Reasons for Continued Coverup?

[Fergus O'brien]

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 .

[Fergus O'brien]

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 .

[Fergus O'brien]

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. 

"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 .

[Tristan Beach]

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?

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

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.

[Richard Smith]

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.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

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.

[Jerry 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?

"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?

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 )