JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Oscar Navarro on November 23, 2018, 08:29:57 PM
-
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum. IMO, their political leanings have influenced in one form or another their view of the WC conclusions. To date I'm not aware of any criticism or rejection from the right of the conclusions reached by the WC other than that offered by Roger Stone with his theory that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination. The one common denominator that the most prominent WC critics have in common is that they're intelligent people. Of all the WC critics none I believe fit the intelligent balance sheet more than Dr. Cyril Wecht.( With this observation I'm revealing my bias toward those who are doctors in medicine whom I admire very much.) This is why I'm puzzled by the position taken by Dr. Cyril Wecht when it comes to the JFK assassination. There's no political angle that can be ascribed to his motive. At least none that I have seen.
So, what is it that makes Dr. Wecht an outlier among those in his proffession? By this I'm referencing his colleagues who worked with him in the HSCA. Why is it than even when his observations and conclusions are successfuly challenged does he still maintain the same view? If there's someone who should abide by the rule of scientific method is a medical doctor I would think. Yet, Dr. Wecht stuck stubburnly to the fourth shooter conspiracy angle.
From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner there is an execerpt on page 313 that illustrates even when presented with good arguments against his theory Dr. Wecht's position still remained entrenched as a plausible theory until his death.
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side 'could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.' In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President's head, a front shooter firred into the wound created by the rear bullet.* That is Wecht's way of explaining why there is not another entry hole in JFK's head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit wound for such a bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that 'the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.' He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which may have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.' Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible - except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination."!
*I saw Wecht arguing this point in the televised trial when being cross-examined by Vincent Bugliosi.
! From superficial research I could only find that plastic bullets were invented by the British and first used in 1971 as crowd control in Northern ireland.
So, even when people of superior intelligence reamain stubbornly immune to common sense what explanation can be used to reveal why this is so?
-
It is possible that intelligence agencies had a plastic bullet before they became commonly known or available. Also the bullets used for crowd control must be very different from a round used to penetrate JFK's head.
-
It is possible that intelligence agencies had a plastic bullet before they became commonly known or available. Also the bullets used for crowd control must be very different from a round used to penetrate JFK's head.
So if such a bullet was found it would point directly away from Oswald acting alone. If there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald this is not the weapon of choice.
-
So if such a bullet was found it would point directly away from Oswald acting alone. If there was a conspiracy to frame Oswald this is not the weapon of choice.
Of course framing Oswald by putting him behind the limo and then claiming Kennedy was shot from the front makes sense to these goofballs
-
Of course framing Oswald by putting him behind the limo and then claiming Kennedy was shot from the front makes sense to these goofballs
Thumb1:
-
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum. IMO, their political leanings have influenced in one form or another their view of the WC conclusions. To date I'm not aware of any criticism or rejection from the right of the conclusions reached by the WC other than that offered by Roger Stone with his theory that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination. The one common denominator that the most prominent WC critics have in common is that they're intelligent people. Of all the WC critics none I believe fit the intelligent balance sheet more than Dr. Cyril Wecht.( With this observation I'm revealing my bias toward those who are doctors in medicine whom I admire very much.) This is why I'm puzzled by the position taken by Dr. Cyril Wecht when it comes to the JFK assassination. There's no political angle that can be ascribed to his motive. At least none that I have seen.
So, what is it that makes Dr. Wecht an outlier among those in his proffession? By this I'm referencing his colleagues who worked with him in the HSCA. Why is it than even when his observations and conclusions are successfuly challenged does he still maintain the same view? If there's someone who should abide by the rule of scientific method is a medical doctor I would think. Yet, Dr. Wecht stuck stubburnly to the fourth shooter conspiracy angle.
From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner there is an execerpt on page 313 that illustrates even when presented with good arguments against his theory Dr. Wecht's position still remained entrenched as a plausible theory until his death.
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side 'could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.' In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President's head, a front shooter firred into the wound created by the rear bullet.* That is Wecht's way of explaining why there is not another entry hole in JFK's head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit wound for such a bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that 'the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.' He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which may have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.' Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible - except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination."!
*I saw Wecht arguing this point in the televised trial when being cross-examined by Vincent Bugliosi.
! From superficial research I could only find that plastic bullets were invented by the British and first used in 1971 as crowd control in Northern ireland.
So, even when people of superior intelligence reamain stubbornly immune to common sense what explanation can be used to reveal why this is so?
From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner there is an execerpt on page 313 that illustrates even when presented with good arguments against his theory Dr. Wecht's position still remained entrenched as a plausible theory until his death.
Doctor Cyril Wecht is still alive!
-
OSCAR...
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum.
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum. But what many of these right-leaning WC supporters fail to realize is that even during the opening days of the Jan 1964 commission beginnings, WC members from both sides of the aisle were questioning the official conclusions that the FBI was shoveling to them.
And I have also observed that over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum and when you bring this up to them, they become very defensive without realizing that members from their own spectrum (the right) were highly dubious of what the government investigative body (the FBI) was shoveling to them.
In addition, I have observed that over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum and when you mention that everyone deserves a fair trial and that perhaps maybe - just maybe - there were too many Kennedy haters involved, these same WC believers who come from the right of the political spectrum will then try to change tactics (once again) and make it a race issue, even going so far as to state that they are being singled out because of their name, when not a single thing was mentioned regarding their name in the first place.
So what does all of this mean? It's simple. The "left-leaning" Wecht didn't believe in the fairy tale of a single man shooting a single bullet and it coming out near perfect, just like members of the WC (both left- and right-leaning) didn't believe it. So it's basically a wash.
And if those who over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum don't believe this, then read the secret briefings of WC members here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12g1i440geFDhf_vFKiHaEqyF1N-MUT2p/view
-
From what I understand about Dr. Wecht, he doesn?t have his own theory of Conspiracy, he just doesn?t agree with the conclusions of the WC and HSCA medical panels. Which isn?t unreasonable because:
A) There?s no consensus on the exact locations and sizes of JFK?s Back and Skull wounds
B) The Parkland doctors gave conflicting or contradictory accounts of Kennedy?s wounds
C) Even the best doctors in the world can?t reach complete conclusions using only X-Rays and photos
-
~snip~
From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner there is an execerpt on page 313 that illustrates even when presented with good arguments against his theory Dr. Wecht's position still remained entrenched as a plausible theory until his death.
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side 'could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.' In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President's head, a front shooter firred into the wound created by the rear bullet.* That is Wecht's way of explaining why there is not another entry hole in JFK's head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit wound for such a bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that 'the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.' He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which may have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.' Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible - except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination."!
~snip~
"From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner"
"However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/disintegrated1.png)
_____________________________
Posner Plagiarizes Again
"...Disgraced Miami Beach author Gerald Posner is desperate. He apparently whitewashed an account of his serial plagiarism on his Wikipedia page, then threatened Miami New Times with a lawsuit for writing about it.
Gelembiuk's review of Posner's work, reviewed by Miami New Times, found the author committed several brands of plagiarism...."
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-20/news/posner-plagiarizes-again/
-
~snip~
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front. Dr. Wecht believed that the large exit wound on the right side 'could hide an entrance wound at the same spot.' In other words, just as Oswald fired from behind and his bullet exited the President's head, a front shooter firred into the wound created by the rear bullet.* That is Wecht's way of explaining why there is not another entry hole in JFK's head. However, the X rays and photographs show no exit wound for such a bullet. The author raised the issue with Wecht, and he admitted that 'the question of where did a front bullet exit is a very good one.' He first suggested that the front shot may have been a frangible bullet, which may have exploded upon impact in the brain. However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.' Finally, he suggested that the front bullet may have been plastic, and penetrated the brain but did not exit. He argued that since the brain is not available for examination, his speculation is possible - except that plastic bullets were rarely available until 1968, five years after the assassination."!
~snip~
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front."
The autopsy doctors, who held JFK's skull in their hands, to their graves said there was an entrance wound in the back of the skull. Slightly to the right and slightly above the EOP.
When critics pointed out that wound location didn't jibe with the WC explanation of events the Clark Panel was tasked with re examining the photos and xrays. They found a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull, presumably from a metal projectile. They promptly moved the entrance wound to align with the metal trail. 4 inches above the EOP! 2 wounds?
-
It is possible that intelligence agencies had a plastic bullet before they became commonly known or available. Also the bullets used for crowd control must be very different from a round used to penetrate JFK's head.
Posner says that plastic bullets weren't common until 1968 but doesn't cite a source. The only source I found in a quick search was the one that was invented by the British for crowd control. What can be inferred from the second source (Wikipedia) is that the use of handgun caliber size bullets are non-lethal and only used in revolvers as the flat nosed projectile will not feed well in handguns and rifles fed by magazine. There's also a company that manufactures a polymer coated plastic bullet but I would have to question the lethality of such bullets.
In reference to your comment yes, it's possible that plastic bullets were around by 1963 and used clandestinely but that would only be a guess and IMO, only used by Dr. Wecht to to give his theory a plausible explanation.
-
From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner there is an execerpt on page 313 that illustrates even when presented with good arguments against his theory Dr. Wecht's position still remained entrenched as a plausible theory until his death.
Doctor Cyril Wecht is still alive!
My apologies to Dr. Wecht. :-[
-
OSCAR...
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum.
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum. But what many of these right-leaning WC supporters fail to realize is that even during the opening days of the Jan 1964 commission beginnings, WC members from both sides of the aisle were questioning the official conclusions that the FBI was shoveling to them.
And I have also observed that over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum and when you bring this up to them, they become very defensive without realizing that members from their own spectrum (the right) were highly dubious of what the government investigative body (the FBI) was shoveling to them.
In addition, I have observed that over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum and when you mention that everyone deserves a fair trial and that perhaps maybe - just maybe - there were too many Kennedy haters involved, these same WC believers who come from the right of the political spectrum will then try to change tactics (once again) and make it a race issue, even going so far as to state that they are being singled out because of their name, when not a single thing was mentioned regarding their name in the first place.
So what does all of this mean? It's simple. The "left-leaning" Wecht didn't believe in the fairy tale of a single man shooting a single bullet and it coming out near perfect, just like members of the WC (both left- and right-leaning) didn't believe it. So it's basically a wash.
And if those who over the years the majority of WC believers have come from the right of the political spectrum don't believe this, then read the secret briefings of WC members here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12g1i440geFDhf_vFKiHaEqyF1N-MUT2p/view
All right. I'll read the book and I hope you will read this book
History Will Prove Us Right. Inside the Warren Commission Report on the assassination of John F. Kennedy by Howard P. Willens and also watch these two videos from the Sixth Floor Museum The Work of the Warren Commission
-
From what I understand about Dr. Wecht, he doesn?t have his own theory of Conspiracy, he just doesn?t agree with the conclusions of the WC and HSCA medical panels. Which isn?t unreasonable because:
A) There?s no consensus on the exact locations and sizes of JFK?s Back and Skull wounds
B) The Parkland doctors gave conflicting or contradictory accounts of Kennedy?s wounds
C) Even the best doctors in the world can?t reach complete conclusions using only X-Rays and photos
I believe Dr. Wecht does have a theory and that is a shooter from the front fired a shot at the exact moment a shot from the back entered JFK's skull.
-
"From the book Case Closed by Gerald Posner"
"However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain"
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/disintegrated1.png)
_____________________________
Posner Plagiarizes Again
"...Disgraced Miami Beach author Gerald Posner is desperate. He apparently whitewashed an account of his serial plagiarism on his Wikipedia page, then threatened Miami New Times with a lawsuit for writing about it.
Gelembiuk's review of Posner's work, reviewed by Miami New Times, found the author committed several brands of plagiarism...."
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2010-05-20/news/posner-plagiarizes-again/
Let's quote the entire sentence so it's meaning can be placed in context.
However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.'
-
"While the Select Committe's forensic panel agreed that a bullet had entered from the rear and exploded out the side of the President's head, there was a lone dissent. Dr. Cyril Wecht said that such a finding did not preclude a shot also entering from the front."
The autopsy doctors, who held JFK's skull in their hands, to their graves said there was an entrance wound in the back of the skull. Slightly to the right and slightly above the EOP.
When critics pointed out that wound location didn't jibe with the WC explanation of events the Clark Panel was tasked with re examining the photos and xrays. They found a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull, presumably from a metal projectile. They promptly moved the entrance wound to align with the metal trail. 4 inches above the EOP! 2 wounds?
One bullet entrance wound is what the X-Ray shows
-
Let's quote the entire sentence so it's meaning can be placed in context.
However, the X rays do not show any metal fragments in the brain from such a bullet, and when this was pointed out to Wecht, he acknowledged, 'Yes, that's true, there should be more fragments.'
Wow Just wow
The bullet fragmented.
Doesn't matter the context.
At least 40 particles of disintegrated metal!
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/disintegrated1.png)
-
One bullet entrance wound is what the X-Ray shows
The autopsy doctors said the EOP.
The Clark Panel said 4 inches higher.
The autopsy doctors were completely incompetent or corrupt or there were 2 bullet holes in JFK's skull.
Pick your poison.
Either choice and the WC is fiction.
-
The autopsy doctors said the EOP.
The Clark Panel said 4 inches higher.
The autopsy doctors were completely incompetent or corrupt or there were 2 bullet holes in JFK's skull.
Pick your poison.
Either choice and the WC is fiction.
The autopsy doctors were also dealing with a skull that was fractured in multiple places. It must have been like trying to hold a shattered egg in place. I think it's a bit harsh to say the doctors were incompetent or corrupt. These guys were not forensic pathologist and were placed under undue stress by the concerns of the Kennedy family and matters of protocol as to the timing of the President casket being available for national mourning as quickly as possible. Giving a sinister interpretation to what was not a routine post-mortem process is unfounded and without any credible evidence.
-
Wow Just wow
The bullet fragmented.
Doesn't matter the context.
At least 40 particles of disintegrated metal!
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/disintegrated1.png)
How about highlighting the part that points out the path of the missile! That indicates a single path.
-
How about highlighting the part that points out the path of the missile! That indicates a single path.
The autopsy doctors said the entrance wound was slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP.
The Clark Panel said well above, 100mm, the EOP.
That's two paths/wounds.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md59/html/Image00.htm
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/XrayLateral.jpg)
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/EOPwound.png)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/clarkcowlick_1.jpg)
(https://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/clark%20panel.gif)
-
The autopsy doctors were also dealing with a skull that was fractured in multiple places. It must have been like trying to hold a shattered egg in place. I think it's a bit harsh to say the doctors were incompetent or corrupt. These guys were not forensic pathologist and were placed under undue stress by the concerns of the Kennedy family and matters of protocol as to the timing of the President casket being available for national mourning as quickly as possible. Giving a sinister interpretation to what was not a routine post-mortem process is unfounded and without any credible evidence.
They stuck by their original conclusion, of a wound being low in the back of JFK's skull, until their deaths.
-
They stuck by their original conclusion, of a wound being low in the back of JFK's skull, until their deaths.
I don't think so. Dr. Humes agreed with the findings of the HSCA findings. What he had issues with was accepting the difference in length between his original calculations and those arrived at by the HSCA.
Mr. CORNWELL. I would ask you if you would mind stepping to the easel and describing for us what your view, or your opinion, would be as to the location of the entry wound on that X-ray.
Dr. HUMES. OK. I believe, particularly in this rather enhanced picture, I might say, it is a pleasure to have such because I didn't have anything of this kind formerly, that this would be the point of entrance.
Mr. CORNWELL. For the record simply, would you try to describe the point that you just indicated?
Dr. HUMES. Well, in this approximate area would be about where external occipital protuberance would be, the knob we can feel in the back of our head. This would be above it. There is a great enlargement here, so it looks considerably further away than it would be on a standard size film or on the skull and I believe this is above the external occipital protuberance. I think it also shows on the film that Dr. Baden was showing earlier. I think it shows even better in the in the A.P. view, the anterior-posterior view of the skull.
Mr. CORNWELL. So, you, in effect, would agree with the testimony of Dr. Baden that the entry wound on the X-rays is at the point in which there is, simply from a novice point of view, a dislocation or a jutting out.
Dr. HUMES. It is a fracture line that juts out from that.
Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you.
Dr. HUMES. If I might add, and more importantly, I had the opportunity, which none of the gentlemen had to do, to examine the President's skull from the inside when the brain was removed, with great care. There was one, and only one, wound of entrance. I think we are in a somewhat of a semantic discussion as to where it was.
Mr. CORNWELL. And would you agree that the fragments shown in the upper portion of the skull would also be relatively consistent with the same entry location on the skull?
Dr. HUMES. Oh yes, however, this bullet was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place.
Mr. CORNWELL. And referring to JFK exhibit F-302---
Dr. HUMES. Which is?
Mr. CORNWELL. The one on the very left, the drawing of the brain, would you also agree that the disruption of the brain, as shown in that drawing, is also in the upper portion and therefore would also be roughly consistent with the same entry location?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. CORNWELL. Dr. Humes, you have indicated that you, of course, worked under the handicap, which, of course, was caused by conditions beyond your control, during the autopsy and the writing of the report, of not having autopsy photographs to work with; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. Nor the X-rays by the time we were writing the report.
Mr. CORNWELL. Nor the X-rays. Your initial autopsy report indicated that, as you have just stated, the wound was, indeed, above, I believe the report is worded in terms of "slightly above," the external occipital protuberance. The testimony today indicates that the panel places that at approximately 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. Would that discrepancy be explainable?
Dr. HUMES. Well, I have a little trouble with that; 10 centimeters is a significant--4 inches.
Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to simply ask you a few specific questions in order to determine----
Dr. HUMES. I go back to the fact there was only one, period.
Mr. CORNWELL. To determine whether we can understand how such a discrepaed [sic?][RHS] late at night; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. That's correct.
One entry wound.
-
I don't think so. Dr. Humes agreed with the findings of the HSCA findings. What he had issues with was accepting the difference in length between his original calculations and those arrived at by the HSCA.
Mr. CORNWELL. I would ask you if you would mind stepping to the easel and describing for us what your view, or your opinion, would be as to the location of the entry wound on that X-ray.
Dr. HUMES. OK. I believe, particularly in this rather enhanced picture, I might say, it is a pleasure to have such because I didn't have anything of this kind formerly, that this would be the point of entrance.
Mr. CORNWELL. For the record simply, would you try to describe the point that you just indicated?
Dr. HUMES. Well, in this approximate area would be about where external occipital protuberance would be, the knob we can feel in the back of our head. This would be above it. There is a great enlargement here, so it looks considerably further away than it would be on a standard size film or on the skull and I believe this is above the external occipital protuberance. I think it also shows on the film that Dr. Baden was showing earlier. I think it shows even better in the in the A.P. view, the anterior-posterior view of the skull.
Mr. CORNWELL. So, you, in effect, would agree with the testimony of Dr. Baden that the entry wound on the X-rays is at the point in which there is, simply from a novice point of view, a dislocation or a jutting out.
Dr. HUMES. It is a fracture line that juts out from that.
Mr. CORNWELL. Thank you.
Dr. HUMES. If I might add, and more importantly, I had the opportunity, which none of the gentlemen had to do, to examine the President's skull from the inside when the brain was removed, with great care. There was one, and only one, wound of entrance. I think we are in a somewhat of a semantic discussion as to where it was.
Mr. CORNWELL. And would you agree that the fragments shown in the upper portion of the skull would also be relatively consistent with the same entry location on the skull?
Dr. HUMES. Oh yes, however, this bullet was so disrupted, those fragments I think could virtually be any place.
Mr. CORNWELL. And referring to JFK exhibit F-302---
Dr. HUMES. Which is?
Mr. CORNWELL. The one on the very left, the drawing of the brain, would you also agree that the disruption of the brain, as shown in that drawing, is also in the upper portion and therefore would also be roughly consistent with the same entry location?
Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir, I do.
Mr. CORNWELL. Dr. Humes, you have indicated that you, of course, worked under the handicap, which, of course, was caused by conditions beyond your control, during the autopsy and the writing of the report, of not having autopsy photographs to work with; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. Nor the X-rays by the time we were writing the report.
Mr. CORNWELL. Nor the X-rays. Your initial autopsy report indicated that, as you have just stated, the wound was, indeed, above, I believe the report is worded in terms of "slightly above," the external occipital protuberance. The testimony today indicates that the panel places that at approximately 10 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance. Would that discrepancy be explainable?
Dr. HUMES. Well, I have a little trouble with that; 10 centimeters is a significant--4 inches.
Mr. CORNWELL. I would like to simply ask you a few specific questions in order to determine----
Dr. HUMES. I go back to the fact there was only one, period.
Mr. CORNWELL. To determine whether we can understand how such a discrepaed [sic?][RHS] late at night; is that correct?
Dr. HUMES. That's correct.
One entry wound.
"Dr. Humes agreed with the findings of the HSCA findings."
Wrong!
The verbal wink he gave to Cornwell isn't agreement.
"I think we are in a somewhat of a semantic discussion as to where it was.:
"One entry wound."
The autopsy doctors never claimed more than one wound. They stood by the EOP wound till their deaths.
When critics pointed out that wound location didn't jibe with the WC explanation of events the Clark Panel was tasked with re examining the photos and xrays. They found a trail of metal particles across the top of the skull, presumably from a metal projectile. They promptly moved the entrance wound to align with the metal trail. 4 inches above the EOP! = 2 wounds.
-
The autopsy doctors said the entrance wound was slightly above and slightly to the right of the EOP.
The Clark Panel said well above, 100mm, the EOP.
That's two paths/wounds.
Or it may mean that someone is off by 100 mm or 4 inches.
I think the Clark Panel was off by 4 inches.
Metal Fragments can travel away through the brain and end up away from the bullet path.
If there were two bullets and bullets leave metal fragments along the path, why aren?t there two metal fragments paths?
What ballistic expert says that bullets do leave metal fragments that mark the path of the bullet? Experts who work with ballistic gel and run experiments to answer these questions.
-
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum. IMO, their political leanings have influenced in one form or another their view of the WC conclusions. To date I'm not aware of any criticism or rejection from the right of the conclusions reached by the WC other than that offered by Roger Stone with his theory that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination. The one common denominator that the most prominent WC critics have in common is that they're intelligent people. Of all the WC critics none I believe fit the intelligent balance sheet more than Dr. Cyril Wecht.( With this observation I'm revealing my bias toward those who are doctors in medicine whom I admire very much.) This is why I'm puzzled by the position taken by Dr. Cyril Wecht when it comes to the JFK assassination. There's no political angle that can be ascribed to his motive. At least none that I have seen.
A conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination appeals to both the extreme right and left wing. Anyone who is against Democracy and thinks we would be better off with a Communist dictatorship or a Fascist dictatorship.
Many CTers try to steer people into thinking that parts of the U. S. Government murdered President Kennedy. To get control of the government. And this same group controls the government to this day. If one can believe this one is halfway to convincing them that a non-secret dictatorship is maybe not worse than a secret dictatorship, which democracies seemed to be prone to falling under the control of.
Because extreme right wingers are in more disrepute than left wingers, I think most extreme right wingers keep silent on this, no wishing to harm the Pro-Conspiracy arguments. The left wingers are doing a good enough job convincing people that there was a conspiracy that they don?t need any help, and any help would be counter-productive.
-
Or it may mean that someone is off by 100 mm or 4 inches.
I think the Clark Panel was off by 4 inches.
Metal Fragments can travel away through the brain and end up away from the bullet path.
If there were two bullets and bullets leave metal fragments along the path, why aren?t there two metal fragments paths?
What ballistic expert says that bullets do leave metal fragments that mark the path of the bullet? Experts who work with ballistic gel and run experiments to answer these questions.
"I think the Clark Panel was off by 4 inches."
Every government inquiry since the Clark Panel announced the 4 inch higher entrance wound in JFK's skull,
including the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA, has agreed there was a bullet hole in the cowlick area.
Maybe you can share the information that shows they are incorrect.
"If there were two bullets and bullets leave metal fragments along the path, why aren?t there two metal fragments paths?"
I don't know.
My best guess would be that there were 2 different amunitions used. One left a metal trail,
one didn't.
Another possibility is the second shot hit the skull after it had been shattered and there wasn't enough
resistance to fragment it.
-
A conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination appeals to both the extreme right and left wing. Anyone who is against Democracy and thinks we would be better off with a Communist dictatorship or a Fascist dictatorship.
Many CTers try to steer people into thinking that parts of the U. S. Government murdered President Kennedy. To get control of the government. And this same group controls the government to this day. If one can believe this one is halfway to convincing them that a non-secret dictatorship is maybe not worse than a secret dictatorship, which democracies seemed to be prone to falling under the control of.
Because extreme right wingers are in more disrepute than left wingers, I think most extreme right wingers keep silent on this, no wishing to harm the Pro-Conspiracy arguments. The left wingers are doing a good enough job convincing people that there was a conspiracy that they don?t need any help, and any help would be counter-productive.
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hogwash-quotes-2.jpg)
-
"I think the Clark Panel was off by 4 inches."
Every government inquiry since the Clark Panel announced the 4 inch higher entrance wound in JFK's skull,
including the Rockefeller Commission and the HSCA, has agreed there was a bullet hole in the cowlick area.
And every government inquiry since the Warren Commission agreed there was just one bullet that passed through the skull, not two. You just cherry pick the conclusions you like and ignore the rest.
Larry Sturdivan?s ?The JFK Myths? made a good case for the entry point being near the EOP, not the cowlick.
But what this or that government study said doesn?t matter. What would matter was if a real ballistic expert, and expert who runs real world experiments with ballistic gel, bone targets, etc. said that WCC/MC FMJ bullets can and do leave a trail of metal fragments along the bullet path.
Can you name such a ballistic expert? Does that ballistic expert show pictures and X-Rays that demonstrate this is so, maybe using a human skull or a model of a human skull as the target?
Larry Sturdivan made it clear that bullet fragments follow curved and unpredictable paths, so I would not expect the metal fragments to mark the path of the bullet. But if you know of a ballistic expert with a different opinion, please enlighten us.
-
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hogwash-quotes-2.jpg)
There was nothing 'premium' at all about that ration of hog wash ::)
-
A conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination appeals to both the extreme right and left wing. Anyone who is against Democracy and thinks we would be better off with a Communist dictatorship or a Fascist dictatorship.
Many CTers try to steer people into thinking that parts of the U. S. Government murdered President Kennedy. To get control of the government. And this same group controls the government to this day. If one can believe this one is halfway to convincing them that a non-secret dictatorship is maybe not worse than a secret dictatorship, which democracies seemed to be prone to falling under the control of.
Because extreme right wingers are in more disrepute than left wingers, I think most extreme right wingers keep silent on this, no wishing to harm the Pro-Conspiracy arguments. The left wingers are doing a good enough job convincing people that there was a conspiracy that they don?t need any help, and any help would be counter-productive.
Both Gary Craig and Jerry Freeman seem to think my post was hogwash.
If so, can either of them name a dictator, a spokesman for a dictatorship, or anyone who believes a certain form dictatorship is the best form of government, who has said that they believe that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy?
Can they name even one?
The appeal of a conspiracy thinking to these people is obvious.
-
Both Gary Craig and Jerry Freeman seem to think my post was hogwash.
If so, can either of them name a dictator, a spokesman for a dictatorship, or anyone who believes a certain form dictatorship is the best form of government, who has said that they believe that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy?
Can they name even one?
The appeal of a conspiracy thinking to these people is obvious.
::)
"...Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy's murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president's death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald -- a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union -- had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time..."
"...many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but rarely talked about it openly.
Kennedy's successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the lone-gunman explanation.
The president's brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William Walton -- a friend of the First Lady -- went to Moscow on a previously scheduled trip a week after JFK's murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that "despite Oswald's connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents."
In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination. In the executive branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon,
wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn't interested.
Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon special operations in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.
Winston Scott, chief of the CIA's station in Mexico City at the time of Kennedy's murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist, rejected the Warren Commission's findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks before the assassination. Scott concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald had, indeed, been just a patsy.
None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963. Neither did they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it only reservedly, in confined circles..."
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/
-
Gary, again you dodge my question. So I will ask it again:
Both Gary Craig and Jerry Freeman seem to think my post was hogwash.
If so, can either of them name a dictator, a spokesman for a dictatorship, or anyone who believes a certain form dictatorship is the best form of government, who has said that they believe that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy?
Can they name even one?
The appeal of a conspiracy thinking to these people is obvious.
Yes, one can name people who believe in Democracy who believe in the JFK Conspiracy. One can also find such people in the past who believed in a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, or a world-wide Catholic conspiracy, or a world-wide Free Mason conspiracy. Those beliefs used to be very common throughout America in the past before they fell out of fashion.
Give me a name and site it of a dictator or a spokesman for a dictatorship who believe Oswald acted alone. So simply state that no, you can?t come up with one.
I can give the name of some who did support conspiracy, like Khrushchev and Castro. And there are probably several others I don?t know. I the rest of them have figured out that they can help the American JFK conspiracy theory if they remain silent.
-
Gary, again you dodge my question. So I will ask it again:
Both Gary Craig and Jerry Freeman seem to think my post was hogwash.
If so, can either of them name a dictator, a spokesman for a dictatorship, or anyone who believes a certain form dictatorship is the best form of government, who has said that they believe that Oswald alone killed President Kennedy?
Can they name even one?
The appeal of a conspiracy thinking to these people is obvious.
Yes, one can name people who believe in Democracy who believe in the JFK Conspiracy. One can also find such people in the past who believed in a world-wide Jewish conspiracy, or a world-wide Catholic conspiracy, or a world-wide Free Mason conspiracy. Those beliefs used to be very common throughout America in the past before they fell out of fashion.
Give me a name and site it of a dictator or a spokesman for a dictatorship who believe Oswald acted alone. So simply state that no, you can?t come up with one.
I can give the name of some who did support conspiracy, like Khrushchev and Castro. And there are probably several others I don?t know. I the rest of them have figured out that they can help the American JFK conspiracy theory if they remain silent.
You should start a seperate thread. This has nothing to do with the discussion.
You can title it"Joe's Hogwash".
(http://i959.photobucket.com/albums/ae75/garcra/hogwash.jpg)
-
My posts have nothing to do with this thread?
Gary, what are the first few sentences of the initial post of this thread?
I have observed that over the years the majority of WC critics have come from the left of the political spectrum. IMO, their political leanings have influenced in one form or another their view of the WC conclusions. To date I'm not aware of any criticism or rejection from the right of the conclusions reached by the WC other than that offered by Roger Stone with his theory that Lyndon Johnson was responsible for the assassination.
I point out that pushing a government conspiracy appeals equally to the far right as it does to the far left.
Roger Stone is the only right winger who pushes the government conspiracy angle?
What about James Fetzer? He was a leading spokesman for the CT side for many years. I am certain there are many posters here who do, or at least who used to, think well of him. He?s a big believer in Large Secret Jewish conspiracies. He has also become a Holocaust denier. If he is not a far right CTer, who is?
Then there is Michael T. Griffith. He has been a popular ?Go-To? expert on discounting the neurological spasm explanation for JFK going backwards from the headshot, on the strength of his pulling the wool over a doctor?s eyes and not informing him of film showing what happens when a goat is shot through the brain. And getting a statement from that doctor that the neurological spasm theory seemed an unlikely explanation. Even doctors should withhold opinions until they have observed a real-life animal being shot through the brain. Well, our good Michael T. Griffith is also a fan on the Confederate States of American, as can be seen at his website below:
http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/
with articles on ?The War of Northern Aggression? and ?The War for Southern Independence?. I think we can all agree that Michael T. Griffith is a far-right winger.
And these are just a couple from the top of my head. I?m sure with a little digging, others can be found.
The reasons why a U. S. Government Conspiracy appeals to both the far-left wingers and the far-right wingers are obvious. Neither are fans of democratic government. Anything that states that democratic government doesn?t work, like because it is subject to seizure and control by Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies is a notion that both are going to support.
-
Let me rephrase my observation. I haven't seen anybody from the right write a book and make the case publicly other than Roger Stone in the US. I believe that Charles de Gaulle was a conspiracist and he was more right of center than most of the modern European leaders and he was not what one would consider an anti democratic political figure. As to Jim Fetzer being a Holocaust denier does not automatically move a person's political stance to the right of center. There are plenty of Holocaust deniers who are left to far left of center. just to name a few there's old reliable Lewis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Bobby Fischer and various Muslim leaders from across the globe. IMO, with the left now adopting a more pro-Palestinian and anti-Jewish/Zionist world view it's people from the left who are more prone to adopt pro Muslim attitudes and views while the opposite can be said to those from the right of the political spectrum. As to Michael Griffith just because a person adopts a pro-Confederate position does not make that position anti-democratic. Racist, yes. But if you would read the Confederate Constitution and followed the history of the Confederacy and the formation of it's government it was centered more on the rights of the individual states as having supremacy and against the controls that would be inherent in a federal government.
-
My posts have nothing to do with this thread?
Gary, what are the first few sentences of the initial post of this thread?
I point out that pushing a government conspiracy appeals equally to the far right as it does to the far left.
Roger Stone is the only right winger who pushes the government conspiracy angle?
What about James Fetzer? He was a leading spokesman for the CT side for many years. I am certain there are many posters here who do, or at least who used to, think well of him. He?s a big believer in Large Secret Jewish conspiracies. He has also become a Holocaust denier. If he is not a far right CTer, who is?
Then there is Michael T. Griffith. He has been a popular ?Go-To? expert on discounting the neurological spasm explanation for JFK going backwards from the headshot, on the strength of his pulling the wool over a doctor?s eyes and not informing him of film showing what happens when a goat is shot through the brain. And getting a statement from that doctor that the neurological spasm theory seemed an unlikely explanation. Even doctors should withhold opinions until they have observed a real-life animal being shot through the brain. Well, our good Michael T. Griffith is also a fan on the Confederate States of American, as can be seen at his website below:
http://civilwar.miketgriffith.com/
with articles on ?The War of Northern Aggression? and ?The War for Southern Independence?. I think we can all agree that Michael T. Griffith is a far-right winger.
And these are just a couple from the top of my head. I?m sure with a little digging, others can be found.
The reasons why a U. S. Government Conspiracy appeals to both the far-left wingers and the far-right wingers are obvious. Neither are fans of democratic government. Anything that states that democratic government doesn?t work, like because it is subject to seizure and control by Large-Secret-Enduring Conspiracies is a notion that both are going to support.
Just to add one figure: Jim Garrison. Garrison called himself a "conservative libertarian" which is clearly on the political right. But his description of the US as being secretly run by a cabal of militarists and businessmen who got together (somehow) to kill JFK is remarkably similar to the leftwing's conspiracy view of the country assassination.
It's also interesting to note that one of the leading political commentators on the left - Noam Chosky - is a "lone assassin" believer.
The conspiracy advocates on the hard right and left have obvious differences but they seem to have the same sort of view of how the US is run. Or who "runs it." And both have this overly romantic view (in my opinion) of JFK; that he was a threat to the secret power brokers who really run the country. And it was for that, e.g. he was going to "end" the Vietnam war or break up the MIC, that he was killed.
Your comments and mine are directly related to the OP. This isn't hijacking a thread; it's returning it to the original post.
-
Let me rephrase my observation. I haven't seen anybody from the right write a book and make the case publicly other than Roger Stone in the US. I believe that Charles de Gaulle was a conspiracist and he was more right of center than most of the modern European leaders and he was not what one would consider an anti democratic political figure. As to Jim Fetzer being a Holocaust denier does not automatically move a person's political stance to the right of center. There are plenty of Holocaust deniers who are left to far left of center. just to name a few there's old reliable Lewis Farrakhan, Linda Sarsour, Bobby Fischer and various Muslim leaders from across the globe. IMO, with the left now adopting a more pro-Palestinian and anti-Jewish/Zionist world view it's people from the left who are more prone to adopt pro Muslim attitudes and views while the opposite can be said to those from the right of the political spectrum. As to Michael Griffith just because a person adopts a pro-Confederate position does not make that position anti-democratic. Racist, yes. But if you would read the Confederate Constitution and followed the history of the Confederacy and the formation of it's government it was centered more on the rights of the individual states as having supremacy and against the controls that would be inherent in a federal government.
As I noted above, Jim Garrison was on the political right. He called himself a "conservative libertarian".
Another figure is Lew Rockwell, a libertarian/rightwinger. His site runs many of the pieces written by Fetzer and he himself (the last I recall) was a proponent of Stone's views that LBJ killed JFK. He's kind of an obscure figure.
And remember that the Liberty Lobby, a far right wing organization, published a piece claiming that E. Howard Hunt was one of the assassins (he was one of the "three tramps"). Hunt sued them for libel and Mark Lane, certainly no rightwinger, defended them.
We see popping up every now and then this very weird alliance between the far right and far left when it comes to the assassination. They disagree on nearly everything except, apparently, that JFK was killed by "the government", e.g., Hoover, LBJ, the CIA et al.