Recent Posts

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10
71
How do I post pics Mister Tom?

I don't know.

Why don't you just post a link to, or copy-and-paste, an article so we'll know who you're referring to?
72
Calvery MAY even have met Shelley and/or Lovelady NEAR the island....". I have no idea what this Specifically means. "MAY"? "NEAR"?  We are dealing in seconds here. The alleged traveled distance of Calvery in 25 seconds being absolutely critical. Yet, you choose to employ the disclaimers of "May" and "Near"? Not only is this weak choice of wording Not convincing, it also signals that even You have doubt. Thanks again for providing that link to the Ed Forum.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Don't you know what the modal verb "may" means?

It means "might".

Regardless, didn't Shelley testify that he spoke with a crying Calvery on-or-near "the island," and that Calvery told him that JFK had been shot?

Since Calvery and her dressed-in-all-white work colleague (Karan Hicks or Carol Reed) were standing only about 40 yards from 'the island" during the motorcade, don't you think ten seconds (not 25) was enough time for them to reach said "island" and for Calvery to tell Shelley there that JFK had been shot?

Rhetorical question: Do you think Shelley and Lovelady somehow stayed on the steps for "about three minutes" after the final shot but somehow left them and started heading for the railway yard / parking lot as soon as Gloria Calvery told them that JFK had been shot?

Are you still not convinced that that's big/tall, dark-blue-blouse-wearing and dark-blue-head-scarf-wearing Calvery standing on a lower step in Couch-Darnell about 30 seconds after the final shot?

-- Tom



73
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Warren Commission Sham
« Last post by Tom Graves on September 11, 2025, 10:40:06 PM »
How do you know Tomlinson didn't find it?

Because he handed the bullet he found to O P Wright who stated, unequivocally, that it was not CE399.
This is the reason why both Tomlinson and Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
That's how I know Tomlinson didn't find CE399.

Now, back to you Thomas - Where do you get the idea from that CE399 was found at Parkland?

Danny Boy,

Why was there an FBI report stating Wright was shown CE-399 and that he said it resembled the bullet he'd seen at Parkland on 11/22/63?

Regardless, since CE-399 has Oswald's Carcano's ballistics marks on it, we know that somebody fired CE-399 from Oswald's Carcano.

If Oswald didn't fire CE-399 from his Carcano on 11/22/63, then the bad guys must have fired it before then.

How did the bad guys:

1) Take possession of Oswald's Carcano (and ammunition) without his knowing about it?

2) Return it to Ruth Paine's garage before the assassination?

3) Deform CE-399 the way it ended up: 1) with no damage to its nose, but with 2) 1/3 to 1/2 of its length flattened towards the rear, 3) a longitudinal twist, and 4) lead core extruded from its base?

4) Why did the bad guys (somehow magically) deform CE-399 the way it ended up -- with no damage to the nose, with 1/3 to 1/2 of its length flattened towards the rear, with a longitudinal twist, and with lead core extruded from its base?

Did they want people to think that it had started tumbling when it exited something soft, and that it then sideswiped something hard while it was twirling / tumbling? Because after all, that's the only way it could have been deformed the way that it was -- with no damage to the nose, but with 1/3 to 1/2 of its length flattened towards the rear, with a longitudinal twist, and with lead core extruded from its base.

-- Tom

PS If CE-399 isn't the same bullet that was allegedly "planted" on Connally's stretcher, why would the bad guys plant a pointy-nosed bullet (of the sort that O. P. Wright kept in his drawer and perhaps liked to fondle) there, instead?
74
OK, I’m admittedly like a dog gnawing on a bone – a dog recovering from Achilles surgery, mind you – but we Factoid Busters are an intrepid bunch. This what Simkin said today:

After the death of Boggs, Ron Kessler, reported in the Washington Post that his son Thomas Hale Boggs Jr claimed that the FBI had mounted a smear campaign against his father because of his criticism of the Warren Commission Report. “The material, which Thomas Boggs made available, includes photographs of sexual activity and reports on alleged communist affiliations of some authors of articles and books on the assassination.” He said these dossiers had been compiled by the FBI on Warren Commission critics in order to discredit them. “Mr. Boggs said the files consisted of information on seven persons who had written critically of the commission's findings.”

This is, I am happy to report, not totally bogus. It is, however, totally misleading.

I could not locate the Washington Post article by Kessler, but I did find it quoted in the Salt Lake City Tribune of January 21, 1975 (same day as the Post article). Kessler, in case you don’t know, is still alive, a prolific author, and has been described as The Donald’s #1 cheerleader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Kessler. Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr., was a Washington lawyer and power-broker who died in 2014. I could find nothing where Junior criticized the Warren Commission.

Here is the Post article in its entirety:

The son of the late House Majority Leader Boggs has told The Post that the FBI leaked to his father damaging material on the personal lives of critics of its investigation into John F. Kennedy's assassination. Thomas Hale Boggs, Jr. said his father, who was a member of the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination and its handling by the FBI, was given the material in an apparent attempt to discredit the critics (of the Warren Commission).

The material, which Thomas Boggs made available, includes photographs of sexual activity and reports on alleged communist affiliations of some authors of articles and books on the assassination.

Boggs, a Washington lawyer, said the experience played a large role in his father's decision to publicly charge the FBI with Gestapo tactics in a 1971 speech alleging the Bureau had wiretapped his telephone and that of other Congressmen.


I found substantially the same information in the New York Times of January 31, 1975. The only oddity is that the Washington Post article was in the January 21 edition, whereas the Times place says Boggs, Jr., “said today,” meaning January 21. Perhaps Junior spoke to both newspapers. Here’s the Times piece, which was not a major story:

The son of the late Representative Hale Boggs, Democrat of Louisiana, said today that his father had given him dossiers that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had compiled on critics of the Warren Commission in an attempt to discredit them. “They weren't basically sex files,” said Tom H. Boggs, of Washington, a lawyer. “They had some of that element but most of the material dealt with leftwing organizations these people belonged to.”

Mr. Boggs said that he had received the material in late 1970 and had kept it in a safe deposit box.

The senior Mr. Boggs was a member of the Warren Commission established to investigate the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

In 1971, the Congressman made a speech on the floor of the House accusing the F.B.I. of tapping his phones and keeping dossiers on members of Congress. Those charges were never substantiated by Mr. Boggs, who disappeared in October, 1972, while on an airplane flight in Alaska. Mr. Boggs said the files consisted of information on seven persons who had written critically of the commission's findings.


Now wait a minute. Read that Simkin quote again. Boggs, Jr., said the FBI had mounted a “smear campaign” against his father? Is that what either article says?

Hell, no.

In fact, the FBI provided to Boggs, a Warren Commission member, dossiers containing some sexual material but principally material related to leftwing organizations that the FBI had assembled on critics of the Warren Commission in an attempt to discredit them. How did this constitute a “smear campaign” against Boggs, and why does neither article say anything like this? (Who does say it, you ask: Bernie Fensterwald. Oh, God.)

Boggs, Sr., gave the dossiers to Junior in 1970, and Junior kept them in a safe. Junior says this experience was an influence on Boggs in his later denunciation of the FBI for its “Gestapo” activities, but what on earth does it have to do with the 1972 plane crash? I’m lost. Simkin seems to be suggesting this was some warning about what the FBI could do to Boggs if he criticized the WC, but there is absolutely no hint of that.

The scales have fallen from my eyes. John Simkin, whose photo makes him look as benign and rational as Ward Cleaver, is just another CT wacko of the first magnitude.
75
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: The Warren Commission Sham
« Last post by Dan O'meara on September 11, 2025, 09:20:18 PM »
This has never been discussed before! Never, I tell you! I don't recall ever hearing about Tomlinson, Wright and CE 399 before - certainly not more than 14,000 times, which is simply not enough. It is soooooo interesting! Because the world really cares - really cares, I tell you! - what Tom and Dan think about this subject! I don't know about anyone else, but threads like this make me happy to be alive! Before this thread reaches its 512th page, I strongly suspect the JFKA will have been solved and history books will have to be rewritten (or maybe not, as the case may be). Where are the Sock Puppets - don't they have something to contribute here?

Like anyone cares what a silly old bully like you thinks.
76
I'll admit, I'm a hopeless sucker for anything connected with the JFKA that produces giggles. This is a conversation between Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford the morning after Boggs' little speech demanding Hoover's resignation. It is, IMHO, hysterical. Tricky Dick and Goofy Gerry are absolutely AGOG. Bear in mind, Boggs was the House Majority leader. But our heroes agree, he's NUTS! he's ON THE SAUCE! if he isn't drinking, he's ON PILLS! he simply CAN'T BE TRUSTED! and must be EXCLUDED FROM MEETINGS! At one point, Tricky assures Goofy that "no person setting foot on Capitol Hill" has been taped by the FBI "since 1924." Gerry says he had no idea, but he laps it up.

Alas, they do not discuss the Warren Commission, Joe Bananas, the Mafia or bombs. Those discussions were later in the afternoon when they were just "kicking some ideas around" over cold Buds in the Oval Office.

I said somewhere up above that Nixon admired Boggs. There is evidence to that effect, but not on THIS day.

77
How do you know Tomlinson didn't find it?

Because he handed the bullet he found to O P Wright who stated, unequivocally, that it was not CE399.
This is the reason why both Tomlinson and Wright refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
That's how I know Tomlinson didn't find CE399.

Now, back to you Thomas - Where do you get the idea from that CE399 was found at Parkland?

This has never been discussed before! Never, I tell you! I don't recall ever hearing about Tomlinson, Wright and CE 399 before - certainly not more than 14,000 times, which is simply not enough. It is soooooo interesting! Because the world really cares - really cares, I tell you! - what Tom and Dan think about this subject! I don't know about anyone else, but threads like this make me happy to be alive! Before this thread reaches its 512th page, I strongly suspect the JFKA will have been solved and history books will have to be rewritten (or maybe not, as the case may be). Where are the Sock Puppets - don't they have something to contribute here?
78
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / !
« Last post by Lance Payette on September 11, 2025, 07:19:06 PM »
On it goes ...

John Simkin, founder of the Ed Forum, whom I once considered rational only because I knew absolutely nothing about him and his photo looked sort of rational, posted TODAY, a mere 5 HOURS AGO, his apparent final word on the Boggs case.

He repeats the factoids from Boggs' speech in April of 1971. Boggs did NOT say "the [FBI] files consisted of information on seven persons who had written critically of the Warren Commission's findings." He said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the Warren Commission. Boggs did NOT "accuse J. Edgar Hoover of being 'incompetent and senile'." READ THE SPEECH. BOGGS ABSOLUTELY DID NOT SAY THIS.

He repeats the "Los Angeles Star reported" factoid. Someone needs to send Simkin some of my images of the LA Star, doncha think?

He repeats the "startling revelations" factoid and attributes it to Boggs rather than an unnamed former aide.

He introduces a factoid about journalist Ron Kessler, Boggs' son, the Warren Commission, yada yada. What is the source of this factoid, you ask? You got it: BERNIE FENSTERWALD'S BOOK, Coincidence or Conspiracy! I will admit, I didn't spend hours attempting to bust this factoid, but a brief search revealed nothing to support it. Perhaps I will turn the tables and challenge you CTers to verify it - somewhere, anywhere, other than a CT source.

He says he listened to the entire "Missing in Alaska" podcast of Jon Walczak. Nevertheless, he repeatedly refers to Walczak as Walzack and Pegge Begich as Peggy. Some of what he says is accurate and some is not, but I'll let it go.

I won't beat this to death. CTers, your gods have feet of clay. They cannot be trusted, simple as that. They weave factoids until their readers are cross-eyed, entirely without regard to whether those factoids have been thoroughly busted. And, as we once again see here, what starts out as dubious factoid in a dubious source ends up being repeated 400 times and ending up as conspiracy gospel 50 years later.
79
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: !!
« Last post by Michael T. Griffith on September 11, 2025, 06:42:25 PM »
Saundra Spencer [didn't develop autopsy photos]

https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-autopsy-photographs-of-jfk-part-two

Yes, she did. Fred's whole argument, as it usually does when he deals with witnesses whose accounts he can't accept, boils down to claiming that Spencer either lied about developing autopsy photos or only imagined she did.

There were no other photographers. None that were legitimate anyway.

Wrong. The family of White House photographer Robert Knudsen confirmed that there was a second set of autopsy photos, and that they showed wounds that are not seen in the official autopsy pictures. Several other autopsy witnesses described the taking of photos that are not in the official collection.

The X-Ray techs and the radiologist all confirmed that the X-Rays in the National Archives are authentic.

You must know this is a misleading claim, to put it mildly. Both of the x-ray techs changed their stories. Custer was all over the place about the x-rays. At one point in his ARRB interview, Custer raised serious questions about the x-rays. Reed was clearly lying for much of his ARRB interview, not to mention that he proved he didn't even know how to read an x-ray.

The radiologist, Dr. Ebersole, told one of the x-ray techs to take x-rays of skull fragments with bullet fragments taped to them, supposedly for a bust of JFK. Gee, what was going on with that? Why would anyone need such x-rays for a bust of JFK?

Incidentally, Ebersole, perhaps not realizing the implications of what he was saying, also stated that one of the late-arriving skull fragments was occipital bone. He also said that the large head wound was in the back of the skull. Were you aware of these facts?

From Pat Speer over on the ED forum:

Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22980-dr-humes-knew-about-the-throat-wound-the-day-of-the-autopsy

You guys love to trot out Pat Speer when it comes to evidence of alteration and fabrication. Speer reflexively and lamely rejects all research and accounts that indicate the faking or alteration of evidence.

Now, tell me, since Speer doesn't, what would be so bizarre about the director of two NIH institutes calling Humes to advise him of the throat wound and to recommend how to deal with it? Huh? Why is that a "bizarre story"? Why would Dr. Livingston have fabricated the story? He was quite lucid when he came forward with his account. Lots of other witnesses waited many years before coming forward with their information. The enormous impact of Oliver Stone's movie JFK caused a number of witnesses to decide that they should come forward with what they knew.

Speer has wrenched the "save the world" statement out of context to impugn Livingston's motives. I bet money you haven't read Livingston's own words about his disclosure.

A little bit more info about Dr. Livingston: He obtained his M. D. from Stanford Medical School. During the Second World War he served in the Pacific and took part in the invasion of Okinawa. In 1946 he began work at the Yale University School of Medicine. In 1952 President Dwight Eisenhower appointed Livingston as the Scientific Director of the National Institute for Neurological Diseases. He also held the post under President John F. Kennedy. In 1964 Livingston later founded the first ever department of Neurosciences at UCSD.In the 1970s, Livingston was instrumental in developing some of the first 3-D images of the human brain. Later he was awarded a major grant to develop a prototype computer system to map the brain in three dimensions in microscopic detail.

But according to you guys and Speer, Dr. Livingston just made up his account of telling Humes about the throat wound in order to "save the world."

Many people viewed James Fetzer as credible until he began to embrace 9/11 Truther claims. At the time when Livingston briefly associated with Fetzer on the JFK case, he had no idea that Fetzer would later embrace the 9/11 Truther craziness. I, myself, worked with Fetzer on the JFK case in the late 1990s, but I discontinued all association with him when he endorsed the 9/11 Truther nuttiness. Lots of other researchers ditched Fetzer like a hot potato when he embraced the 9/11 Truther trash. So just because Dr. Livingston briefly associated with Fetzer does not discredit his account of speaking with Humes before the autopsy. 

Post link(s) to those specific releases.

From the HSCA testimony of Tom Robinson;

Purdy: Specifically, when you say the body, you saw the back,I want to know specifically if either you know there was not a wound from the head down to the waist anywhere on the back, neck or whatever, or that the autopsy work may have either obliterated it or made it not evident
to you that there was such a wound?


Robinson: It miqht have done that, there was - . . but the back itself, there was no wound there, no.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md63.pdf

This is understandable, since Robinson was not the one who worked on the back wound. He helped with the skull reconstruction. BTW, Parkland nurse Diana Bowron, who helped wash JFK's body, clean his head wound, and pack the head wound with gauze, did not notice the back wound either. Nor did the two other Parkland nurses who prepared the body for the casket. So it's not surprising that Robinson did not notice the wound either.

Contrary to my earlier statement, Robinson did not say the back wound was several inches below the throat wound.

Using the posterior autopsy view as a reference, place a mark on the lateral view at the level that you believe the non-fatal entry wound on Kennedy was.

O'Neill: I specifically do not recall those-I mean, being that clean or that fixed up. To me, it looks like these pictures have been- But if they’ve been identified-positively identified, then, de facto.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Oneill_9-12-97.pdf

Here, too, you must know this is misleading. You ignore the fact that O'Neill plainly stated the large wound was in the back of the head, and that he even diagrammed the wound. You also ignore the fact that he said the back-of-head photo looked like it had been "doctored."

The autopsy photos have not been positively authenticated, not even close. The autopsy brain photos are clearly fake, since they cannot be of JFK's brain, and since they are completetly contradicted by the skull x-rays, which show substantial loss of brain in the right-frontal region. The autopsy photos that show the back of the head don't even show a readily apparent entry wound--they show no defect of any kind, yet Dr. Boswell diagrammed for the ARRB that the large head wound extended well into the rear of the skull, and the autopsy report says part of the exit wound was in the occipital bone. No such wound is seen in the extant autopsy photos that show the back of the head.

You need to read Pat Speer's chapters on the X-Rays.

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter18x-rayspecs

Speer's research on the x-rays is amateurish and awful. See my dialogues with him on the x-rays in the Education Forum. His explanations for the 6.5 mm object are strained and implausible. His explanation for the unnatural white patch is demonstrably false, as Dr. David Mantik has proved, and as anyone can see by looking at the lateral x-rays. I discuss Speer's errant explanations in A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed JFK.

Name the neuroscientist and forensic pathologist who have established that optical density (OD) measurements prove that the autopsy x-rays contain undeniable evidence of alteration.

You don't know??? Why are you even posting in this forum if you don't know such basic, important information that has been available for many years now? The neuroscientist is Dr. Michael Chesser, who did his own OD measurements after Dr. Mantik did his. The forensic pathologist was Dr. Cyril Wecht, who reviewed Dr. Mantik and Dr. Chesser's independent OD measurements and concluded they were compelling. A number of other medical experts have also endorsed Dr. Mantik's OD research.

80
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate / Re: U.S. Politics
« Last post by Royell Storing on September 11, 2025, 06:04:10 PM »

  It seems the investigators have had the rifle and Images of a "person of interest" in the stairwell for a while. We are well behind the curve here. That we are now seeing images of this "person of interest" is indicative that the investigators have reached a dead end in ID'ing this guy. They probably figure if this "person of interest" does not now step forward and say, "that's me, but I had nothing to do with the shooting", that these are images of the shooter. 
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10