And JFK was going to end all of that nastiness but was stopped before he could. They did bad thing "A" and "B" so they did bad thing "C", murdering JFK.
As I said above, I can prove that Castro and his government did bad things too. Execute political dissenters, torture and arrest opponents, support bloody dictators like Mengistu. Is that evidence that he was behind the assassination? Of course not. The conspiracists who say the CIA did it would dismiss it out of hand. Rightly so.
As to coverup claims: It simply can't be done. And pointing to other conspiracies - which were exposed - is contradicting the conspiracy claim that this conspiracy - far more complex and extensive - was somehow the one that was kept secret.
-
Yes Royell, I think we all know that governments - not just the US - sometimes work with unsavory people out of perceived national security interest/concerns. In WWII the FDR Administration worked with the Mob (Lucky Luciano's group) to protect US ports and facilities from Nazi sabotage. Hell, in WWII we worked with the mass murderer Josef Stalin in our interests. And after WWII we allowed Nazi and Japanese war criminals, including Emperor Hirohito, to go unpunished out of national interest. It's a nasty world out there.
But none of this has anything to do with any coverup of the assassination over the past 60 years. The fact that "the government" did bad things "A" and "B" does not show they did bad thing "C" and "D". This is one of the basic problems with the conspiracy believers; they think exposing things like Operation Northwoods or Mongoose somehow is evidence of a government conspiracy behind the assassination. It simply doesn't. I can cite the horrible things that Castro did. Executing his opponents, suppressing his people. Would that be evidence he was behind the assassination? Of course not.
What does whether Haygood is on the film or not or the person on the radio have to do with a half century old coverup? You think your points proves that multiple generations of people in the government and outside could cover this up? They all would be silent? Nobody talked? After all of these investigations?
My revelation regarding this NOT being DPD Motorcycle Haygood screams for an explanation. Is that really a different DPD Motocycle Cop? If this individual is Not a legit DPD Motorcycle Cop, we have a Conspiracy. If he is a real DPD Motorcycle Cop, how did he get deep inside the railroad yard within minutes after the Kill Shot? There were reports of a Motorcycle racing UP the Knoll immediately following the Kill Shot. Could this Cop be connected to that? Or, is he an imposture = Conspiracy? This Unknown DPD Motorcycle Cop is a very serious issue.
-
There never was a conspiracy because the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Oswald by his lonesome is the guilty party. A conspiracy narrative becomes necessary only when the proponent of a theory lacks any credible evidence to support their theory. For example, UFO believers have to argue that men in black are forever covering up discoveries of aliens to explain why no credible evidence exists to prove their theory that we are visited by green men from Mars. A government conspiracy is their answer. Same deal with the JFK assassination. CTers can't prove the involvement of others. They blame this on a conspiracy to frame Oswald and cover up the evidence. An endless cycle in which the inability to prove their theory is due to the cover up. They go hand in hand. Some governmental agencies contribute to this cycle of lunacy with their culture of secrecy. The CIA, FBI, and other government agencies have nothing to gain by being transparent. They always land on the side of nondisclosure. Arguably, there may still be informants in organized crime, Cuba, and Russia who were contacted for any information on Oswald and his possible connections to foreign governments or organized crime. The identity of those informants and their families could place them at risk even decades later. Nevertheless, you do pose a good question. Why do the CTers who go on and on and on here claiming they have solid "evidence" or arguments based on the record that cast doubt on Oswald's guilt never present those claims to current day law enforcement or media outlets? If they really believed that they had evidence in the homicide of the president of the United States, wouldn't they want to make their case to the authorities? But no. They forever hide on Internet forums. That lends a psychological insight that they may not really believe their own nonsense. They are caught up in some type of compulsion disorder that they can exercise on Internet forums without consequences such as being exposed as a potential mental case. It can be amusing, however, because they take their "evidence" very seriously and claim it can't be refuted but never accept the offer to reach out to the Dallas Police or other law enforcement agency. The contrast between their arrogance and insecurity is more interesting than their often idiotic theories.
"There never was a conspiracy because the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Oswald by his lonesome is the guilty party"
let us just for a moment say that you are correct . ok . now please explain the following .
the deceptions and lies of the Warren Commission . IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear ) of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK .why did they set out to ignore some witnesses for example Tague ? , Bill newman ? , Brehm ? .why did they set out to discredit other witnesses such as Vicky adams ? .
the deceptions and lies of the clark panel . they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy (the said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot ) , at autopsy the 3 pathologists said the entry wound was near the EOP , just above and to the right of it . this would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears (depending on the size of ones ears of course) and at the center rear of the head .clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up .and despite the vehement protestations of humes that there was never any entry wound in the crown area .
the deceptions and lies of the HSCA . they had witnesses including FBI agents , and bethesda witnesses (not called by the commission ) who told them that JFK had a large wound in the right rear of the head which corroborated the parkland witnesses . yet the HSCA report states that ALL these witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses when we now know from their statements , depositions or testimonies that they did not contradict them at all . so that was a blatant lie .
so if it was simply a lone nut nobody ALL ON HIS HIS OWN , a schmuk who just got lucky , why would the above deceptions and lies be required ? .
-
I do not believe that LHO was the lone assassin of JFK. However, I can't understand why anyone in the government present day, would think it was necessary to keep the truth hidden. Anyone who was in a position of authority from when the plot was executed in 1963, has most likely passed. I know that the Government wants to keep everyone believing that they would never participate in something like this. Still, in today's age of whistleblowing, I think there would be more benefit to the politicians today to release the facts. They could say "See, they were bad, we are good." What are your opinions?
1. The conspiracy involved a very small circle of powerful people and NOT the "government.
2. It isn't clear if Oswald was part of that conspiracy or acting alone by pure coincidence.
3. The government knew that there had been a conspiracy but realised that they had to turn the evidence to point at a lone gunman. They proceeded with the cover up (which had nothing to do with the conspiracy).
4. The government didn't know who the conspirators were.
-
If you visit the conspiracy sites you'll quickly see they are filled with posts about such ugly/nasty thing, real or imagined, the government did. Mongoose, Northwoods, MK-Ultra, this or that bad guy that was connected to the CIA or government. It's endless. They seem to think that if they can prove how horrible things were, how such evil people were around, that that is evidence they murdered JFK. And JFK was going to end all of that nastiness but was stopped before he could. They did bad thing "A" and "B" so they did bad thing "C", murdering JFK.
As I said above, I can prove that Castro and his government did bad things too. Execute political dissenters, torture and arrest opponents, support bloody dictators like Mengistu. Is that evidence that he was behind the assassination? Of course not. The conspiracists who say the CIA did it would dismiss it out of hand. Rightly so.
As to coverup claims: It simply can't be done. And pointing to other conspiracies - which were exposed - is contradicting the conspiracy claim that this conspiracy - far more complex and extensive - was somehow the one that was kept secret.
the question here is regarding cover up , i believe cover up can be shown to be fact . so then the question must be WHY ? what were the reasons to cover up ? .what didnt they want the people to know ? .
-
"There never was a conspiracy because the evidence demonstrates beyond doubt that Oswald by his lonesome is the guilty party"
let us just for a moment say that you are correct . ok . now please explain the following .
the deceptions and lies of the Warren Commission . IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear ) of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK .why did they set out to ignore some witnesses for example Tague ? , Bill newman ? , Brehm ? .why did they set out to discredit other witnesses such as Vicky adams ? .
the deceptions and lies of the clark panel . they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy (the said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot ) , at autopsy the 3 pathologists said the entry wound was near the EOP , just above and to the right of it . this would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears (depending on the size of ones ears of course) and at the center rear of the head .clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up .and despite the vehement protestations of humes that there was never any entry wound in the crown area .
the deceptions and lies of the HSCA . they had witnesses including FBI agents , and bethesda witnesses (not called by the commission ) who told them that JFK had a large wound in the right rear of the head which corroborated the parkland witnesses . yet the HSCA report states that ALL these witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses when we now know from their statements , depositions or testimonies that they did not contradict them at all . so that was a blatant lie .
so if it was simply a lone nut nobody ALL ON HIS HIS OWN , a schmuk who just got lucky , why would the above deceptions and lies be required ? .
9 days have passed and not one LN has an answer to the above questions ? . not that i am surprised to see no LN response .
-
As you know, the conclusion of a probable conspiracy by the HSCA, in the late 70's was based on the now-totally debunked acoustical evidence, where a group of scientists proclaimed "to a 95% possibility, there were a shot from the Grassy Knoll." Our very own in-house Steve Barber was the first individual to point out the flaws of the acoustical evidence. So, therefore with the acoustical evidence being emphatically invalid the conclusion is irrefutabley "no conspiracy."
Knott Labs Laser 360 SCIENCE proving that the SBT "IS IMPOSSIBLE" + My Proving that there was an Unknown DPD Motorcycle Officer WALKING across the train yard and then WALKING down the Elm St Ext toward the TSBD, (Darnell & Martin Films), = PROVEN CONSPIRACY! Why do you think it has gotten so Quiet around here? It took 60+ years, but the Lone Nut stuff has Now been exposed as Pure Bunk. The Old Guard JFK Assassination Research Community should be ashamed of themselves for Not exposing this Cover-up a long, long, time ago.
-
We plan to post our Victory Lap tomorrow. All anyone ever had to do was seriously look at the Haygood WC Testimony. At no point during his WC Testimony does Haygood Ever mention a caboose, train car, box car, our anything connected to an actual train. The photos and film footage supply a boat load of Supporting Evidence proving a Conspiracy! Slam Dunk! The JFK Research Community for 60+ years has been more concerned with selling books and canoodling with their Assassination Chums vs actually doing some serious research.
-
the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK.
Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?
the deceptions and lies of the clark panel . they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy
Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?
(the said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot )
Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?
at autopsy the 3 pathologists said the entry wound was near the EOP , just above and to the right of it
Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that.
the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up
Please use arrows to show the "EOP" wound in the autopsy photos. And explain what the hole is that the ruler is next to in the Back-of-the-Head-Photo.
and despite the vehement protestations of humes that there was never any entry wound in the crown area .
Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area.
the deceptions and lies of the HSCA . they had witnesses including FBI agents , and bethesda witnesses (not called by the commission ) who told them that JFK had a large wound in the right rear of the head which corroborated the parkland witnesses . yet the HSCA report states that ALL these witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses when we now know from their statements , depositions or testimonies that they did not contradict them at all . so that was a blatant lie .
The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos.
-
The CIA did not wish to be held accountable for their operatives that they sent into Cuba for the BOP operation, going rogue. Some of those BOP operatives probably escaped and got back to Miami Fl , hooked up with a really angry mafia boss, and 2 of them possibly hired by John Martino ( per deathbed confession to his wife)
Now Martino could be fabricating this story on his deathbed for some other reason, or his wife made the story up, but it’s interesting coincidence with the story of Loran Hall, a CIA asset who testified he actually had been approached and offered the job but he turned it down!?
-
Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?
Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?
Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?
Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that.
Please use arrows to show the "EOP" wound in the autopsy photos. And explain what the hole is that the ruler is next to in the Back-of-the-Head-Photo.
Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area.
The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos.
"Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"
do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?"
firstly it would be much better if you quoted what you are replying to , as i did here with you .
" the foregoing observations indicate that the decedents head was struck from behind by a single projectile . it entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm ABOVE THE EXTERNAL OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE . "
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/pages/Image11.gif
100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .
"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?"
well correct me if i am wrong but it appears that you are disputing that the clark panel placed the head entry wound about 4 inches ABOVE the level of the EOP ? . i relate 4 inches above the level of the EOP to be in the area (not the entire area ) where a man can have a bald spot .i think i was clear enough on that point .
"they said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot "
if you desire to argue about the circumference of a mans bald spot have at it , i am sure all will vary some what in width and length .
"Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that."
i really should not have to explain every single thing , but often i find it to be the case with some people that i do . now if you desire to argue that none of the three men conducting jfks autopsy had the basic knowledge to locate the EOP and that they erred and mislocated it well do that to your hearts content , it however is not an argument i will be engaging in .i dont have time for silliness .
"DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"
above i was very clear about what the autopsy PHOTO shows near the EOP . here is what the commission said
, “approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound "
"Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area."
yes i think we already established this YES ? .
"The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos."
these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? . i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? . i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .
-
As you know, the conclusion of a probable conspiracy by the HSCA, in the late 70's was based on the now-totally debunked acoustical evidence, where a group of scientists proclaimed "to a 95% possibility, there were a shot from the Grassy Knoll." Our very own in-house Steve Barber was the first individual to point out the flaws of the acoustical evidence. So, therefore with the acoustical evidence being emphatically invalid the conclusion is irrefutabley "no conspiracy."
"the conclusion of a probable conspiracy by the HSCA, in the late 70's was based on the now-totally debunked acoustical evidence"
the conclusion was based primarily BUT NOT exclusively on the acoustics . i will leave discussion of the acoustics to members here far better versed in regarded them than myself .
-
You're a humours character Mr Storing. I will award 10 points for persistence and zero for proving nothing. The Knotts Laboratory hokum has become like an echo chamber or a parrot repeating the same hoodwink. ;D
"You're a humours character Mr Storing. I will award 10 points for persistence and zero for proving nothing. The Knotts Laboratory hokum has become like an echo chamber or a parrot repeating the same hoodwink."
what i would say is humorous is the fact that LN constantly talk about SCIENCE and how we must be led by that science . and yet when science does not support them LN choose to ignore it .
-
I would assume that an official admission of guilt would essentially undermine their integrity as an institution. Imagine yourself as a government entity. For literal decades you have denied any and all wrongdoing related to the assassination of your chief-of-state, and now you admit guilt. Why did you deny it for all of these years just to admit guilt now? What changed? Who influenced your decision? And for what reason?
-
I would assume that an official admission of guilt would essentially undermine their integrity as an institution. Imagine yourself as a government entity. For literal decades you have denied any and all wrongdoing related to the assassination of your chief-of-state, and now you admit guilt. Why did you deny it for all of these years just to admit guilt now? What changed? Who influenced your decision? And for what reason?
What happened is that SSA Hill died & SSA Landis died. Which then allowed the SS to admit that SSA Hickey did the dirty deed. But avoid the possibility of Hill & Landis accidentally or intentionally spilling even more info about the extent of the cover-up.
-
I would assume that an official admission of guilt would essentially undermine their integrity as an institution. Imagine yourself as a government entity. For literal decades you have denied any and all wrongdoing related to the assassination of your chief-of-state, and now you admit guilt. Why did you deny it for all of these years just to admit guilt now? What changed? Who influenced your decision? And for what reason?
More likely the opposite. Whoever revealed "the truth" would be deemed a hero. No bureaucrat cares about what happened decades ago. They are all about promoting themselves. And no secret can be kept this long in DC. There was no conspiracy or cover up. A governmental conspiracy is necessary for UFO and JFK CT believers to explain why they lack evidence to ever prove their nutty theories. It is because the spooky government or some "men in black" are always showing up to cover it up.
-
More likely the opposite. Whoever revealed "the truth" would be deemed a hero. No bureaucrat cares about what happened decades ago. They are all about promoting themselves. And no secret can be kept this long in DC. There was no conspiracy or cover up. A governmental conspiracy is necessary for UFO and JFK CT believers to explain why they lack evidence to ever prove their nutty theories. It is because the spooky government or some "men in black" are always showing up to cover it up.
We've had hundreds if not more people go to Washington and serve in these agencies/department/divisions in various roles over the past 60 years. Two if not three generations of people of various backgrounds and experiences, liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans have gone there. As heads of CIA, assistants to the director of CIA/FBI/Pentagon/NSA, staffers, career officers, mid-level operatives. Why would an assistant to the director today - or over the past several decades - someone who had nothing to do with this supposed conspiracy, someone who had no role in the event, need to continue to lie to cover it up? For what benefit? As you said, he or she would be considered a national hero, a JFK assassination equivalent of a Daniel Ellsberg or a Mark Felt or other whistleblowers in history.
This is why, I think, that in large part Seymour Hersh, the investigative reporter, dismissed Oliver Stone's conspiracy nonsense when they met: he knew how the bureaucracy operates (and doesn't), how impossible it is to keep something like this quiet. Other investigative reporters - Tim Weiner for example who did a very critical book on the CIA - said the same thing. George Lardner, Phillip Shenon, others. And cover this up over more than half a century? Not just at that time? Impossible.
The only counter explanation for this is, as you said, some "secret team" of assassins who killed all of these witnesses or intimidated them. They would kill this whistleblower too. It's cloud cuckoo land fantasies.
-
"Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"
do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?
"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was as far as 5 inches from the EOP wound?"
firstly it would be much better if you quoted what you are replying to , as i did here with you .
I read it, And I get four inches.
" the foregoing observations indicate that the decedents head was struck from behind by a single projectile . it entered the occipital region 25 mm to the right of the midline and 100 mm ABOVE THE EXTERNAL OCCIPITAL PROTUBERANCE . "
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/pages/Image11.gif
100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .
OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it.
"Where does the Clark Panel say the entry wound was in the crown of the head?"
well correct me if i am wrong but it appears that you are disputing that the clark panel placed the head entry wound about 4 inches ABOVE the level of the EOP ? . i relate 4 inches above the level of the EOP to be in the area (not the entire area ) where a man can have a bald spot .i think i was clear enough on that point .
"they said it was in the crown of the head where a man has a bald spot "
if you desire to argue about the circumference of a mans bald spot have at it , i am sure all will vary some what in width and length .
"Humes located the EOP by touch only and the other two went with that."
i really should not have to explain every single thing , but often i find it to be the case with some people that i do . now if you desire to argue that none of the three men conducting jfks autopsy had the basic knowledge to locate the EOP and that they erred and mislocated it well do that to your hearts content , it however is not an argument i will be engaging in .i dont have time for silliness .
Humes was the only one who used palpation to locate some bump he thought was the EOP. Humes was a teaching pathologist who rarely, if ever, encountered a much-shattered skull with fracture lines covered by thick scalp. Finck argued that Humes' palpation was better than what the photographs showed. Those doctors stick together.
"DESPITE the fact that autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"
above i was very clear about what the autopsy PHOTO shows near the EOP . here is what the commission said
, “approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound "
The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it.
"Good for Humes. There was no entry wound in the crown area."
yes i think we already established this YES ? .
"The Bethesda pathologists endorsed autopsy photos showing the gaping scalp opening was not at the very rear of the head. Four Parkland doctors visited the Archives and endorse the same photos."
these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? .
Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/38/ae/Fl03pOcj_o.jpg)
i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? .
LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?
i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .
I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda.
( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )
-
There is undoubtedly and unequivocally no cover-up in this case. I am not overlooking the concept of conspiracies; yes, they do transpire. Nevertheless, in this case, the JFK Assassination, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely independently without the assistance of any conspiracy. I have objectively viewed all the evidence from books, articles, videos, documentaries, photographs, documents, etc., while always considering possible conspiracies, which, in this case, are easily debunked by known evidence and logical reasoning. There is no evidence of any involvement by any individual or group other than Lee Harvey Oswald. It has been sixty years and four months since 22 November 1963, and no credible evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy has ever come to light. It is beyond rationality as to why people continue in futility to postulate bizarre conspiracy theories about the JFK Assassination that are so very effortlessly disproven.
One way they keep the fantasy going is to shift the wound locations so they no longer work with trajectories from the SN. They avoid the C7 back entry like the plague; they prefer to go as low as T5 and high as C6.
-
There is undoubtedly and unequivocally no cover-up in this case. I am not overlooking the concept of conspiracies; yes, they do transpire. Nevertheless, in this case, the JFK Assassination, there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely independently without the assistance of any conspiracy. I have objectively viewed all the evidence from books, articles, videos, documentaries, photographs, documents, etc., while always considering possible conspiracies, which, in this case, are easily debunked by known evidence and logical reasoning. There is no evidence of any involvement by any individual or group other than Lee Harvey Oswald. It has been sixty years and four months since 22 November 1963, and no credible evidence of a cover-up or conspiracy has ever come to light. It is beyond rationality as to why people continue in futility to postulate bizarre conspiracy theories about the JFK Assassination that are so very effortlessly disproven.
Are you aware the HSCA concluded there was a conspiracy?
-
More likely the opposite. Whoever revealed "the truth" would be deemed a hero. No bureaucrat cares about what happened decades ago. They are all about promoting themselves. And no secret can be kept this long in DC. There was no conspiracy or cover up. A governmental conspiracy is necessary for UFO and JFK CT believers to explain why they lack evidence to ever prove their nutty theories. It is because the spooky government or some "men in black" are always showing up to cover it up.
"There was no conspiracy or cover up "
you deny "cover up" even when faced with the deceptions and lies of the very panels who were SUPPOSED to be investigating the crime .the why of it can be debated ,one could argue to avert ww3 for example , not that i ever bought that . but that they did it is not debatable .
-
Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?
I read it, And I get four inches.
OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it.
Humes was the only one who used palpation to locate some bump he thought was the EOP. Humes was a teaching pathologist who rarely, if ever, encountered a much-shattered skull with fracture lines covered by thick scalp. Finck argued that Humes' palpation was better than what the photographs showed. Those doctors stick together.
The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it.
Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/38/ae/Fl03pOcj_o.jpg)
LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?
I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda.
( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )
"Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"
do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?
YES I SAW WHAT I WROTE , after all i wrote it . i am not responsible if i write the word black and you see the word white .you saw the word left and saw left of the midline or left of the spine , neither of which i said . the wound seen in autopsy photos that LN stand over show NO WOUND on the right side of jfks neck in the lower shirt collar and top of the right shoulder area as depicted by the warren commission and by mr Specter from 1964 to his death .what they do show is a wound below and to the left of that on the back . the wound being just right of the spine . so again you could have read what was posted properly before you jumped to conclusion of left of the midline as you did . i have no problem at all with anyone making an error , we all are capable of that .but even now that you clearly realize i never said what you claimed , you cant bring yourself to say sorry you jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion without first having asked me to clarify .and instead you continue to attack my post .
"I read it, And I get four inches.
OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it."
i guess you still dont want to take time to read do you ? . lets see what i said again .
1/ they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy
here is my second reply to you on this matter
2/ 100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .
i made it crystal clear that what i posted was OFF THE CUFF or in simple terms a from memory not to be taken as 100% accurate comment hence my saying SOME 4 TO 5 INCHES . if i had intended it to be stated as 100% accurate i would have done as i did in my comment in bold above marked 1/ . so there was no guess because as we have seen 4 inches is in no way inaccurate .as evidenced by the fact that you did not dispute this measurement .
"The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it."
ah yes the hole that does not exist YES ?
(https://i.imgur.com/3hqY5B5.jpg)
on the left is the autopsy photo you mention , to its right the Ida dox drawing where a hole was inserted .to which do you refer ? i trust you know the difference between a photo and a drawing so i will assume you refer to the photo on the left. i will let the readers here decide for them selves whether a hole or just a spot of dried blood exists in the autopsy photo in the location you refer to . and by the way once again i feel i was quite clear in the wording i used , i said the area where a man can have a bald spot .once again via the autopsy photo you mention what i said was shown to not be inaccurate . and NO i am not seeing holes or seeing anything else that does not exist , you are , but i am not .
"Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?"
i approve a claim ? lol to use your wording "certainly not " , never have and never will . that location came from specter , humes and the warren commission .
(https://i.imgur.com/Yi8yPm9.jpg)
"LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?"
i did not mention ? i think you will find that in fact I DID .here is what i said AGAIN .
these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? . i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? . i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .
so i did mention what you falsely claimed I DID NOT . i just mentioned what you failed to mention which was that the visit was shown in a pbs documentary , and that Mclellend one of the very men YOU CITE still maintained his PREVIOUS position to his death . so one of the doctors (Mclellend ) a doctor you originally CITED here to support your argument and who you have now decided to attack , only an LN would do that lol . and for the record the rear of JFKs head was seen before he ever lay on the examination table at parkland .
Diana Bowron, registered nurse:
Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
"I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda."
well that is a discussion between you and Mr speer , not between you and i .but just in case the readers here did not grasp what you have just said .on the one hand you attack critics but now because it apparently suits the argument you are now tying to make well you cite a critic lol . for the record my view is that Mr speer is a very honest , hard working and knowledgeable researcher . and that he approaches this case in an honest and open minded fashion . however i will always choose what can be shown to be fact , what can be proven or indeed disproven over beliefs . as i have said you can if you desire discuss with pat his beliefs , but that is not a discussion for me .
-
Please elucidate us by furnishing evidence that Arlen Specter disclosed viewing an autopsy photo which illustrated a wound some inches below and to the LEFT on Kennedy's back. Or is this merely a typographical error or misinterpretation on your part?
'Overwhelming Evidence Oswald Was the Assassin'
A 1966 U.S. News & World Report interview with Arlen Specter, assistant counsel for the Warren Commission.
here is an excerpt from that 1966 interview
"Q: Could we get to this matter of the pictures of the President's body? Have you seen the pictures?
A: The complete set of pictures taken at the autopsy was not made available to me or to the Commission. I was shown one picture of the back of a body which was represented to be the back of the President, although it was not technically authenticated. It showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report. To the best of my knowledge, the Commission did not see any photographs or X-rays."
here we see that as early as 1966 specter admitted that he saw an autopsy photo of jfks body .showing the wound in question . that settles the first part of your question , for the other part i respectfully you do as i asked Mr organ and read properly what i said in my original post here and then it would help you to read my replies to Mr organ .
-
"Where in the Warren Report does it say the back wound was to the left of JFK's midline?"
do try to read properly before you reply . that IS NOT what i said . i said
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?
YES I SAW WHAT I WROTE , after all i wrote it . i am not responsible if i write the word black and you see the word white .you saw the word left and saw left of the midline or left of the spine , neither of which i said . the wound seen in autopsy photos that LN stand over show NO WOUND on the right side of jfks neck in the lower shirt collar and top of the right shoulder area as depicted by the warren commission and by mr Specter from 1964 to his death .what they do show is a wound below and to the left of that on the back . the wound being just right of the spine . so again you could have read what was posted properly before you jumped to conclusion of left of the midline as you did . i have no problem at all with anyone making an error , we all are capable of that .but even now that you clearly realize i never said what you claimed , you cant bring yourself to say sorry you jumped to a completely incorrect conclusion without first having asked me to clarify .and instead you continue to attack my post .
You originally only provided:
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that
showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
Not much to go on, considering you (finally) coughed up a paragraph of explanation. To your original explanation, I asked: "Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?" Is this not seeking clarification?
LNers have long acknowledged the Ryberg drawings are inaccurate and the HSCA depiction of the back wound (based on the autopsy photographs) differs from than of the WC exhibit. Ryberg never saw the autopsy photos. Do you not think the artist would have placed the back wound more accurately if he had seen this ...
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Backwound.jpg)
Why are you relying on 1964 visuals not drawn from the autopsy photos when there are more accurate visuals drawn from the autopsy photos?
Going back to your earlier vague statement:
"IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear )
of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION
he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several
inches below and to the left ON THE BACK"
There is no indication there that you are referring to a specific WC exhibit.
"I read it, And I get four inches.
OK, now you're getting four inches. I thought that since you had "bumped" your original post, you might have caught your "guess" and corrected it."
i guess you still dont want to take time to read do you ? . lets see what i said again .
1/ they said that JFKs head entry wound was some 4 to 5 inches HIGHER up than where it was located at autopsy
here is my second reply to you on this matter
2/ 100mm or roughly 10 cm equates to roughly 4 inches . i said some 4 to 5 off the cuff as it were , and only from memory as i some times do . while 5 is an accidental over statement 4 inches is perfectly acceptable .
i made it crystal clear that what i posted was OFF THE CUFF or in simple terms a from memory not to be taken as 100% accurate comment hence my saying SOME 4 TO 5 INCHES . if i had intended it to be stated as 100% accurate i would have done as i did in my comment in bold above marked 1/ . so there was no guess because as we have seen 4 inches is in no way inaccurate .as evidenced by the fact that you did not dispute this measurement .
You wrote "clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position", and by position you meant the EOP wound. I just wanted to make clear that the Clark Panel located the wound about four inches above the EOP, not 4-to-5 inches above Humes' skull entry.
"The Top-of-the-Head autopsy photo shows one hole (beside the ruler making it the center of interest) and it's at the Clark Panel's "cowlick" level. You must be seeing another hole at the EOP level ("autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP"), which is why I asked you to arrow it."
ah yes the hole that does not exist YES ?
(https://i.imgur.com/3hqY5B5.jpg)
on the left is the autopsy photo you mention , to its right the Ida dox drawing where a hole was inserted .to which do you refer ?
You think Ida Dox just made up a bullet wound?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a9/f8/0BQ4GFLt_o.gif)
i trust you know the difference between a photo and a drawing so i will assume you refer to the photo on the left.
(https://i.imgur.com/3hqY5B5.jpg)
You think Ida Dox drew her drawing from the autopsy photo on the left? You can't see that your graphic has different areas circled?
i will let the readers here decide for them selves whether a hole or just a spot of dried blood exists in the autopsy photo in the location you refer to . and by the way once again i feel i was quite clear in the wording i used , i said the area where a man can have a bald spot .once again via the autopsy photo you mention what i said was shown to not be inaccurate . and NO i am not seeing holes or seeing anything else that does not exist , you are , but i am not .
The only entry wound I see in the Back-of-the-Head photos and Dox's drawing of one of those is the Clark Panel's "cowlick" wound. The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel that this photo shows an entry wound some four inches above the EOP. And that there is nothing but intact scalp between it and the EOP. Humes was wrong.
Now you claimed "autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up". So please arrow in the Back-of-the-Head Photo where you contend this mythical EOP-area entry wound is. I believe you have some idea the EOP "would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif?20130309002208)
On a head that's fully-vertical, the EOP is about level with the ear canal opening and where the skull turns inward (or away from the back of the neck). But the Back-of-the-Head Photos shows Kennedy's head tilted backwards somewhat. Also, where the "cowlick" wound is is not where the skull turns inward. If you follow the ruler down some distance, you will see where the skull turns inward.
"Certainly not. Where are you getting such stupid information from? You approve some claim that the back wound was to the "right of neck" (which would be in the shoulder ball) and "around the level of the shirt collar" on the back?"
i approve a claim ? lol to use your wording "certainly not " , never have and never will . that location came from specter , humes and the warren commission .
(https://i.imgur.com/Yi8yPm9.jpg)
"LOL. You didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all. McClelland's suggestion that the photo shows a large flap of scalp was being held in place is preposterous. How could McClelland see the very back of Kennedy's head if it's lying on the stretcher and not in view?"
i did not mention ? i think you will find that in fact I DID .here is what i said AGAIN .
these are the same pathologists (and i use that term lightly ) who endorsed a right of neck entry wound in and around the level of the shirt collar yes / no ? . i am not getting into what anyone endorsed , the autopsy photos that we have dispute them on that .as do the holes on jfks clothing that are on the back , certainly not in the collar areas of his clothing . i know the PBS documentary that you refer to . one of the doctors was mclellend and he maintained his position before and after that documentary , which was that he saw a large wound in the right rear of jfks head .why did you not mention that ? . i do think its important information along with the fact that certain parkland doctors originally said jfk had a right rear head wound or that they saw cerebellum but then reversed and contradicted them selves .and we should give the readers here as much information as we can so that they can decide for them selves on this matter .
When I said "you didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all", it was in reference to your post prior to when I first mentioned the visit.
so i did mention what you falsely claimed I DID NOT . i just mentioned what you failed to mention which was that the visit was shown in a pbs documentary , and that Mclellend one of the very men YOU CITE still maintained his PREVIOUS position to his death . so one of the doctors (Mclellend ) a doctor you originally CITED here to support your argument and who you have now decided to attack , only an LN would do that lol . and for the record the rear of JFKs head was seen before he ever lay on the examination table at parkland .
Diana Bowron, registered nurse:
Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
I don't think Kennedy was lying face down in the limousine, so Bowron saw the gaping head wound that was on the right-side, not an opening exclusive to the very rear. Bowron said "President Kennedy was lying with his head slumped in her lap. She was cradling his head." I don't think she would have held her husband face-down.
"I know one critic, Pat Speer, who gets grief because he correctly believes critics are distorting the Parkland descriptions and he thinks the head wound seen at Parkland was the same as photographed at Bethesda."
well that is a discussion between you and Mr speer , not between you and i .but just in case the readers here did not grasp what you have just said .on the one hand you attack critics but now because it apparently suits the argument you are now tying to make well you cite a critic lol . for the record my view is that Mr speer is a very honest , hard working and knowledgeable researcher . and that he approaches this case in an honest and open minded fashion . however i will always choose what can be shown to be fact , what can be proven or indeed disproven over beliefs . as i have said you can if you desire discuss with pat his beliefs , but that is not a discussion for me .
Speer, IMO, did in-depth work on the back-of-the-head claims and defends his conclusions competently, so his opinions on this have merit for me. ( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )
-
Okay, Fergus, thanks for clearing that up. That is the first time I have seen that article. The literature in the case is so extensive that it is challenging to read everything.
'Overwhelming Evidence Oswald Was the Assassin'
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/overwhelming-evidence-oswald-was-the-assassin
Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20240323184144/https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/11/14/overwhelming-evidence-oswald-was-the-assassin
no problem Paul . my apologies i see i forgot to add the link to my post . but you added it now so thank you .
-
You originally only provided:
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that
showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
Not much to go on, considering you (finally) coughed up a paragraph of explanation. To your original explanation, I asked: "Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?" Is this not seeking clarification?
LNers have long acknowledged the Ryberg drawings are inaccurate and the HSCA depiction of the back wound (based on the autopsy photographs) differs from than of the WC exhibit. Ryberg never saw the autopsy photos. Do you not think the artist would have placed the back wound more accurately if he had seen this ...
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_Backwound.jpg)
Why are you relying on 1964 visuals not drawn from the autopsy photos when there are more accurate visuals drawn from the autopsy photos?
Going back to your earlier vague statement:
"IE Specter and his SBT starting with an entry wound location on the right side (of the rear )
of JFKs neck that he knew was a lie . he knew it was a lie because BY HIS OWN ADMISSION
he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that showed the wound in question several
inches below and to the left ON THE BACK"
There is no indication there that you are referring to a specific WC exhibit.
You wrote "clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position", and by position you meant the EOP wound. I just wanted to make clear that the Clark Panel located the wound about four inches above the EOP, not 4-to-5 inches above Humes' skull entry.
You think Ida Dox just made up a bullet wound?
(https://images2.imgbox.com/a9/f8/0BQ4GFLt_o.gif)
(https://i.imgur.com/3hqY5B5.jpg)
You think Ida Dox drew her drawing from the autopsy photo on the left? You can't see that your graphic has different areas circled?
The only entry wound I see in the Back-of-the-Head photos and Dox's drawing of one of those is the Clark Panel's "cowlick" wound. The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel that this photo shows an entry wound some four inches above the EOP. And that there is nothing but intact scalp between it and the EOP. Humes was wrong.
Now you claimed "autopsy photos show a wound at the EOP and show NO entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up". So please arrow in the Back-of-the-Head Photo where you contend this mythical EOP-area entry wound is. I believe you have some idea the EOP "would roughly be at the level of the top of ones ears".
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/External_occipital_protuberance_-_animation.gif?20130309002208)
On a head that's fully-vertical, the EOP is about level with the ear canal opening and where the skull turns inward (or away from the back of the neck). But the Back-of-the-Head Photos shows Kennedy's head tilted backwards somewhat. Also, where the "cowlick" wound is is not where the skull turns inward. If you follow the ruler down some distance, you will see where the skull turns inward.
When I said "you didn't mention the visit of the Parkland doctors to the Archives at all", it was in reference to your post prior to when I first mentioned the visit.
I don't think Kennedy was lying face down in the limousine, so Bowron saw the gaping head wound that was on the right-side, not an opening exclusive to the very rear. Bowron said "President Kennedy was lying with his head slumped in her lap. She was cradling his head." I don't think she would have held her husband face-down.
Speer, IMO, did in-depth work on the back-of-the-head claims and defends his conclusions competently, so his opinions on this have merit for me. ( Also: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/aguilar/agg20.txt )
"You originally only provided:
"BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he admitted seeing atleast one autopsy photo that
showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK "
Not much to go on, considering you (finally) coughed up a paragraph of explanation. To your original explanation, I asked: "Did you not see where you wrote "to the left"? If not left of the midline, then leftward from what?" Is this not seeking clarification? "
well yes you sought clarification however you first jumped to a conclusion pretty much that i was asserting a wound to be in a location that we both know it never was , and i never said what you were well insinuating that i said . also the manner of your post was taken by me to be shall we say less than friendly .perhaps you did not intend it to appear that way , but none the less it is how it appeared to me .and you still come across as speaking sharply to me .so in that sense i am less inclined to reply in a civil tone . for example you now say I HAVE COUGHED UP which i again (rightly or wrongly ) take as a less than friendly tone . all be it my tone is still and usually reasonably civil . in regards my to the left comment well i thought (perhaps wrongly ) that my wording would be taken as it was meant , menaing simply just TO THE LEFT . and not to the left of any structure etc as i never mentioned any structure , bone etc . i have as you have noticed clarified that now .
"LNers have long acknowledged the Ryberg drawings are inaccurate"
indeed however Mr rydberg drew what Humes told him to draw , Mr rydberg is not at fault here . he never saw either JFKs body nor any autopsy photos . and to this day more often than not when we see official warren commission supporting documentaries that show a bullet trajectory they show a bullet entering at the Rydberg location . this despite and by even your own admission that drawing is inaccurate . so this is still valid in such a discussion .specter as we know maintained a NECK entry wound every time he spoke , humes did not speak nearly as much but ive seen him on film pointing to roughly the same location as the Rydberg drawing .this is the location where specter and his pointer (seen in a commission photo exhibit ) had the trajectory passing through a jfk stand in and then onto a connally stand in , which is the area between the right of the neck and the top of the right shoulder . DESPITE a chalk mark several inches below on the agents coat showing the correct entry location . this was done to further specters theory that the bullet entered high and exited low , something his single bullet theory relies upon . so while you are correct that the location of the entry wound on the right fo neck is wrong i post that picture (Rydberg ) because those pushing the lone nut version of events such as tv channels / documentaries still show a bullet / trajectory line passing through the Rydberg area .again Rydberg is not at fault he did no wrong , he followed Humes instruction . and Humes most certainly knew better .
"the HSCA depiction of the back wound (based on the autopsy photographs) differs from than of the WC exhibit"
yes this is true .the Dox drawing of the back wound is far more accurate , because clearly Dox had access to autopsy photos , because the HSCA had them or atleast copies .Rydberg never did .and let us not fool our selves , we now know that specter admitted he saw an autopsy photo . one that we now know shows a BACK wound below shoulder level . he knew that at the very least as early as 1966 , i believe he knew in 1964 .his assertion (well he said as far as he was aware if i am remembering correctly ) that the commission had no access to autopsy photos is wrong or false depending on how much one decides they can trust Specter . i have zero trust of that man .he knew in 1966 that no one else had access to autopsy photos outside the powers that be , and they were not going to release them and still have not 60 years later .so he could say they showed anything that he desired to claim they showed and no one could prove him wrong . it would be another decade plus before researchers got their hands on the photos . but still very few saw them . in the internet age now anyone can see them and see the wounds and see the deception .in the executive sessions of january 1964 (if memory serves me ) i believe it was Rankin who referred to the back and throat wounds and mentioned that the photo show a lower entry position . this could not be said without him having the autopsy photos or atleast the back photos at his disposal .so certain people on that commission did indeed have access to autopsy photos .to my knowledge warren said he saw atleast one all be it i would have to go back and check my info on that , specter certainly saw one at some point pre 1966 by his own admission .i believe but of course cant prove it that he saw it in 1964 while at the commission . and the sessions tell us others had access also .
"Why are you relying on 1964 visuals not drawn from the autopsy photos when there are more accurate visuals drawn from the autopsy photos?"
i am in no way relying on this .
"There is no indication there that you are referring to a specific WC exhibit."
i am referring to things i have already mentioned above / earlier . Specter has been noted in main saying NECK NECK NECK NECK , you mentioned pat speer earlier , well you can view his work to verify that .he most certainly knew no later than 1966 that there was no entry wound on the neck but that it was on the BACK and below shoulder level .even if he never had access to any autopsy photos at any time (we know he did ) he had JFKs shirt and jacket (even allowing for a little jacket bunching ) showing holes not on the neck IE collar area but on the BACK below shoulder level .atleast one other on the commission admitted seeing an autopsy photo in 1964 showing a wound pretty much as i describe just above .and not on the neck as Specter would maintain for life .when i speak above in your quote saying "that showed the wound in question several inches below and to the left ON THE BACK" i am referring to autopsy photos .and what can be seen in them .
"You wrote "clark put the entry wound 4 to 5 inches above this position", and by position you meant the EOP wound. I just wanted to make clear that the Clark Panel located the wound about four inches above the EOP, not 4-to-5 inches above Humes' skull entry."
i have already stated that "some 4 to 5 inches " was off the cuff as it were and i posted a far more accurate measurement of in and around 4 inches .
"You think Ida Dox just made up a bullet wound?"
only Dox can answer such a question , for me to do so would be mere speculation / theory and i do not do that .all be it a little speculation in my view has its place . what i do know is Dox drew from an autopsy photo of the head , you can argue which one if you like .we dont have access to them all . but i provided an autopsy photo showing the exact location on the rear of jfks head with the dox drawing along side it , however both are small , but larger versions can be found online .and no photo available that i am aware of shows a neat bullet entry hole where the HSCA using Dox drawing would claim a wound existed .all that is there is a spot of blood that even has hairs in it .
"You think Ida Dox drew her drawing from the autopsy photo on the left? You can't see that your graphic has different areas circled? "
Dox drew A DRAWING from A AUTOPSY PHOTO of the head . i can only provide those photos that are available to us , the powers that be 60 years later have made NO PHOTOS available .never the less you have an official autopsy photo (unless you desire to dispute its authenticity ? ) clearly showing the area of JFKs head in question and which shows that there was no bullet hole in the area in question .
"The only entry wound I see in the Back-of-the-Head photos and Dox's drawing of one of those is the Clark Panel's "cowlick" wound. The HSCA agreed with the Clark Panel that this photo shows an entry wound some four inches above the EOP."
the HSCA also said in their report that ALL BETHESDA witnesses contradicted the parkland witnesses in regards jfks wounds , we know that to not be true .you however can feel free to believe what ever these various panels told you was so , i am talking about what we can all see or NOT SEE with our own eyes .
"I don't think Kennedy was lying face down in the limousine, so Bowron saw the gaping head wound that was on the right-side, not an opening exclusive to the very rear. Bowron said "President Kennedy was lying with his head slumped in her lap. She was cradling his head." I don't think she would have held her husband face-down."
once again you have seen what a person said IN BLACK AND WHITE and you choose to interpret it only in a manner that suits you . let us look again at what bowron said .
Diana Bowron, registered nurse:
Mr. SPECTER. And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?
Miss BOWRON. He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what?
Miss BOWRON. The back of his head.
Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition?
Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad---you know.
Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?
Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?
Miss BOWRON - No, sir.
at NO POINT ABOVE did bowron ever say FACE DOWN . she said laying across . given that JFK slid leftwards and down onto the rear seat of the limo as Jackie jumped up on the trunk it is a reasonable assertion that when she sat back down that she had JFKs head laying on her lap left ear down as it were . NOT FACE DOWN which would be silly , and to be fair to you it seems you agree with me on this .but YET AGAIN we have an LN who would attempt to tell intelligent people that a qualified and experienced nurse (bowron ) SIMPLY CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO DETERMINE if she was looking at the right side , left side , forehead , top , or BACK of a patients head .just as we are told that NEUROSURGEONS likewise cannot be relied upon . with the greatest of respect i find that laughable .
"Speer, IMO, did in-depth work on the back-of-the-head claims and defends his conclusions competently, so his opinions on this have merit for me."
indeed , and as i said he is an honest and extremely diligent and very knowledgeable researcher , and i admire his work greatly .but if you agree or indeed disagree with Mr speers opinions that is a matter between you and him . and yes there is a great deal of competency and merit in his work .i admire his work .but no researcher is infallible no matter if they be LN or CT .