Corbett is pretending the media isn't corrupted and doing the government's bidding on the Kennedy Assassination...


Jim DiEugenio is the ultimate hypocrite because he criticizes the government to no end on their ignoring of the evidence but then turns around and practices the same thing on Wanda Daniel...And he uses the research community and their dirty censorship to do so...

Do you really think no one in the media would be interested if you had really proof of a conspiracy to kill JFK. There are plenty of well know people who are CTs. Jesse Watters for one. He has his own prime time show on Fox and he has often talked of his belief that that CIA killed JFK. Joey Jones, one of Fox's roving commentators has expressed similar sentiments. Geraldo Rivera is a longtime critic of the WCR. Surely, he would be interested. Just don't call him Shirley.

I documented in a previous reply that Boswell told journalist Richard Levine in an extensive interview in November 1966 that at the time of the autopsy the pathologists had already been told "what had been done by the physicians in Dallas," in addition to the "probable extent of the injuries" ("Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version," Baltimore Sun, November 25, 1966, p. 3; see also Harold Weisberg, Post Mortem, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1975 edition, p. 37; and Weisberg, Never Again, Skyhorse Publishing, 2007, reprint of 1995 edition, p. 217).

I should add that Boswell also revealed the additional crucial information that Humes's phone conversations with the Dallas doctors the next day, 11/23/1963, "confirmed what was already a certainty to the pathologists -- that there was a bullet wound in the President's neck at the point of the tracheotomy incision" (Ibid., p. 4; see also Weisberg, Post Mortem, p. 37).

The official lie that emerged soon after the autopsy was that the autopsy doctors had no idea there was a throat wound until the day after the autopsy. Historian William Manchester was the first to expose this falsehood in his 1967 book The Death of a President, but his discovery was ignored by the major news outlets. Even most WC critics failed to take advantage of Manchester's discovery because they viewed Manchester as a tool of the Establishment, as a sort of "court historian," and thus didn't bother to read his book.

Dr. John Ebersole, the autopsy radiologist, was the next person to expose the official tale when he was interviewed by the HSCA in March 1978, as I also documented in a previous reply. Among other key disclosures, Ebersole informed the HSCA that Humes spoke with the Dallas doctors by no later 10:30 during the autopsy. This was at least half an hour before the end of the exam phase of the autopsy, and at least two hours before the end of the consultation phase of the autopsy.

Ebersole also revealed that "further probing" determined that "the distance traveled by this missile [the back-wound bullet] was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger." This is one of several disclosures that confirm what we learned with the release of the transcript of the WC's 1/27/1964 executive session, namely, that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound and that, not surprisingly, the back wound had no exit point. Mind you, this was late January 1964, and the transcript shows that Rankin was referring to documents from the autopsy.

As I also documented in a previous reply, military aide Richard Lipsey witnessed the consultation phase of the autopsy and reported to the HSCA that the pathologists were certain the back wound had no exit point. Crucially, Lipsey added that the doctors concluded that the rear-headshot bullet had exited the throat. This is a revealing datum because we know from the 1/27/1964 WC executive session transcript that one of the first drafts of the autopsy report said a fragment from the headshot exited the throat, that the throat wound was the exit point for a headshot fragment. This is also further proof that the pathologists knew about the throat wound during the autopsy.   

What the hell difference does it make when the autopsy team figured out there had been an exit wound in the throat. They eventually got there. I suspect it was a gradual process. At first they were confused because they had an entrance wound with no apparent exit and no bullet in the body. That fostered the preposterous hypothesis that the bullet had only gone a few inches into the back and then somehow worked its way out. It is completely absurd to think that a bullet would only penetrate a short distance into soft tissue, but they apparently were groping for an answer early on in the process. As they continued to examine the body, they discovered further tissue damage, the contusion of the pleura, the perforation of the strap muscles, and the damage to the rings of the trachea, there must have been a moment when the thought hit them that, "Holy crap, this leads us right to the tracheostomy incision". That discovery would naturally lead them to at least consider the possibility that the exit wound had been used to perform the tracheostomy. Naturally, they would want to confirm that with the ER team at Parkland. There were several phone calls from Bethesda to Dr. Perry that night and the next morning. Who knows during which conversation Perry confirmed to Humes that the tracheostomy had been performed over the exit wound. Again, what the hell difference does it make when that confirmation was given. The Bethesda team arrived at the correct answer.

It defies credulity that both the back wound and throat wound were entrance wounds in which a bullet penetrated only a short distance into soft tissue so that it could work its way out or be dug out of JFK's body. Only really silly people would believe such a thing was remotely possible. 

Corbett is pretending the media isn't corrupted and doing the government's bidding on the Kennedy Assassination...


Jim DiEugenio is the ultimate hypocrite because he criticizes the government to no end on their ignoring of the evidence but then turns around and practices the same thing on Wanda Daniel...And he uses the research community and their dirty censorship to do so...

Bell Film.



Hughes film.

I'm going to crack on with this supposed debate with Jack and assume he's going to join in at some point.
Firstly I'm going to assume that Jack does, indeed, believe that Arnold Rowland invented the man on the 6th floor. I've asked him for a Yes/No on this issue at least six times and he has been typically evasive about this most basic question. I don't know why and I'm not sure I care but let's assume his evasiveness is to hide the fact he believes something so fundamentally ridiculous as the Miracle on Elm Street.
Secondly, I'm going to choose the most coherent thing I can find that he has posted on this subject which, with Jack, is no easy task. I'm going to pick what I believe is a valid point that needs explanation. Unfortunately most of Jack's 'evidence' is just his wobbly opinion of things but here goes.

This is from REPLY#2021, "The First Shot" thread.
Jack doesn't seem to believe that Rowland could have seen the man with the rifle through the open set of windows in the way he describes in his testimony (I think):



The window is 29 inches tall and it starts 14 inches off the floor. He doesn’t know that because they finally ask him if he had ever been inside the TSBD. No
But his description of the person in no way reflects the correct window dimensions.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much, if any, of his body was obscured by the window frame from that point down to the floor?
Mr. ROWLAND - From where I was standing I could see from his head to about 6 inches below his waist, below his belt.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you see as far as his knees?
Mr. ROWLAND - No.
Mr. SPECTER - And what is your best recollection as to how close to the window he was standing?
Mr. ROWLAND - He wasn't next to the window, but he wasn't very far back. I would say 3 to 5 feet back from the window.
Mr. SPECTER - How much of the rifle was separated from your line of vision by the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - The entire rifle was in my view.

But he is not done yet. He is unstoppable with his description of what is impossible to see through a 29 inch window. Specter realizes he is making it all up as he talks.

Mr. SPECTER - And how much of his body, if any, was in the open view where there was no window between your eyes and the object of his body?
Mr. ROWLAND - Approximately two-thirds of his body just below his waist.
Mr. SPECTER - Up to what point?
Mr. ROWLAND - Mid point between the waist and the knees, this is again in my proportion to his height that I make that judgment.
Mr. SPECTER - So from the waist, some point between his knees and his waist, you started to see hi clear in the window?
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - And from that point how far up his body were you able to see without any obstruction of a window between you and him?
Mr. ROWLAND - To the top of his head. There was some space on top of that where I could see the wall behind him.
Mr. SPECTER - What is your best estimate of the space between the top of his head and the open window at the perspective you were observing?
Mr. ROWLAND - Two and a half, three feet, something on that--that is something very hard to ascertain. That would just be an estimation on my part.




Clearly Jack does not believe Rowland could see as much of the man with the rifle as he said he could, because the gap of 29 inches was not big enough. He describes it as "impossible". I hope this is a fair summary of Jack's position and I'm sure he'll correct me if it's not.
As far as I'm concerned, the only way to accurately test this claim is through computer graphics. It would require an accurate model of Dealey Plaza and the TSBD building, with the ability to have a POV from Rowland's known position.
And this is exactly what Charles Collins did in "The Floor-Laying Crew" thread (Reply#138)



Okay, here's what ~4.5' looks like in my 3D model. BRW sitting on the cart is the camera position and is represented by the virtual visitor icon. I don't think it is quite that far, but giving you the benefit of the doubt, the stack of boxes is approximately 4.5' from the inside of the south wall. I have made one box invisible so that part of the rifleman character can be seen behind the boxes from BRW's position. The rifleman character is about 5' from the inside of the south wall, within the revised range that Rowland estimated.





Here is the view from Arnold Rowland's position. It fits reasonably well with his description.







Charles was actually trying to ascertain what BRW would have seen from his stated position on the trolley at the end of the third aisle while having his lunch. He established that boxes down by the east end of the 6th floor would have obscured the man with the rifle from the view of anyone sat on the trolley, if the man was stood about 5 feet from the southwest window.
He also showed what someone stood at Arnold Rowland's position would have seen through the fully open southwest window.
IT IS A PERFECT MATCH FOR WHAT ARNOLD ROWLAND DESCRIBED.
Could there be clearer confirmation of the accuracy of Rowland's testimony on this matter?