Dale Myers on the state of the JFK case

By setting up a series of straw men, adopting a supercilious tone, and ignoring new evidence, Dale Myers manages to unpleasantly restate the official theory of a lone gunman in a way that makes it less convincing than ever.

Fifty-two long years, and still nothing to exonerate Oswald or uncover the so-called “true conspirators.”

Source: JFK Files: Fifty-two years of coming to terms with Oswald

Myers is correct on one point: there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that any specific named individual conspired to kill President Kennedy. This factual statement also applies to Lee Oswald.

278 comments

  1. Photon says:

    Dale Myers presents facts. If you can confirm one inaccurate statement in his review please identify it.
    Unlike Drs. Thompson and Aguilar he doesn’t have to make up quotes, put Corpsmen into Graduate School or make up requirements for FBI 302 forms.
    And as he states the scientific evidence over 52 years has only strengthened the case against Oswald- at least to those who have the scientific and medical background to understand that evidence.
    Such as JFK’s abnormal neck condition.

    • J.D. says:

      Myers barely cites a single source for any of his tendentious claims. In fact, his diatribe actually manages to be less accurate than the Warren Report; even the Commission did not claim that Oswald had tried to kill Richard Nixon or that he was a “sociopath” or a “wannabe serial killer.” Calling Oswald names is not a substitute for actual evidence. (Note that Myers has no similar epithets for Allen Dulles, a man with as much blood on his hands as any man in American history.)

    • Photon has adopted a similar supercilious attitude on JFKfacts; attacking persons rather than facts – which makes him a target for the same, lest we allow him a free card for bullshmacking jabberwacky.

      I cherish Photon’s unintended humor in statements such as this: “at least to those who have the scientific and medical background to understand that evidence”. Simply ludicrous ‘stand-up’ burlesque.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Photon

      You have made countless references to JFK’s “abnormal neck condition”.

      Would you please share with us the true nature of this “condition”, and how it might have affected the Single Bullet Theory?

    • Gary Aguilar says:

      Photon seems to have fabricated the notion JFK had an “abnormal neck” condition, perhaps because, as WhoWhatWhy pointed out, Photon’s ally Dale Myers fabricated one to explain the Single Bullet Theory’s path through JFK. See: http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/11/24/the-mystery-of-the-constant-flow-of-jfk-disinformation/

      Photon touts that the medical and scientific evidence supports Oswald’s guilt, but doesn’t name a single anti-conspiracy article published in the “peer-reviewed” literature that hasn’t been debunked – including Luis Alvarez’s “jet effect” claims in the Am. J. Physics from 1976, the silly JAMA articles from the early ’90s, Rahn and Sturdivan’s articles on Neutron Activation Analysis in the mid 2000s, etc. If he can find one, I’ll send him a check for $200.oo.

      (Dale Myers praises the work of Lucien Haag for a series of articles recently published in the peer-reviewed Assn. of Firemark and Toolmark Examiners Journal that endorse the long-discredited Neutron Activation Analysis evidence. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015_05_01_archive.html)

      Despite having been reminded of it more than once, Photon has repeatedly ignored the fact the Warren Commissio selectively and misleadingly cited the opinions of three Dallas doctors who had treated Governor Connally’s wounds in Dallas: Drs. Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory and George Shires. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

      Photon dismisses concerns that no FBI 302 report by Agent Bardwell Odum exists to support the FBI memo of July 7,’64 to the W. Commission that stated B. Odum interviewed Parkland witnesses Tomlinson and Wright. Odum told me and Tink Thompson he never wrote such a report because he never interviewed either Parkland witness. He also told us that if he had carried CE 399 around to show those witnesses, he’d sure as shootin’ have written up a 302. As we’ve written, searches by us and the govt. disclose no reports on 399 by Odum, 302’s or otherwise. Photon sneers that there’s no evidence 302 reports were even written in ’63-4, despite the fact that the Sibert and O’Neill report is, you guessed it, a 302 report.

      I made an error concerning the background of one of the autopsy witnesses, but that single, admitted mistake is all he can find in reams of my writings, and so he’s running with it since it’s all he’s got. But re mistakes by the FBI, the W. Comm, Dale Myers, Lucien Haag, etc? Not so much. And my background error has no relevance to the quote I cited from the witness, which is accurate and consonant with the statements of other witnesses at the autopsy and at Parkland Hospital.

      So, Photon, please cite for us, here and now, a single article published in the peer-reivew med/science literature that’s not been debunked, that’s not junk science.

      • Photon says:

        Debunked by who? I guess that you missed my deconstruction earlier today of Baker and Cranor’s “Towner” nonsense that was the basis for their objection to Myers animation. I must say that I find it interesting that multiple CT supporters cite the same source-unaware of the easily document errors of fact in the source.
        As I recall one of the sources that you refer to published a statistical analysis refuting the level of statistical certainty claimed for NAA . What you neglected to mention was that the same author who stated that the previously claimed 97% accuracy for NAA was more likely 90%-and he stated that NAA was still a valuable tool and should not be discarded.
        What you neglect to mention about Connolly’s surgeons was that they objected to CE #399 being the Single Bullet-and not to the Single Bullet scenario per se. They, like many in 1964 were ignorant of the stability properties of the Carcano round-since proved repeatedly by many, including the maligned Haag team on national television .
        I realize that your practice is limited to Opthalmology and Opthalmic Plastic Surgery, but I can’t believe that you can’t see what I have referred to in regards to JFK’s abnormal neck. In my experience the same problem complicates placement of IJ catheters.
        How old was Odum when you interviewed him? Was his wife still alive? I question whether he would have told you “sure as shootin’ ” that he would have written up a 302 if he had all of his faculties, because it would have violated standard FBI protocol. It would appear that neither you nor Dr. Thompson are aware of the simple reason why.

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          “Debunked by who(m)?”, Photon asks. I note you don’t, and perhaps can’t, cite a single non-debunked pro-Warren paper. To repeat: if you can find an anti-conspiracy article in peer-reviewed med/sci literature that’s not been debunked, I’ll send you a check for $200.oo.

          Re NAA, you’re completely wrong. Perhaps the first assault against Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (NAA) was a devastating critique by Lawrence Livermore Lab scientist Eric Randich, Ph.D. and former FBI Chief Metallurgist William Tobin that appeared in 2002 in a peer-reviewed paper published in “Forensic Science International.” In 2004 the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences published the research report, “Weighing Bullet Lead Evidence” that further impugned the validity of CBLA. Those findings were quickly publicized, most notably in a February, 2004 Chicago Tribune article entitled, “Study Shoots Holes in Bullet Analyses by FBI.” In consequence of that paper and other research on CBLA, the FBI formally announced on September 1, 2005 that it had abandoned NAA.

          So, contra you, though still the darling of some Warrenistas, NAA is NOT a valuable tool, it’s been discarded by the FBI. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pressreleases/fbi-laboratory-announces-discontinuation-of-bulletleadexaminations

          Here’s Lawrence Livermore Lab’sRandich and Grant debuking NAA in the JFK case: http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/JFKpaperJFO_165.PDF: “We therefore assert that, from perspectives of standard metallurgical practice and statistical assessment of the fundamental NAA measurements (and despite the opinion of Rahn and Sturdivan that their assessment is definitive and puts the matter to rest) (sic), a conclusion of material evidence for only two bullets in the questioned JFK assassination specimens has no forensic basis … Moreover, the fragments need not necessarily have originated from MC ammunition.”

          And here’s Prof. Spiegelman, Tobin (formerly of the FBI) et al further debunking NAA in the “Annals of Applied Statistics,” Vol.1, No.2, Dec, 2007, pp. 287-301. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2150.pdf

          Photon writes: “What you neglect to mention about Connolly’s surgeons was that they objected to CE #399 being the Single Bullet-and not to the Single Bullet scenario per se.”This is false.

          I objected to the Warren Commission’s claim all three Parkland docs endorsed that a single bullet had done all the WC alleged. They sort of said that in their first interview, BEFORE they saw the evidence. But they took great exception to the single bullet scenario during a second interview, after they saw the evidence, something the WC dishonestly withheld.

          Re Odum, “Sure as shootin'” is my articulation. But how you evade the point: if Odum had indeed displayed #399 to Tomlinson and Wright, there’d be a report somewhere with his name on it. There ain’t none. The ONLY FBI report from Dallas that preceded the July 7, 64 letterhead memo from the FBI to the WC was written in June, and it says NOTHING about Odum, nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright saying they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they saw on 11.22.63. No 302 like the 302 from Sibert & O’Neill. ; ~ >

          • Photon says:

            Why don’t you mention the rest of the story?
            The NAS study did not advocate discarding NAA , but stated that it was not “stand alone” evidence, such as DNA evidence. It needed to be presented in the context of other information available in specific cases. It advocated several changes in the protocols using NAA but specifically did not recommend ” throwing out the baby with the bath water “.
            The correct interpretation of NAA requires statistical knowledge that can be confusing to jurors and can be misinterpreted by prosecutors. As such the FBI felt that presenting NAA data to jurors ( and prosecutors) in an easily understandable manner without generating confusion was not practical. The FBI still stands behind the NAA evidence used in about 2500 convictions on the books.
            Spielgelman’s statistical analysis boiled down to asserting that the accuracy of the NAA claim that only two bullets were involved in generating all of the fragments recovered was not 97%. It was closer to 90%.-and Spiegelman reported that conclusion in an interview about his paper.
            The Parkland doctors ” sort of said that in their first interview, before they saw the evidence”. The evidence that they saw was #399-and their ignorance of the ballistic stability of the Carcano round was the basis for their erroneous belief that the round should have been more deformed.
            Even on Nov. 22 Shaw stated that all of Connolly’s wounds were from one bullet.

          • Neil says:

            A&M Professor Speaks on Flawed JFK Forensic Science

            “In 1976, the House Select Committee on Assassinations heard evidence from University of California-Irvine Chemist, Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, who said he could tell how many bullets were fired on the presidential motorcade, thus ruling out the second assassin theory.

            The committee believed what they heard, and since then, Dr. Guinn’s Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis method has been used in hundreds of cases and lead to numerous convictions. Including Bryan resident James Otto Earhart who was executed in 1999 for the murder of a nine-year-old girl.

            “Unfortunately, through flawed science, he misled the committee,” said Texas A&M professor of statistics Cliff Spiegelman.

            Spiegelman, along with a team of experts put Dr. Guinn’s theory to the test years later. What they found changed the way prosecutors look at evidence.

            “The claim by Dr. Guinn was that the bullets used to kill president Kennedy and wound Governor Connally were chemically unique, even though they were manufactured in batches,” said Spiegelman.

            If the chemical makeup of each bullet was unique, Dr. Guinn claimed he could count the number of bullets by measuring the chemicals from each fragment. Dr. Spiegelman and his team disagreed.

            “We got a hold of some antique bullets from the lots that were supposedly used in the assassination, and we showed that they were not chemically unique,” said Spiegelman. “In fact, we found one that matched an assassination bullet.”

            Spiegelman’s team concluded that since bullets, like pre-packaged cakes, are made in batches, the ingredients that make them up are the same.

            “Twinkies aren’t unique, cakes aren’t unique, and bullets aren’t custom made. Except for the Lone Ranger who makes silver bullets,” said Spiegelman.

            Since 2005, law enforcement no longer accepts CBLA as evidence, and Spiegelman has been asked to speak about the team’s findings on dozens of occasions.

            “Even when there are enormous resources put into forensic science, it can be flawed,” said Spiegelman.”

            http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/AM-Professor-Put-JFK-Single-Shooter-Theory-to-the-Test-233059151.html?device=phone&c=y

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Photon makes a lot of claims, all without a scintilla of supporting evidence.

            An assertion make without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

            Photon’s evidence-free assertions, ergo, may reasonably be ignored without evidence.

            G

    • Gerry Simone says:

      You mean the junk science behind The Single Bullet Theory, or The Jet Effect?

  2. J.D. says:

    Mr. Myers’s essay is filled with gross distortions of the historical record. He claims that Oswald “admitted his attempt to murder General Edwin A. Walker.” When did he do that? Oswald admitted to no crime during his time in custody. The story Marina told that Lee “wanted to murder Richard Nixon” was so unbelievable that even the Warren Commission couldn’t swallow it; Nixon was never in Dallas during the time Marina was referring to.

    Myers claims that JFK approved of the plots to murder Castro, which has never been proven. Citing a CIA study to prove that the CIA got along with JFK is remarkably credulous. Robert Dallek’s biography of JFK, which is as cautious and uncontroversial a book about the man as anyone will ever write, provides ample evidence that JFK was at odds with his own national-security establishment. Refusing to acknowledge this and pretending that JFK and Allen Dulles were close friends is sheer willfulness.

    But the most striking thing about Mr. Myers’s essay is how irate he sounds. Why is he so angry that some people still refuse to condemn a man who never had his day in court and was brutally murdered while in police custody? The entire mainstream media is on his side. Is he worried, deep down, that his case isn’t really as strong as he would like to think that it is?

    • Photon says:

      The Walker admission was made to his wife- recorded testimony present for half a century. Confirmed by evidence found after the assassination-written in Oswald’s own hand.
      Arthur Schlesinger and Robert Kennedy were quoted for JFK’s personal impressions of Dulles- not good enough for you?
      Myers merely puts out facts that are in the historic record.If you are not willing to do the research necessary to refute those documented facts with real evidence your impressions are nothing but unsubstantiated opinion.
      Again, give a single piece of evidence that he cites that is not in the historic record or documented by scientific study. Of course, if you believe that the Zapruder film was faked, the backyard photos were faked, Marina Oswald lied about everything in 1964, a New York City psychological report on the adolescent Lee Oswald was faked, etc. you will never accept the real evidence no matter how well documented.

      • Doug says:

        Couldn’t have said it better….when you believe all the evidence is fake and everyone’s lying nothing will be believable to anyone….

      • Neil says:

        Hartog’s report on Oswald suggests nothing more than that he was an introvert and understandably suffered emotionally from not having a father.

        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hartogs.htm

        LN’ers read too much into that report. Myers speculates as much if not more than the Conspiracy Theorists that he ridicules

        – There’s no documented evidence that Oswald was a psycho or a sociopath

        – Alleged attempts on Nixon and Walker amount to speculation based solely on an unreliable witness (Marina)

        – No evidence that JFK ordered or approved of attempts to assassinate Castro. In fact RFK was angry when he learned that the CIA was working with the Mob

        • Alleged attempts on Nixon and Walker amount to speculation based solely on an unreliable witness (Marina)

          As for Walker, there was the note that Oswald left for Marina, which was in Oswald’s writing.

          And the photos of Walker’s house, which came from Oswald’s Imperial Reflex.

          No evidence that JFK ordered or approved of attempts to assassinate Castro. In fact RFK was angry when he learned that the CIA was working with the Mob

          Being angry about the CIA getting the mob involved does not preclude wanting Castro killed.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            So, you Finally admit the documented Fact the CIA was trying to kill Castro before JFK ever became President??? Looks like you were able to keep your other job after being fired from the Assistant (never full) Professorship at Marquette.

          • J.D. says:

            There is no evidence that President Kennedy was responsible for the assassination attempts on Castro. As far as I can tell, the only people making such claims are trying to apologize for the CIA, the agency which was in fact responsible for those attempts.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            November 30, 2015 at 2:20 pm

            There is no evidence that President Kennedy was responsible for the assassination attempts on Castro. As far as I can tell, the only people making such claims are trying to apologize for the CIA, the agency which was in fact responsible for those attempts.

            If you found this evidence it would indicate a failure on both JFK’s and the CIA’s doing their part for “plausible denial” This is what the CIA was formed for; Plausible Denial.

            What is more clear is what the Kennedy boys did do under Operation Mongoose. If they would do that I don’t see how anyone could think they wouldn’t rub out Castro who had left egg on their face at the Bay of Pigs.

      • J.D. says:

        It’s absurd that I even have to say this, but a person cannot make a confession on someone else’s behalf. If my neighbor is charged with murder and I tell the police that he admitted the crime to me, my testimony does not have the same weight as a confession from that person.

        Marina Oswald’s testimony was spectacularly unreliable, and a decent lawyer could have had all of it thrown out of court if Lee Oswald had lived. As Warren staff member Norman Redlich noted in an internal memo, Marina had “repeatedly lied” to the Commission:
        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83#relPageId=132

        It is almost as absurd to cite a reform-school “study” done when Oswald was 13, from an era when troubled adolescents were regularly subjected to violent electroshock therapy and homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder, as if it could tell us much of anything.

        It’s funny how Schlesinger and RFK are unreliable liars when they say that JFK would not have escalated the Vietnam War, but they can be taken at their word when they downplay the antipathy between JFK and Dulles (at a time when Dulles was still living). David Talbot’s latest book, readily available at any bookstore, contains a wealth of evidence that Dulles and JFK were at odds politically.

        • Schlesinger and RFK are unreliable liars when they say that JFK would not have escalated the Vietnam War,

          You are quoting their speculation about what JFK would have done. And from years later.

          In 1964, RFK went on record saying Vietnam could not be lost:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

          Note the following:

          Martin:
          And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to?

          Kennedy:
          Well, we’d face that when we came to it.

          • Mcadams,

            Set your bugle down and save your breath.

            You are relitigating issues we have already addressed in rebuttals to your protege, Jean Davison. You attempting to add a tenor of authority by repeating her nonsense isn’t going to make your assertions any less spurious than Jean’s arguments were.
            \\][//

          • You attempting to add a tenor of authority by repeating her nonsense isn’t going to make your assertions any less spurious than Jean’s arguments were.

            So it’s nonsense to quote Bobby on what John was going to do?

          • David Regan says:

            He elaborated further for Daniel Ellsberg in a 1967 interview for the Pentagon Papers: http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ELLSBERG.TXT

          • J.D. says:

            Note that RFK didn’t say “Yes, JFK would have sent in ground troops.” He said, “Well, we’d face that when we came to it.” In other words, he basically declined to answer the question.

            When you place that response next to the Ellsberg quote, from three years after the oral-history interview quote, it’s obvious what RFK actually believed about his brother’s intentions in Vietnam.

          • “So it’s nonsense to quote Bobby on what John was going to do?”~McAdams

            “Well, we’d face that when we came to it.”
            ~Robert Kennedy

            His exact word McAdams. Whatever you read into that is simply your own bias. It doesn’t mean anymore than he said. He did NOT say what John Kennedy was going to do. Simple as that.
            \\][//

          • “Well, we’d face that when we came to it.” In other words, he basically declined to answer the question.

            No, he answered it. He could not say, since the need to decide had not happened.

            He could have said, “we would pull out.” But he did not.

            But you folks want to claim that JFK had decided to pull out.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            November 30, 2015 at 8:36 pm

            When you place that response next to the Ellsberg quote, from three years after the oral-history interview quote, it’s obvious what RFK actually believed about his brother’s intentions in Vietnam.

            I don’t think so J.D. If you view both the Martin interview and the Ellsberg interview it seem that they interviewed two different people, not just one RFK. The interviews are polar opposites.

            My guess is that the outcry about the war had not taken shape in 1964. So Bobby needed to support what his brother had done in SVN.

            Three years later the anti-war had bloomed in America and it was now camp to condemn the war. Mostly I think Bobby was getting ready to extend his political career so he needed to become “camp” himself. Bobby wasn’t half the man his brother was.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “He elaborated further for Daniel Ellsberg in a 1967 interview for the Pentagon Papers: http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ELLSBERG.TXT

            I hope everyone reads that (especially Willy). Please notice what RFK *doesn’t* say — that JFK had decided to withdraw from Vietnam. No mention of NSAM 263 at all.

            If even RFK couldn’t say for certain what his brother would have done, how can anyone else?

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Marina was under duress for fear of deportation. (Next)

      • Paul M says:

        Photon,
        Marina Oswald was a alien who probably was afraid she would be thrown in jail if she didn’t play along with the govt. agencies that had her sequestered in a hotel after Oswald was killed. I cannot think of a worse scenario for judging the testimony of a witness. She was scared, under extreme duress, and had two kids with no means of support. Any objective person would disregard the so- called testimony she gave to the Warren Commission. It was tainted from the outset.

        • Jean Davison says:

          In her HSCA testimony, Marina denied being told what to say. QUOTE:

          PREYER: Would you like to make any general statement at this time about the earlier inconsistencies in your testimony? You have told us that they were, as I understand it, were due at first to your desire to protect Lee, perhaps to your fear of the FBI, perhaps to your fear of
          being a foreigner in a strange country. Is that basically correct? Is there any further general explanation you would like to give of why
          there are these inconsistencies in your earlier testimony?

          [Marina] PORTER: [….] I was very grateful to
          Mrs. Ruth Paine who gave us shelter when I needed it. I was very embarrassed about the fact that if she finds out that I knew about all
          this, the trips to Mexico and the rifle and things like that, it was very embarrassing for me to admit to myself that she has been used, you know, in a way. It would be against her religion and her beliefs and it was insulting for me to do such a thing to a friend. That was one part of it. The fear for not being able, I mean for being prosecuted by law for knowing about those things, that was there, too.

          PREYER: It has been alleged by some critics that the reason your story changed was not so much because of the reasons you have given or
          because of your own beliefs, but rather because the FBI and the Secret Service put pressure on you to incriminate Lee immediately after the
          assassination. While the FBI and the Secret Service did question you, was there ever any pressure from them for you to give evidence that
          would incriminate Lee, evidence that you believed to be false?

          Mrs. PORTER: No; that is not correct. I maybe like Secret Service and dislike FBI, but both of those people were working for one cause, to
          find the truth. The Secret Service did question in a more gentle way and I responded to that much better. The FBI sometimes were a little bit too brutal and my response was not as cooperative. Maybe in some little way I want to punish them for it, not to give them information or correct information but it was not for the reasons I have been accused of doing
          it. It was human mistakes, human error, in my own character.

          I do apologize for it, but it is not because they tried to twist my arm and told me what should I tell and what not to tell. That is not true.
          UNQUOTE

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=81&relPageId=282&search=porter

          • leslie sharp says:

            Are we to believe that a 22-year old Soviet-born woman had the developed concepts depicted in this testimony, let alone ones that could be applied to the Secret Service or the FBI? Perhaps we can if she had been exposed to similar agencies in her mother country, which some speculate is the case. But can we be certain the translator – that would be Peter Gregory seconded by the White Russian community and in concert with the Wynne invitation to stay at their Six Flags hotel – – that would be the Wynnes who developed the Southland Centre complex where DAP and Veciana are said to have met – – was quoting her word for word?

            For instance, did “tried to twist my arm” roll of Marina’s tongue naturally? Was “twist my arm” common vernacular in the USSR? Or might Gregory have “interpreted” her words?

            observe the posture of all involved:
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/magazine/lee-harvey-oswald-was-my-friend.html

        • David Regan says:

          Not to mention not a word she had to say would have been admissible at trial, weakening the case against Oswald that much more.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Not to mention not a word she had to say would have been admissible at trial, weakening the case against Oswald that much more.”

            Marina said that when she visited the jail, Oswald told her “that if there would be a trial and that if I am questioned it would be my right to answer or to refuse to answer.”

            Her testimony wasn’t needed. IMO, the most damning thing Marina said about him may have been her reply when the cops arrived and asked her if her husband owned a rifle. She said, “Yes, it’s in the garage,” showing that he owned a rifle that turned out to be missing. There were witnesses to this who could testify about it, if she didn’t.

          • Marina said that when she visited the jail, Oswald told her “that if there would be a trial and that if I am questioned it would be my right to answer or to refuse to answer.”~Jean Davison

            You SHOULD know full well that it doesn’t matter a whit legally what Lee told Marina, being it is established precedent that husbands and wives are barred from testifying against each other in criminal cases.

            It is fairly established here that Marina was not of sound mind at the time we refer to, that she had been sequestered and coerced and literally brainwashed by the authorities.
            You may cite how she thought “they treated her so nice” — and I will site the Stockholm Syndrome.
            \\][//

          • It is fairly established here that Marina was not of sound mind at the time we refer to, that she had been sequestered and coerced and literally brainwashed by the authorities.

            But she never recanted her testimony about factual matters, even when conspiracists convinced her Lee was innocent.

            She told the same story about all the key factual issues to Priscilla Johnson McMillan, to the HSCA, and even (where the Walker shooting was concerned) to Oprah in the 1990s.

          • “She told the same story about all the key factual issues to Priscilla Johnson McMillan, to the HSCA, and even (where the Walker shooting was concerned) to Oprah in the 1990s.”~McAdams

            Ah yes, Let us look into Priscilla Johnson McMillan as the first order of addressing your comment:

            “Other documents released by the Assassination Records Review Board reveal why Priscilla was so defensive. For instance, the 1962 meeting resulted in a series of contacts that make up a two page memorandum from Donald Jameson, Chief of the Soviet Russia division. He concludes his memo with the following, “I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want.” In 1964, the CIA called her for a meeting which lasted for seven hours. Another meeting took place in 1965 in which she called the CIA. From the declassified record, Priscilla seems to have been recruited in 1956, although she applied for service as early as 1953. In 1956 she was granted by the Office of Security an Ad Hoc Clearance through the status of “Confidential” provided that caution was exercised. Another document dated later in 1975 classifies her as a “witting collaborator” for the Agency. It appears that Priscilla had applied for work with the CIA prior to her 1959 interview with Oswald and was in clear contact with the CIA by the time of the assassination and was cooperating with them on various matters, including cultural assignments and the matter of Svetlana Stalin’s defection. This, of course, brings her work on Oswald into serious question and dubious reliability especially since she said in person that she has a vested interest in keeping his guilt alive. And also since she has tried to keep her covert ties secret.”

            http://www.ctka.net/pjm.html

            As far as the subversion of the HSCA by George Joannides of CIA, I will simply refer you to the work of our host, Mr. Jefferson Morley.
            \\][//

          • “the most damning thing Marina said about him may have been her reply when the cops arrived and asked her if her husband owned a rifle. She said, “Yes, it’s in the garage,” showing that he owned a rifle that turned out to be missing. There were witnesses to this who could testify about it, if she didn’t.”~Jean Davison

            But was the rifle that wasn’t where Marina thought it was, the Mannlicher Carcano? Oswald owned a rifle in Russia. It cannot be determined that that Russian rifle was or was not the rifle that Marina was thinking of.
            It cannot be determined that Oswald was the one who removed it from the place Marina thought it was.

            Despite your opinion, the facts as they are known aren’t “very very strong”__to use an infamous term from J Edgar Hoover
            \\][//

          • “I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want.”

            Tony Marsh sent me this memo. It says that Johnson said she would write the story the CIA wanted “if she believes it to be true.”

            Doesn’t sound so sinister, does it.

            Why did you source omit that?

            Then in another meeting the CIA guy said she would be “no good for deep plots.”

            The term “witting collaborator” just means that when she was talking to the CIA, she knew it was the CIA she was talking to.

            And she was never recruited by the CIA.

            She tried to get in in the 50s, but was denied because of left wing connections in college.

            Smearing people you disagree with seems to be a standard buff tactic.

            But note that you failed to address Marina’s own statements to the HSCA, and Oprah.

          • Tom S. says:

            Professor McAdams,
            Sometimes I wonder what it would be like to have your confident, insular POV. If there is nothing to see here, and everything is indeed alright, I guess none of the following should have ever seen the light of day. You present similarly to Priscilla, accurately as far as you go, but you don’t go far.:

            http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1125-an-ultimatum-to-the-kennedy-family-facilitators/?p=8422
            Tom Scully – Posted 23 June, 2015
            ….Marina, Jerome “Jerre” Allen Hasty aka Hastings, uncle by marriage of Clark M. Clifford, and Priscilla Mary Post Johnson…..

            Clark Clifford’s law partner, Tom Finney, happens to be former CIA. Finney joins the Gene McCarthy ’68 team. Another former CIA agent, Tom McCoy, is said to have recurited Finney for McCarthy’s campaign. McCoy shares with another McCarthy friend and campaign staffer that Tom Finney is his best friend. Priscilla Johnson’s 201 file gets mixed in 1956, with the 201 file of Priscilla Livingston Johnson. She has been married to Tom McCoy since 1946 and was with OSS in London….

            I don’t play golf. If I take you at your word, Professor, I should be researching hobbies.

            http://archive.is/esTuB
            Secrets of Newsweek’s Osborn Elliott & Hugh Aynesworth, & of Priscilla Johnson
            « on: January 31, 2013,
            …………
            P.J. Mcmillan Interview – 2/2/78
            …..
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95330#relPageId=41
            …G: What was the reason for the fourteen year delay…
            PM: In my book?
            G: In the publication of your book?
            PM: Well, I suppose it was thirteen years if you want to be technical.
            G: Right.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
            ….PM :…..And my father died, and what was I supposed, I think it had to be a concealed suicide in ’69. Semi-concealed one…I did that Svetlana book ….

          • Tom S. says:

            Avoiding replying to inconvenient questions and facts seems to be a standard ffub tactic.

          • I wonder what it would be like to have your confident, insular POV

            Pot, kettle, black.

          • Tom S. says:

            Wow! Brief honeymoon…. I’ve walked the walk. It would be nice if you could volunteer your opinion as to why Priscilla talks, and in an HSCA interview of all places, about her father’s “concealed suicide” considering the last person to see her father alive was Allen Dulles’s cousin, James A Thomas, Jr., or why a man married to Clark Clifford’s aunt is pictured in a 50th anniversary articles
            seated between Marina and Priscilla in 1964,

            Author, 85, knew both JFK and killer Oswald – NY Daily News
            http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/author-85-knew-jfk-killer-oswald-article-1.1525293
            Nov 21, 2013 – Marina Oswald (left), widow of Lee Harvey Oswald, with friend Jerre Hastings (center) and Priscilla Johnson McMillan. McMillan befriended …

            or why Priscilla’s 201 file “got mixed up” with CIA’s Tom McCoy’s wife’s (Priscilla Livingston Johnson McCoy) 201 file. As I commented, when the going gets
            “interesting” you stop going. I took the Klein’s money order issue where the facts led. My agenda is accuracy. This is jfkfacts.org . Show us that the details I described above are not worth your time or
            attention. To do that, you have to admit they exist and that you’ve considered them.

            “The money order wasn’t cashed” debunked (pg. 3)
            https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/alt.assassination.jfk
            John McAdams
            Nov 14
            Good to see some real research
            On 14 Nov 2015 22:22:56 -0500, David Von Pein
            wrote:

            >On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 9:45:27 AM UTC-5, TJ Scully wrote:
            >> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:57:31 AM UTC-5, tims…@gmail.com wrote:
            >>
            – show quoted text –
            Yes, this newsgroup typically hosts a lot of petty bickering, but ever
            so often we get some real research breakthroughs. This is one of
            those times.

            .John

            https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Without+Reservations%3A+From+Harlem+to+the+End+of+the+Santa+Fe+Trail+cia+davenport+cousin
            Without Reservations: From Harlem to the End of the Santa …
            Samuel B. Ballen – 2001
            ….Ethel and I were invited to dinner at the home of Dave Davenport who also had Priscilla McMillan, his cousin, as a guest. I had not seen Priscilla since she had interviewed me in Dallas on the Oswald matter and since she had married and divorced … David Davenport was a former CIA man who had become disenchanted and was now semi-retired to his youthful….

            If you’re satisfied you have not misled readers with your Anthony Marsh quote, aka “nothing to see here, move along folks” we have nothing more to discuss. Readers will decide whether insularity is a characteristic we indeed share.

  3. Zandalf says:

    Wow.

    It is painful to read the utter and complete crap Myers writes. Pretty much everything he says is stupid, and delivered with a hubristic bombast that’s staggering.

    An aspiring monk, and long-time friend of mine once told me that one of the senior monks at a monastery he attends in California told him that if you compared humanity’s level of mental and spiritual evolution (ethetical sense, etc.) using a K-12 delineation, most of humanity’s around a second grade level….

    Myer’s hasn’t even made it to pre-K.

    • Photon says:

      Point out one thing that is “stupid” in Myers report. This is nothing but a personal attack by someone who would rather bring up anecdotal opinion totally unrelated to the topic at hand instead of addressing any errors that he feels Myers made.
      I get why CTers don’t like Myers. His computer reenactment based on a digital model of the Zapruder film demonstrates that the single bullet trajectory was consistent with the wounds found on Connolly and JFK.
      As his methods have been used and presented in legal cases for years the objections to his recreation have little credibility from a scientific standpoint.
      His study of Tippit’s killing is the most thorough investigation of that crime. It is a masterpiece that CTers can never accept or read objectively , for it conclusively proves that Oswald shot Tippit and tried to kill another policeman minutes later.
      His photographic study of the position of motorcycle patrolman McClain conclusively proves that he was not in the position he had to have been for the HSCA acoustics data to be Accurate. As one of the “experts” that produced the study said that the conclusions would not be valid if McClain was not the source of the recording it proves that the “experts” made an inaccurate assumption and therefore their conclusions cannot be valid.
      And you claim that he hasn’t made it through kindergarten ?

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        [Photon:]

        “Point out one thing that is “stupid” in Myers report.”

        The confidentiality of his files. The perennial secrecy. Who the hell does he think he is? The WC? The HSCA? Coca-Cola?

        =========================

        [Photon:]

        “His computer reenactment based on a digital model of the Zapruder film demonstrates that […]”

        … that I can fly, leap over tall building in a single bound, overrun a locomotive and bullets bounce off my chest.

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034247/quotes

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Photon wrote:

        “His computer reenactment based on a digital model of the Zapruder film demonstrates that the single bullet trajectory was consistent with the wounds found on Connolly and JFK.”

        Dale Myers’ computer “reenactment” is nothing but a bizarre caricature of reality. However, the one thing this cartoon makes abundantly clear is that it would have been impossible for the SBT to have occurred without the bullet passing through the middle of JFK’s cervical vertebrae.

        Once again, what was so “abnormal” about JFK’s neck?

      • David Regan says:

        Myers comes across like a child who is pouting over the fact he has been unable to convince the masses with his hypothesis. His speculation of Oswald being “wannabe serial killer” is laughable.

    • Photon says:

      Where to begin?
      The picture used by Baker and Cranor to establish JFK’s posture ( their major claim as to why the animation is faulty) was not from a “film” by “Bob Towner”.
      The “Towner Film” was taken by Tina Towner.
      The picture in question was taken by Jim Towner and was one of four photos taken prior to the Towner film. The authors neglected to mention that it was taken while the limo was still on Houston street, BEFORE JFK rested his right arm on the side of the limo.
      The Croft picture taken at the time of Zapruder 161 reveals that JFK’s posture matches that seen in the Myers animation . The Baker -Cranor criticism is based on errors such as this. And you find it credible?

      • “The picture used by Baker and Cranor to establish JFK’s posture ( their major claim as to why the animation is faulty)”~Photon

        The picture used by Baker and Cranor to establish JFK’s posture, not only corrects his posture, but also corrects the absurd anatomy that Myers uses.

        Anyone who can buy that anatomy is as goofy as Mr May.
        \\][//

      • Milicent Cranor says:

        Kennedy, as seen in the Croft photo, does NOT resemble the Myers distortion. Viewers, please google the photo and see for yourselves. Furthermore, the wounds in the Myers rendition are misrepresented: the one in JFK’s throat was not that far down, the one in the back was not that far up. (Thank you for pointing out my error in Towner’s first name.)

        • Photon says:

          Error in Towner’s name? You didn’t even get who filmed the movie right!
          How can you possibly say that the Towner PICTURE accurately represents JFK’s position at the time of the shot that entered his back when his arm wasn’t even on the side of the car? Later photos show that the mere posture of putting his arm on the side of the limo pushed his torso forward and caused his shoulders to be uneven-as presented in the Myers animation. Perhaps his ” hunchback” position is somewhat exaggerated , but his coat was riding up-as where other parts of his anatomy.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Perhaps his ” hunchback” position is somewhat exaggerated . . . “ — photon

            Can you explain why Dale Meyers saw fit to exaggerate – your words not mine – the position of President Kennedy? It is obvious even to the layperson that Meyers’ has taken liberties.

            Can you provide the under-educated with the precise moment during the motorcade that the Towner photo was taken?

            Do you intend to respond to the numerous challenges on this forum to your persistent suggestion that John Kennedy had an “abnormal” neck?

            Good faith participation, photon.

          • “but his coat was riding up-as where other parts of his anatomy.”~Photon

            Hahaha!! So now a coat is part of a person’s anatomy!!!
            That’s great Photon! You got anymore? You’re a regular Rodney Dangerfield.
            \\][//

  4. Avinash says:

    Maybe Marina Oswald should sue Myers for defaming her husband.

  5. Ramon F Herrera says:

    I don’t understand why Myers hasn’t decided to keep a low profile and ride into the sunset. This would be a perfect timing.

    Mr. Myers: do you know what is the difference between your computer models and those which are being developed as we speak?

    (No, I am not referring to the much higher quality and aesthetics.)

    Easy: The contents of your hard disk are known only by you and God.

    Meanwhile, our files are here:

    Open Source 3D Model of Dealey Plaza
    https://goo.gl/jTy69B

    … every single one of them.

    Those files and 3D models are owned by The People and its angles, distances and trajectories are not for sale, at any price.

  6. Buster says:

    Hey, can someone please explain why LHO didn’t open fire when the motorcade was moving towards him vs waiting until it was moving away? That always struck me as odd and, in my mind, suggested more than one lone shooter.

  7. B Binnie says:

    Glad to see that no one is interested in engaging Agent Photon any longer, despite his frantic pleas for attention. To amass a fairly impressive cranial hard drive on the JFK killing and then to selectively cherry pick and otherwise distort that data in support of a very pre conceived out come is sad and unfortunate- NOTHING is exactly as is seems and one might think that 51 years of diligence has uncovered SOMETHING that the WC got wrong, but not in Photon land- Cudos to those here who seek to reconcile facts and reason-

    • Photon says:

      Exactly what facts are you disputing?

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Photon, here is one you can’t explain.

        “After viewing the Zapruder Film Curry came to the conclusion that Governor John Connally and John F. Kennedy had been hit by separate bullets. He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was not convinced that Lee Harvey Oswaldkilled Kennedy: “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand.”

        Oh wait, you did say Curry was trying to “sell books.” Oh wait, isn’t that what you accuse of the CT side of doing on a daily basis?

        Have we just experienced, again, Photon’s “double standra?”

  8. Ramon F Herrera says:

    At least we have some reasons to hope that we will see the contents of the locked files, stored at the National Archives.

    What Mr. Myers has done is much worse, in a sense: He is planning to take the contents of his hard drive to his grave.

    In a Usenet thread, the good professor McAdams made a feeble attempt to defend Myers’ secrecy:

    “He is an animator and should be able to make a living off his skills”.

    That is a ridiculous defense if I ever saw one: is the creative animator expecting to squeeze more income from that gig? Until when? Didn’t that teat get dry more than a decade ago?

  9. Bogman says:

    Strange how Myers paints a sociopathic portrait but the people who knew him best – Oswald’s best friend in Dallas, his best friend from Russia, his wife and his closest co-worker – all believe or believed he is innocent or incapable of the crime he’s accused of.

    Seems like a sociopath would’ve shown his true colors at some point to convince these folks otherwise.

  10. I keep hearing conspiracy theorists constantly talking about the “new evidence” and all of the many ARRB documents that supposedly “prove” a conspiracy in the JFK case.

    James DiEugenio, for example, just loves to declare victory for the CTers by saying there any number of “ARRB documents” that serve as the bombshell proof that a conspiracy. But whenever I ask Jim D. to link to just ONE specific document made available by the ARRB that proves a conspiracy, all I get in return is dead silence.

    So, can somebody PLEASE provide a link to just ONE document released as a result of the JFK Records Act of 1992 that allegedly “proves” that John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy? I’ve yet to see such a document produced by anyone.

    And the reason I’ve never seen such a document is quite easy to explain — it’s because no such “bombshell” document(s) exists—and never did. It’s all a matter of flawed interpretation on the part of people who are anxious to confirm their beliefs in a make-believe plot that only exists in the minds of individuals who are desperately *seeking* a conspiracy in the JFK murder case.

    http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

    • EDITED, CORRECTED, & REVISED VERSION OF MY POST ABOVE:

      I keep hearing conspiracy theorists constantly talking about the “new evidence” and all of the many ARRB documents that supposedly “prove” a conspiracy in the JFK case.

      James DiEugenio, for example, just loves to declare victory for the CTers by claiming there are a number of “ARRB documents” that serve as the bombshell proof that a conspiracy exists in the JFK assassination.

      But whenever I ask Jim D. (or any other conspiracy theorist) to link to just ONE specific document made available by the ARRB that proves a conspiracy, all I get in return is dead silence or stuff like this [at the link below] (which doesn’t “prove” a conspiracy at all)….

      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1038.html#What-Documents?

      So, can somebody PLEASE provide a link to just ONE document released as a result of the JFK Records Act of 1992 that allegedly “proves” that John F. Kennedy was killed as a result of a conspiracy? I’ve yet to see such a document produced by anyone.

      And the reason I’ve never seen such a document is quite easy to explain — it’s because no such “bombshell” document(s) exists—and never did. It’s all a matter of flawed interpretation on the part of people who are anxious to confirm their beliefs in a make-believe plot that only exists in the minds of individuals who are desperately seeking a conspiracy in the JFK murder case.

      • Paulf says:

        David:

        Show me a single document that proves that Oswald did it. You can’t, that’s a silly argument. There is not a scintilla of proof that Oswald shot Kennedy.

        • “Not a scintilla”, eh Paul? You surely *must* be joking.

          The amount of evidence that indicates “Oswald did it” is staggering in depth, scope, and diversity — from the bullets, to the guns themselves (*Oswald’s* very own guns), to the bullet shells, to the witnesses, to Oswald’s lies that he told the police after his arrest, and also to Oswald’s very owns actions, which practically convict him all by themselves, including the scuffle in the Texas Theater, where Oswald tried to kill another policeman.

          (Yeah, *innocent* patsies are always whipping out pistols in movie theaters and threatening cops. Right, Paul?)

          And I include the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit in my above remarks concerning the evidence too, because the Tippit slaying is inexorably linked to President Kennedy’s death (IMO).

          http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

          http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/they-say-it-just-takes-second-to-die.html

          • David Von Pein,

            Surely you are aware that there is no proof whatsoever that a bullet passed through Kennedy’s body. The assertion that the back wound striking Kennedy at T3, passed completely through Kennedy and exited his throat, is pure speculation.

            Both the throat wound and the back wound were wounds of entry. Neither of the missiles that caused these wounds were ever discovered in Kennedy’s body; nor recovered elsewhere.

            The assertion that CE399 is the bullet that caused both of these wounds is dismissed due to lack of any evidence of chain of custody of said bullet.

            The Parkland Bullet and CE399 are two separate and unique items. The Parkland missile was an unjacketed pointed lead 30 caliber bullet. CE399 is a virtually pristine Manlicher-Carcano bullet, easily distinguishable from an unjacketed 30 cal round.

            The issue of lack of chain of custody however does not end with these observations, as there are certain inescapable implications drawn from the fact that this false story was asserted at all. It indicates obfuscation and deception by the authorities making such patently false claims. In other words it cannot have been a SIMPLE MISTAKE. As such this implies INTENT. The implication of intent implies CULPABILITY.

            The details of my commentary will not be relitigated for your personal convenience Mr Von Pein. Those details are found on two recent threads on this forum dealing with the Forensics of the JFK case. I suggest you review those threads.
            \\][//

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            There is indeed a “staggering” amount of evidence implicating Oswald as one of the assassins – a staggeringly small amount.

            If you discard the discrepancies in the paperwork, you could make a plausible case that in March 1963 Oswald purchased the rifle that was found on the sixth floor. That implicates Oswald in the assassination, but doesn’t put him on the sixth floor with the rifle eight months later. The evidence of Wesley Frazier and his sister make it clear that it wasn’t Oswald who brought the rifle into the book depository.

            To place Oswald at the scene of the crime, we have his fingerprints on two cardboard boxes, and some eyewitness testimony. But the fingerprint evidence doesn’t implicate him either, because Oswald’s job required him to handle boxes of books on the sixth floor. And the eyewitness evidence is vague and contradictory: the gunman was white and slender (like Oswald), with light brown hair (like Oswald) or dark hair (unlike Oswald) and a bald patch (unlike Oswald), and was wearing a light-colored open-neck shirt (unlike Oswald) over a white T-shirt (like Oswald). The main eyewitness against Oswald was Howard Brennan, who declined to identify Oswald as the man he had seen, then changed his mind, then changed his mind again. And of course Oswald was seen elsewhere in the building at the same time as the gunman was seen on the sixth floor.

            So much for the fingerprint and eyewitness evidence. What’s left? Oswald may have been less than truthful to the police, although we only have the authorities’ word for what he said. Guilty, your honor! He behaved strangely after the assassination, by going to watch a film. Guilty, your honor! He may have shot Officer Tippit, although the evidence for that is as shaky as the evidence that he shot JFK.

            If Mr Von Pein is ever convicted of murder, I hope the evidence against him is a lot stronger than the evidence he uses to convict Oswald.

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            So your admired Kennedys are liars, David?

            If they see your site and posts they would be disgusted that you have chosen to be part of the coverup in the assassination of their beloved relative.

          • @ “Anonymous Contributor”:

            You know as well as I do that *all* of the physical evidence points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald, so why would anybody pretend it doesn’t?

            E.G.,

            The Carcano rifle, the Smith & Wesson revolver, the fingerprints and palmprints, the 38-inch paper bag with *his* (Oswald’s) prints on it, bullet fragments from *his* rifle found right in the Presidential limousine itself, and bullet shells from *his* guns littering TWO separate murder scenes.

            And yet I’m supposed to believe that this wealth of stuff, plus the “I Saw Oswald” eyewitnesses at or near the Tippit murder site, somehow make Oswald look *innocent* of killing BOTH John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit?

            Puh-lease!

            And listening to the CTers make their perpetual lame excuses as they try to take the Tippit murder weapon out of Oswald’s hands too (as they always attempt to do when discussing the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as well) is the perfect example of “CTer Desperation” on full display.

            For a barrel of “V510210 revolver” laughs (at the expense of desperate conspiracy theorists), go here:

            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

          • The *correctness* and *logicalness* that resides in the Single-Bullet Theory (including the initial portion of the theory that has a bullet [CE399] passing through the body of President Kennedy) could hardly be more blatantly apparent and obvious. Except for CTers, of course.

            CTers keep claiming that the SBT is “strange” or “bizarre” or “impossible”. But the truth is that so many *more* strange and bizarre and impossible and unexplainable things would have HAD to have occurred to JFK and John Connally if the SBT is *wrong*. All detailed at my “SBT” site below (including a long battle over the SBT with CTers in a deep state of “SBT denial” on the second half of this page):

            http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

          • David Regan says:

            DVP, can you please post links that lead anywhere other than your own blog?

            Have you actually spoken with a single witness to the circumstances around the assassination or are you simply regurgitating the likes of Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, et al?

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            David Von Pein began by stating that “the amount of evidence that indicates ‘Oswald did it’ is staggering in depth, scope, and diversity.” I pointed out that this “staggering” amount of evidence boils down to Oswald’s possible ownership of the rifle eight months before the assassination, and some very inconclusive eyewitness testimony. Against this, we have eyewitness testimony specifically disassociating Oswald from the rifle on the day of the assassination, and other eyewitness testimony placing Oswald elsewhere in the building at the same time as one of the gunmen was seen on the sixth floor.

            In his reply, Mr Von Pein wisely neglected to acknowledge the flimsiness of the evidence that Oswald was one of the assassins. Instead, he claimed that the evidence fails to incriminate any other named individual: “all the physical evidence points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald.” The implication seems to be that because Oswald is the only named suspect, he must be guilty. But the essential factor is the strength of the evidence, not that no other named person has been officially implicated. The evidence against the one named suspect is insufficient to demonstrate his active involvement in the JFK assassination.

            Let’s imagine that you are accused of robbing a bank, solely on the basis of some vague eyewitness reports and the possibility that you were seen driving the getaway car eight months before the robbery took place. Not only that, but you were also seen in a coffee shop down the street while the bank was being robbed. It may be that you are the only named individual implicated by the evidence in the case, but so what? The point is that the evidence implicating you, like the evidence implicating Oswald, is so weak that it is next to worthless.

      • Tom S. says:

        Lance Payette – 26 November, 2015

        ..(One of the most common conspiracy theories is that the guardians of the ruling paradigm in any field are engaged in a conspiracy to stifle the truth – which Thomas Kuhn showed that they largely are, and which can be explained to a large extent by my axiom that “Money/Power/Fame/Sex Is God”). What is true in all of these fields is that people stake out intractable positions and are really not even interested in evidence or arguments that might challenge these positions. They are all fundamentalists – whether non-conspiracy fundamentalists or conspiracy fundamentalists. The extreme non-conspiratorialist is simply the mirror image of the extreme conspiratorialist, even though he may view himself as an entirely different species.

        I can see the appeal and comfort of a rigid non-conspiracy mindset. Everything around us is “normal,” operating just as those in the know tell us it is. Move along, play by the rules, nothing to see here. I can also see the appeal and “fun” of a conspiracy mindset. Nothing is as it seems, the world is unbelievably mysterious, only those of us who have eyes to see and are in on the secret know the truth…..

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        David,

        You and I have e-mailed each other through your site, and I find you are one of the more reasonable proponents of the government’s version. I do have a question that the other government folks won’t answer. First, a quote from Jeff Morley, the man who graciously allows ALL of this forum:

        “The CIA retains a 123-page file on Harvey’s assassination-related activities that has never been seen by bloggers, reporters, scholars, or Congress.

        When the CIA’s secret Bill Harvey file is made public, Talbot’s claim will be clarified.

        It is pathetic and outrageous that such material remains hidden, but that’s reality.”

        David—how is anyone—you, I, or Dale Myers—able to determine what REALLY happened when documents that STILL EXIST—forget the ones that were destroyed or never even made in the first place—are not made available to folks? PLEASE don’t give me Photon’s national security BS, because as Myers and Photon tell everyone, LHO was a LONE nut and a deranged LOSER. If that is true, what is the purpose of holding onto the documents?

        How can we know the FULL truth when the CIA continues to stonewall? Can you PLEASE talk to the folks at Langley and ask them to release the 1100 pages that still are being held?

        One more comment for you to consider:

        “I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

        Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

        We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

        Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

        I am now in that camp.”

        Robert Blakey

        I think his line of never knowing the full truth is quite telling. Your thoughts?

        • Steve Stirlen,

          I think ALL Government documents pertaining to the assassination *should* definitely be made public. No doubt about it. And nearly all of them *have* been made public.

          But I also know that whenever “new” documents *are* finally released after a period of years under wraps, they *always* end up not meaning very much. And none of them has ever “proven” a conspiracy took place in Dallas. (Do you really think any of them have “proven” a conspiracy?)

          We may never know with *100% certainty* if Oswald had a helper to aid him in November 1963. But from the things we *do* know about Lee Harvey Oswald, it’s highly unlikely (IMO) that anyone was conspiring with him in Dallas on 11/22/63.

          For one thing, if Oswald had a co-conspirator to help him that day — then *where the heck was that co-conspirator when Oswald needed him most* — just after the assassination?

          Everything Oswald did on *both* Nov. 21 and 22 indicates to me that LHO was working alone. There’s nothing in his movements on those two days to indicate–in any way–that he was part of a multi-person plot to kill the President.

          As for the CIA and its intense desire to keep some things hidden (even if they only relate in a marginal way to the events in Dallas), Vincent Bugliosi said this in his JFK book:

          “The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst enemy.” — V. Bugliosi

          • leslie sharp says:

            We may never know with *100% certainty* if Oswald had a helper to aid him in November 1963. But from the things we *do* know about Lee Harvey Oswald, it’s highly unlikely (IMO) that anyone was conspiring with him in Dallas on 11/22/63.

            For one thing, if Oswald had a co-conspirator to help him that day — then *where the heck was that co-conspirator when Oswald needed him most* — just after the assassination? — David Von Pein

            I don’t think I’ve ever heard this angle. So Oswald had a “helper”” with whom he conspired and yet set himself up as the patsy? I suppose if this moves you (albeit inch by inch) toward conspiracy it should be respected but I sense it is a deliberate intent toward distraction and not made in good faith. You yourself say it is ‘highly unlikely’ so why pose it in the first place?

      • David Regan says:

        For starters, how about evidence of a second bullet being recovered? FBI Assistant Director, Allan H. Belmont wrote a memo to his direct superior, Clyde Tolson, “stating that Secret Service had one of the bullets that struck President Kennedy and the other is lodged behind the President’s ear and we are arranging to get both of these.” A notation in the memo indicates the time to be 9:18 PM, which is after FBI agent Robert Frazier and Special Agent Elmer Todd claim to have accepted custody of CE 399. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=707

        • David Regan,

          If that’s the best you’ve got, then you’ve got very little. That document about a bullet being lodged behind JFK’s ear was written as a result of the initial confusion in the hours that immediately followed the President’s death.

          And some of those things that were first reported turned out to be incorrect. So I see no reason to still adhere to bad information — like all of these inaccurate early stories:

          …. A “Mauser” or an “Argentine” rifle being found in the Book Depository.

          …. The false rumor about a Secret Service agent being killed in Dealey Plaza.

          …. The erroneous version of the Tippit shooting which had Officer Tippit being killed *inside* the Texas Theater itself.

          …. The rumors about Vice President Johnson either being shot or having a heart attack.

          …. The “bullet lodged behind JFK’s ear” story.

          …. Dr. Humes’ remark about “surgery of the head area” (which was repeated in the Sibert/O’Neill FBI report).

          …. The initial erroneous speculation entertained by the autopsy doctors that the bullet which entered JFK’s upper back “did not exit” the body at all.

          All of those things (among other false stories) were corrected at a later time.

          And even FBI agent James Sibert later abandoned a couple of theories that some conspiracy theorists are still stubbornly clinging to even today — i.e., the “surgery of the head” remark and the notion that ANY “whole bullet” was recovered at President Kennedy’s autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital….

          http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

          • “The initial erroneous speculation entertained by the autopsy doctors that the bullet which entered JFK’s upper back “did not exit” the body at all.”
            ~Von Pein

            It was not erroneous speculation at all. It was never proven that any bullet exited from JFK. You forget the fact that the bullet tracks were never proven by dissection of the wounds to the back or the throat.

            So it remains mere speculation that a bullet passed through Kennedy’s body from back to throat.

            And anyone vaguely familiar with this case knows why those wounds weren’t excised during the autopsy, because Col Finck spilled the beans at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans; the prosecutors of the autopsy were ordered not to dissect the wounds by general officers in the gallery.

            Do not attempt to feed us this jive that this was merely a “rumor” Von Pein, it is in the transcripts from that trial.
            \\][//

          • If the bullet didn’t exit JFK’s throat, then you *must* think that TWO bullets entered JFK’s back and neck, with *neither* bullet exiting–even though no bones were struck by either missile). And then *both* bullets got lost (or were stolen by plotters).

            Yeah, that’s a really reasonable alternative, isn’t it? Ridiculous.

            You know, it *is* permissible to utilize some ordinary common sense when evaluating the JFK case–including the “SBT”. I do it all the time. Why don’t you try it, Willy?

          • David Regan says:

            DVP, here’s more for your reading pleasure. Special Agent in Charge of the Dallas Field Office, Gordon Shanklin wrote a memo on the 22nd that seems to refer to two recovered bullets. In it he writes that FBI Assistant Director, Allan H. Belmont “advised that they have made arrangements with Secret Service to secure the bullet that apparently killed President KENNEDY and that Secret Service in Washington was calling SORRELLS here and instructing him to turn the gun over to us and that I should after receipt of the gun, also secure the bullet that shot Governor CONNALLY and have an Agent get on the plane and take the gun and the OTHER BULLET to Washington.” http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            SBT, common sense? Down, up, down gain, smashing wrist bone, pristine. Moving up from T-3 by Ford to make it SEEM possible. Common sense says otherwise.

          • “If the bullet didn’t exit JFK’s throat, then you *must* think that TWO bullets entered JFK’s back and neck, with *neither* bullet exiting–even though no bones were struck by either missile). And then *both* bullets got lost (or were stolen by plotters).”~Von Pein

            Neither bullets “got lost.” Neither were “stolen by plotters” — that is what the whole discussion on FRANGIBLE BULLETS has been about. These bullets fragment into “constellations” of tiny fragments when passing through and blasting apart human tissue.
            You have been advised to read the current ballistics threads here, where all of this was just discussed in detail – I suggest you do, because I refuse to go through those arguments again for your convenience.
            \\][//

          • Moving up from T-3 by Ford to make it SEEM possible.

            Factoid:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

            The autopsy photo of the back shows he wound at T-1, consistent with the Single Bullet Theory.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

          • Jean Davison says:

            David Regan,

            It shouldn’t be surprising that on the 22nd Gordon Shanklin and the FBI in general were still trying to figure out what happened. Belmont wasn’t in Dallas, so where did his information come from?

            “The bullet that apparently killed President Kennedy” may be the stretcher bullet, which Sibert/O’Neill thought fell out of JFK’s back wound. One of Connally’s doctors (NOT the one who operated on his thigh) mistakenly told the press on the 22nd that a “bullet” was still in Connally’s leg. But the pre-op x-ray shows only a fragment, not a whole bullet.

        • David Regan says:

          Right, DVP – I’m sure the number 2 man in the FBI was being fed erroneous information on the night of the assassination.

          However, FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill, who were present at the autopsy, signed a receipt on the 22nd saying, “We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle (sic) recovered by Commander James J. Humes, USN on this date.” http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/md69_0001a.gif

          But of course like any witness who provides testimony that counters the WCR, they must be simply “mistaken”, right?

          Last surviving FBI agent at JFK autopsy who ‘did not believe the single bullet theory’ dies http://bit.ly/HWk26D

          • CTers are lost in Myth Heaven. No matter how many times the myths are debunked, CTers will treat them as valid–decade after decade. What a life.

            Francis O’Neill, in the 1979 interview below, confirms that no whole bullet (or “missle” [sic]) was recovered at the autopsy….

            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/interview-with-francis-oneill.html

          • David Regan says:

            How fitting you post an interview by the esteemed Bill O’Reilly – a proven liar in his investigation of George de Mohrenschildt.

            Neither Sibert nor O’Neill was interviewed by the Warren Commission. Why do you suppose that is, DVP? Both agents gave interviews to the HSCA in the late 1970s and to the ARRB in the early 1990s, in which they again contradicted important elements of the lone–assassin argument. The SBT being one of them.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “FBI agents Sibert and O’Neill, who were present at the autopsy, signed a receipt on the 22nd saying, “We hereby acknowledge receipt of a missle (sic) recovered by Commander James J. Humes, USN on this date.” http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/medical/md69_0001a.gif

            But of course like any witness who provides testimony that counters the WCR, they must be simply “mistaken”, right?”
            UNQUOTE

            Sibert, O’Neill, and the corpsman who made out the receipt have all said that it was an error and there were actually two fragments, not a single “missile.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=22&search=sibert_missile

            Of course, any witness who supports the WCR version must be “lying,” right?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, perhaps you or David have an explanation as to why Sibert, O’Neill or Burkley were never called to testify before the WC?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, perhaps you or David have an explanation as to why Sibert, O’Neill or Burkley were never called to testify before the WC?”

            Probably because their report on the autopsy was wrong. They knew nothing about the throat wound that have been obscured by the tracheotomy so they reported speculation that the bullet entering JFK’s back stopped, fell out, and was recovered from *his* stretcher. But JFK’s stretcher never went to that area near the elevator.

            I don’t know why Burkley wasn’t called. He gave a sworn statement to the HSCA, however.

          • “I don’t know why Burkley wasn’t called. He gave a sworn statement to the HSCA, however.” ~Jean Davison

            No, Burkley did not GIVE a sworn statement to the HSCA. Burkley SIGNED a sworn statement provided by HSCA. A subtle, but critical distinction.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Nonsense Jean – you mean their report didn’t jive with the foregone conclusion on the WC. These men were only FBI agents to attend the autopsy and they were not called to testify under oath about their observations.

            How about Dealey Plaza witnesses Bill & Gayle Newman or John & Marvin Chism or Jean Newman? These people were standing on the east side of Elm St. and among the closest witnesses to the limousine as the shots were fired? Could it be perhaps their statements in police affidavits did not indicated shots from the TSBD?

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘I don’t know why Burkley wasn’t called.. . .’ — Jean Davison

            It’s not that you are expected to know why the Warren Commission did what it did in not calling Burlkley, in not calling Sandra Stiles, in not calling numerous other critical witnesses; it’s that you display no curiosity, let alone skepticism about who they chose to call as witness and who they did not. That is the disturbing aspect of this area of the debate.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “Nonsense Jean – you mean their report didn’t jive with the foregone conclusion on the WC.”

            Nonsense? Are you claiming there was no bullet wound below the Adam’s apple as reported by Parkland doctors? Are you saying the bullet Tomlinson found was on JFK’s stretcher? Seriously?

            “How about Dealey Plaza witnesses Bill & Gayle Newman or John & Marvin Chism or Jean Newman? These people were standing on the east side of Elm St. and among the closest witnesses to the limousine as the shots were fired? Could it be perhaps their statements in police affidavits did not indicated shots from the TSBD?”

            Why weren’t Jean Hill, Arnold Rowland, Joe Marshall Smith called to testify…? Wait a minute, they *were* called, along with other “GK witnesses.’

            No eyewitness reported seeing a gunman anywhere but in the SN, no rifle or shells were found anywhere else, there was no autopsy evidence of shots from the front. That’s the evidence the WC was presented with. Earwitness testimony trumps all that?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, surely you are aware there were many more witnesses not called than the select few I mentioned above. http://22november1963.org.uk/jfk-assassination-grassy-knoll-witnesses

            Do you really find it a stretch that a professional assassin could flee the scene without leaving evidence? (for the sake of argument, of course)

            As for evidence of a frontal shot, there are numerous statements from witnesses at Parkland AND Bethesda of a large exit wound in the right rear of the President’s skull.

          • “The autopsy photo of the back shows he wound at T-1, consistent with the Single Bullet Theory.
            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg“~McAdams

            This certainly does NOT show the back wound at T1. T1 is at the deep fold in Kennedy’s neck as shown in this rather distorted and forshortened photo. According to other anatomical markers, the spatula and surrounding muscle contures, the wound it at T3.

            Exactly where the autopsy report states it to be, as well as the spot on Boswell’s facesheet, the position of the bullet hole in Kennedy’s Jacked and shirt, as well as where agent Sibert witnessed the wound in person during the autopsy.
            \\][//

          • This certainly does NOT show the back wound at T1.

            Well, we have your opinion on that.

            They we have the opinion of the HSCA Forensic Panel, composed of nine of the top Forensic Pathologists in the country. They said it was a T1.

            But what did they know?

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        David, you seem to have a vendetta against Mr. DiEugino, calling out only his name here where he refuses to respond to your assertions. Have you been banned from the edu forum where he has thoroughly discredited them?

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Unfortunately, no. He is still given star billing at the Education Forum.

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            [Bob Prudhomme, obvious believer in one party rule wrote:] “Unfortunately, no. ”

            [Bob:] “He is still given star billing at the Education Forum.”

            As it should be, Bob. I always say that we must treat Photon and DVP with the utmost care. They are like the panda bears or another species under a process of inexorable extinction.

            It takes dos to tango.

            What puzzles me about that pair is:

            (1) Their real motivation.
            (2) Do they really believe what they post?

            In reference to others:

            – Bugliosi
            – Posner
            – McAdams

            I am convinced that they know the truth: it was a high-level inside operation. Nobody can investigate so much and fail to see what happened. Also, the absurdity of some of their excuses betrays them.

      • Milicent Cranor says:

        Here’s one: Kennedy’s own doctor, George Burkley, who was in the ER with him in Dallas, and who was at his autopsy, told his lawyer (William F.Illig) that he had information indicating others must have participated in the shooting. What information? A clue may be in this passage of an interview by Godfrey McHugh during, in 1967:

        “Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body?”

        “I would not care to be quoted on that.”

        • David Regan says:

          It certainly speaks volumes that the WC and HSCA avoided Burkley. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/The_Missing_Physician.html

          • Jean Davison says:

            The footnotes at the maryferrell link show that Burkley had ample opportunity to say whatever he wanted to say, including this comment about the number of bullets from notes on his HSCA interview:

            “Dr. BURKLEY said the doctors didn’t section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets. DR. BURKLEY thinks there was one but concedes the possibility of there having been two.”

            MD19, p. 5
            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=600#relPageId=5&tab=page

          • David Regan says:

            Burkley’s signed HSCA affidavit offers no such opinion of there being only one bullet. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/burkaff.htm

            Jean, since you like direct quotes, kindly note Burkley’s answer in an interview for the JFK Library:

            MCHUGH: I see. Do you agree with the Warren Report on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body?

            BURKLEY: I would not care to be quoted on that.

          • So you folks tout Burkley’s opinion, but have no idea why he believed that.

            But Paul Hoch bothered to find out:

            But researcher Paul Hoch reported in the 5/31/87 issue of his newsletter Echoes of Conspiracy[25] “Dr. Burkley recently told a relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and traveled was indicative of financial support.”Huh? No altered wounds? No wounds requiring a shot from the front? No extra bullets?

          • David Regan says:

            The fact the President’s personal physician, who attended the autopsy, refused to go on the record in support of the WC findings of the wounds, is very telling. Not to mention the fact he was not called as a witness.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Didn’t Burkley try once to or offered to speak out on the subject but no one took him up on the offer?
          If so, why not?

          • “Didn’t Burkley try once to or offered to speak out on the subject but no one took him up on the offer?”~Ronnie Wayne

            Yes Burkley’s lawyer William F.Illig sent the HSCA information that Burkley had information indicating others must have participated in the shooting.
            As we know the HSCA did not follow up on this. information, nor did it interview Burkley about said information.

            Mr Regan’s link is informative on this issue:
            https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/The_Missing_Physician.html
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “As we know the HSCA did not follow up on this. information, nor did it interview Burkley about said information.”

            Not specifically, but the HSCA did
            interview him about the autopsy materials.

            Paragraph 111:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=35&search=Burkley_interview

            Q. “So why didn’t you mention this evidence of conspiracy, Dr. Burkley?”

            A. “Nobody asked me.”

            Sounds like a joke.

            Also, what knowledge could Burkley have had that no one else present noticed?

          • Q. “So why didn’t you mention this evidence of conspiracy, Dr. Burkley?”

            A. “Nobody asked me.”~Burkley
            * * * *

            “Sounds like a joke.”~Jean Davison

            Not in a legal testimonial setting, where you are asked specific questions to be answered.
            Plus your characterization is subjective and thus of no bearing.

            Also you cite Paragraph 111 of that Mary Ferrel document, wherein there is not such dialog whatsoever.
            \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Ms. Cranor you seem to have trouble making accurate statements.
          For the second time in as many days you have completely misidentified an individual. The Burkley interview was not done by Godfrey McHugh.
          Godfrey McHugh was President Kennedy’s Air Force aide.

          • Photon,
            Explain how Kennedy had an ABNORMAL NECK.
            * * *

            “The Burkley interview was not done by Godfrey McHugh.”~Photon

            Photon again shows his lack of reading comprehension; Ms Cranor did not say or intimate that Burkley was interviewed by McHugh. Her mention of McHugh is orbiter dictum, referring to an interview OF McHugh by an unmentioned party.
            \\][//

          • Milicent Cranor says:

            Photon! You got the first name right! So glad you get the little things right! How about the important things?
            How interesting that you are aware of what Burkley said — yet, you want people to discount it. A doctor who saw Kennedy’s wounds close-up concluded that more than one shooter was involved. Instead of discussing this highly inconvenient fact, you change the subject. You want to shoot this messenger — me — because you can’t shoot down the real messenger, Kennedy’s doctor, who attended the autopsy.

            I was given the wrong information on the interviewer, but the quotes are correct, and this can be checked.

            Burkley saw something and he said something. And you can’t make that go away

          • Photon says:

            Change the subject? Why didn’t you address the rest of the subject? You claim that Burkley concluded that more than one shooter was involved-based entirely on the note from William Illig dated March 18, 1977.
            Burkley signed a notarized statement on Nov 28, 1978 stating that he was interviewed by HSCA investigators in Jan. 1978. Even though the interview took place almost a year after the Illig note was written, he apparently made no mention of multiple shooters.
            In his notarized note of Nov 28, 1978 he again fails to mention the blockbuster evidence that a third party claimed that he had. Why didn’t he avail himself of the perfect opportunity to refute the Warren conclusions that you are so convinced he didn’t support? Do you have any evidence( assuming that you can get the names right) that Burkley ever made any statement that he did not support the conclusions of the Warren Commission that Oswald was the sole shooter?.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Photon, what was the abnormality in Kennedy’s neck?

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            As usual, Photon offers no sources, no actual evidence, just opinion. An assertion made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.

            But re Burkley, let’s all flip to page 49 of Henry Hurt’s “Reasonable Doubt.” (NY: Henry Holt, 1985):

            “In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy…”

            In a footnote on the bottom of page 49, Henry Hurt added:

            “*When he originally telephoned the author Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case.”

        • Gary Aguilar says:

          Mili,

          Here’s more of the Burkley story. On page 49 of Henry Hurt’s “Reasonable Doubt.” (NY: Henry Holt, 1985), we read:

          “In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy…”

          In a footnote on the bottom of page 49, Henry Hurt added:

          “*When he originally telephoned the author Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case.”

      • Gerry Simone says:

        DVP,

        You’re making a straw man argument.

        Di Eugenio doesn’t state one, single document.

        He refers to many documents.

        Such documents build on the mountain of circumstantial evidence that points to a conspiracy.

    • “How could ALL of the following evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in some manner faked?” ~David Von Pein

      With the resources available to the National Security State, the systemic “legalized” secrecy of the cult of intelligence; very very EASILY. The naivety revealed in Von Pein’s question above is indicative of those who make baseless appeals to illegitimate authority.

      As far as so-called “bombshell” documents never existing, this is a matter of conjecture that the Warren Commission Cult has no proof of and no basis in reasoning to support. Such documents can and most likely do remain hidden in the milieu of state secrecy that simply cannot be denied by any lucid and sapient being.

      The real question here is whether Von Pein and his ilk are truly as gullible as they put on, or whether they have some sanctioned agenda to serve this illegitimate state.
      \\][//

      • Tom S. says:

        Lance Payette – 26 Nov., 2015

        One thing that occurred to me as I was taking my shower after posting earlier today was that, in a field such as the JFK assassination, I would be asking myself, “Is it vitally important to me for some larger reason that LHO acted alone? Is it vitally important to me for some larger reason that the assassination was a conspiracy, or even a particular type of conspiracy?” Could the lure of Money/Power/Fame/Sex explain this? Could some overarching belief system or worldview to which I am intractably committed explain this? In other words, is it essential to me for some reason other than “the truth about the assassination” that LHO acted alone or didn’t act alone? If so, then I have become (or at least am in danger of becoming) someone who cannot view the evidence dispassionately or follow it where it leads. At this point, I am 75% persuaded by the evidence and plausible inferences that LHO didn’t act alone (and perhaps didn’t act at all), which thus puts me in the conspiracy camp and brings into question my sanity, legal skills and faithfulness to my wife in the minds of the Lone Nutters, but certainly there is evidence supporting the LN position and I at least remain open to it and prepared to be persuaded by it. ….

      • Oh, good Lord, Willy. What a crock.

        • “Oh, good Lord, Willy. What a crock.”~David Von Pein

          And this ‘answer’ Von Pein, is what you call adequate rebuttal?

          If you are really going to deny that the US Intelligence services lacked the resources and the connections to pull off a staged coup d’etat in Dallas, Texas; you have a impossible task in front of you to convince anyone with any historical knowledge and common sense.

          You may be able to convince the average simple minded TVZombie with your tootie-fruity Pied Piper pan pipes lullaby, but you will not be successful in a debate with informed researchers like those attending this blog.
          \\][//

          • Yeah, right, Willy. Whatever you say. ~eyeroll~

            I guess you must think that Oswald was merely a subservient puppet, willing and eager to have his strings pulled by any number of CIA operatives (including Michael and Ruth Paine). Right, Willy?

            And just because *ALL* of the evidence (and a dozen eyewitnesses near or at the site of J.D. Tippit’s murder in Oak Cliff) points toward Lee Oswald as a double-murderer, why should those trifling little facts get in the way of believing (as most Internet CTers do) that Oswald was merely an innocent “patsy”?

            Right, Willy?

            [Quote On:]

            “Who can believe these people [Ruth and Michael Paine]? Both of them as phony as three dollar bills.” — Jim DiEugenio

            ———–

            More….

            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

          • “I guess you must think that Oswald was merely a subservient puppet…”~Von Pein

            This isn’t a guessing game Von Pein.

            No I wouldn’t characterize it that way at all. Oswald was clearly a pawn being set-up as a fall guy and patsy. But Oswald was no amateur, he was a government agent infiltrating the Cuban Exile community, and he had gotten inside.

            I have to say Von Pein, your cheesy exclamations of “good lord” and tacky use of “~eyeroll~”, are the juvenile tactics of someone used to playing games with simpletons.

            Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet’s murder. There are witnesses who worked in that theater who testified to that.

            You have problems with the chain of possession of “Oswald’s wallet” with the phony ID with the name Alec Hidell and Oswald’s picture on it. Anyone knows that selective service cards do not and have never had pictures on them.
            It is extremely difficult to accept that employees of the Postal Service would be dumb enough to accept such an obviously phony ID to open a post office box.
            You also have problems with the witnesses to the Tippit murder and as well [again!!] problems with the chain of custody of bullet husks.

            Yes the Paine’s. They do have verifiable connections to both Intelligence and the military industrial complex (Bell Helicopter), and a certain milieu of deep insiders including Alan Dulles.
            \\][//

          • WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

            Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of Tippet’s [sic] murder.

            DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

            So you have no problem with Oswald being able to make it all the way to the Texas Theater from his roominghouse (where we *know* he was at about 1:00 PM, per Earlene Roberts) in time to be inside the theater BEFORE Tippit was even shot.

            But most CTers moan about how Oswald couldn’t possibly have made it from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton in time to shoot Tippit. And yet Willy has just made Oswald an Olympic track star by getting LHO all the way from 1026 Beckley to the Texas Theater in even LESS time. Amazing.

            But the “Texas Theater Oswald” was probably just an imposter, eh Willy?

        • bogman says:

          I’m curious, David, what is your opinion of LBJ hearing from Hoover the day after the assassination that a man impersonated Oswald on the Mexico City tapes? Why didn’t LBJ react and ask Hoover to purse that lead wherever it led? Why did the government destroy the tape of LBJ/Hoover conversation and we’re just lucky that a transcript survived? Why did the CIA claim the tape was destroyed when several credible witnesses from the FBI, the WC and the CIA claimed it wasn’t?

          And also, why did the FBI destroy the Oswald note? Why were the original autopsy notes burned after Oswald’s murder as well? Why did Joannides run an illegal operation against the HSCA to subvert knowledge that he ran the anti-Castro student group that interfaced with Oswald in NO?

          Hard to find a smoking gun when it keeps getting destroyed, hidden or obfuscated by the main suspects, isn’t it?

          If you believe the circumstantial evidence is strong against Oswald, do you not also have to believe the circumstantial evidence that the there was a massive government cover-up and that Oswald was connected to US intelligence is just as strong?

          • bogman says:

            Amended question from above:

            “Why did the CIA claim the Oswald Mexico City tape was destroyed prior to the assassination when witnesses from the FBI, the WC and the CIA claimed it wasn’t?”

          • “Why did the CIA claim the Oswald Mexico City tape was destroyed prior to the assassination when witnesses from the FBI, the WC and the CIA claimed it wasn’t?”

            Because it was destroyed. None of your “witnesses” had any direct knowledge of the tape being extant as of 11/22/63. People who would have had direct knowledge (Rudd, FBI agents in Dallas) said there was no tape.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

        • “And yet Willy has just made Oswald an Olympic track star by getting LHO all the way from 1026 Beckley to the Texas Theater in even LESS time. Amazing.”~David Von Pein

          Iv’e seen the map of the area. Taking a route from Beckley to the Texas Theater, by going through the park and through the school yard, Oswald could have made that distance in less than 15 minutes at a brisk walk.
          \\][//

          • But I’ll bet you don’t think the same man (Oswald) had a prayer of making it to 10th & Patton in just about the same length of time, and probably *less* time — i.e., “less than 15 minutes at a brisk walk”. Right, Willy?

            This reminds me of the (unintentional) hypocritical approach that Oliver Stone and other CTers have taken with respect to trying to prove that a Carcano rifle like Oswald’s couldn’t possibly have been fired three times in 5 or 6 seconds — even though Stone filmed one of his actors dry-firing a Carcano 3 times in 5.5 seconds, and he even kept that scene in the finished movie. Hilarious.

          • “But I’ll bet you don’t think the same man (Oswald) had a prayer of making it to 10th & Patton in just about the same length of time, and probably *less* time…”~David Von Pein

            I have stated no such opinion on this blog or elsewhere.
            *********************
            Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III
            Current Section: Cortlandt Cunningham

            Mr. RHYNE. Based on your experience in your study of these bullets, do you have an opinion as to whether or not they were fired by this gun?
            Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I cannot determine that.
            Mr. RHYNE. You have no opinion at all?
            Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The only thing I can testify to, is they could have, on the basis of the rifling characteristics–they could. have been. However, no conclusion could be reached from an actual comparison of these bullets with test bullets obtained from that gun.
            Mr. RHYNE. Even though there are a lot of similar markings.
            Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are not; no, sir. There are not a lot of similar markings. They are similar. The rifling characteristics, are the same, or similar. But, in the individual characteristic marks, there are not a lot of similarities. There are not sufficient similarities to effect an identification.
            Representative BOGGS. Stating Mr. Rhyne’s question negatively, these bullets could have been fired by another weapon?
            Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct. Either this weapon or another weapon which has the same rifling characteristics.
            Representative FORD. You are limiting that to the bullets now?
            Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The bullets.
            Mr. RHYNE. Yes; my question related just to the bullets.
            Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I identified the cartridge cases.
            Mr. RHYNE. He was positive about the cartridge cases, but not about the bullets.
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/cunningham2.htm
            \\][//

          • Officer Tippit was struck by four bullets.

            The two hulls found by Domingo Benavides at the Tippit crime scene would never be admitted. Poe told the FBI that he marked these hulls with his initials “JMP”. When he testified before the Commission, Poe stated under oath that he could not swear that he initialed these hulls. Hence, there was no chain of custody.

            Detective Jim Leavelle, a veteran of the force, told researcher Joe McBride that the hulls were useless as evidence. (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare). The question should be asked, however – did Poe initially lie, or were the hulls switched?

            Officer Jerry Hill complicated matters still further by claiming that Poe showed him three hulls.

            What really threw a spanner into the works was when Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm[*] and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base – Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

            [*] https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=648 > 1:40 pm (550-2)

            Hill then threw gasoline on the fire. In the face of a very carefully phrased question by attorney Belin, Hill denied under oath that he made the radio call about the finding of 38 automatic hulls at 1:40 pm. Hill claimed that he wasn’t using his call number “550-2” as much as another officer.

            In 1986, Hill admitted to researcher Dale Myers that he made the call. When he was asked how he determined that the hulls were 38 caliber, Hill said, “Thirty-eight’s stamped on the bottom of it. I looked on the bottom.” Hill’s problem is that the bottom of the hull will spell out for you what type of 38 it is! (Dale Myers, With Malice, p. 261).

            It could be argued that the two hulls found by two sisters, Barbara and Virginia Davis should be admitted because of the clear stories about two different officers that received them from the Davis sisters.

            However, there are several problems. The hulls provided to the police were not found at the crime scene, but down the street and later in the day – they could have been planted. Furthermore, the Davis sisters said that the marked hulls were not the hulls that they originally provided to the police.

            The biggest problem is the way that Jerry Hill poisoned the well with his lies and his widely varying stories. The history of alteration would probably result in none of the hulls being admitted into evidence.

            http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html
            \\][//

          • Well Von Pien,

            We have done away with your “evidence” to do with both the shell husks of Oswald’s 38 S&W” as well as the bullets taken from Tippits body.

            What have you left here?

            The assertion that a bullet passed through Kennedy’s back and exited his throat is shown to be pure conjecture.

            It has been shown that there is no valid chain of custody for CE399. And attendant to that is the strong indication that the FBI planted CE399 into evidence.
            As CE399 is said to have been fired by the Mannlicher Carcano, then the FBI must have fired that bullet into a catch net.
            All sure signs of perfidy on the part of the authorities.
            \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Right you are, David.
      When I posted information that impeached Mr. DiEugenio’s witnesses and claims he addressed it by leaving this forum. He prefers the company of those who share the same view and will not question why he thinks that mental patients and confirmed charlatans make good witnesses or question how articles published in ” predatory journals” are ” peer reviewed”.
      I have tried the “one example” tactic for years-it is a simple way for someone to actually present evidence contradicting statements made by me or others , a logical way to support a contrary position. It is rare that I even get a direct answer-usually the same generalities are presented in another manner,or more frequently the responder changes the subject entirely and makes a statement about an unrelated matter-often inaccurate or misunderstood, occasionally an actual falsehood.
      I have never seen LN supporters use those tactics.

      • Anyone risking the voyage to Von Pein’s site will discover it is certainly no pellucidar, but in fact an island shrouded in deep fog, a land of smoke and mirrors, governed by an evil necromancer casting electronic spells of voodoo curses. “Here thar be dragons!”

        Taking into account the ‘Cognitive Infiltration’ schemata of Sunstein, it is not in anyway unreasonable to suggest that such cognitive infiltration agents might attend and attempt to misdirect the proceedings of this blog.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          That’s interesting, but do you have any specific example of him misrepresenting anybody’s comments or putting out data that is not factual?
          Please give one example .

          • “Please give one example.”~Photon

            The BS Myers illustrations totally misrepresenting the pose and anatomy of Kennedy, that we have been discussing on this very thread.

            So … about Kennedy’s “abnormal” neck Photon?
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon:

            Here is one.

            “The area of the curb from this point [the point pictured in photos of the mark] for a distance of ten feet in either direction was carefully checked and it was ascertained that there was no nick in the curb in the checked area, nor was any mark observed. (21 H 473)
            The Dallas FBI then suggested rain and/or street sweepers had erased the mark (21 H 473). Yet, when the Warren Commission finally sent some people to Dallas to investigate the matter, they had no trouble finding the curb mark.
            Photos of the curb mark indicate it was patched fairly quickly after the assassination. In some of the photos of the curb scar, the scar is clearly darker than the rest of the curb. When Harold Weisberg examined the curb section at the National Archives, he had no trouble seeing that the curb nick had in fact been patched:
            When I examined that curbstone in the National Archives, it was very obvious that there had been a hole and that it had been patched. To a degree this is clear in the picture I had taken. The patch is much darker. Because the material used for the patch, which was a relatively small area, prevented the use of coarse aggregates, it is ever so much smoother to the touch as it is visible to the eye. (Weisberg, Never Again, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995, p. 376)
            In 1983 a building materials scientist examined the curb mark. The scientist was Jose T. Fernandez, the chief engineer of the firm Construction Environment, Inc. Mr. Fernandez concluded the curb scar had probably been patched (see Weisberg, Never Again, pp. 376-377; and Weisberg, Case Open, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1994, pp. 163-165). Said Fernandez,
            In summary, the dark spot shows visual characteristics which are significantly different from those of the surrounding concrete surface. While any one of the differences, by itself, could be easily explained in terms other than a patch, the simultaneous occurrence of those differences would amount to a rather curious coincidence of characteristics. But the existence of a surface patch would also be consistent with and explain all of the observed differences. (Case Open, p. 165)
            Oswald could not have patched the curb scar. So who patched it? The spectrographic plate from the curb mark was never examined by independent experts. The FBI, claiming a lack of space, destroyed the small spectrographic plate before independent experts could be allowed to study it.”

            Did you read the last line carefully. The “plate was destroyed before an INDEPENDENT—read someone not a lackey of the government—could study it.

            Gee, Photon. Destruction of evidence?

          • Photon says:

            No Steve, routine maintainance .

        • Time for another one of these — “Good Lord, Willy.”

          Gimini Christmas, I need a dictionary by my side at all times, it would seem, just to understand Mr. Whitten’s highbrow insults and mischaracterizations.

          ~~warm chuckle~~

          • Von Pein,

            You are going to need more than a dictionary to prove that my comments are in anyway, “mischaracterizations”.

            You are actually going to have to make some rational arguments here. I know that is a challenge for a petty propagandist like you, but you’re going to need a better bag of tricks than you currently have access to.
            \\][//

      • “It is rare that I even get a direct answer-usually the same generalities are presented in another manner,or more frequently the responder changes the subject entirely and makes a statement about an unrelated matter-often inaccurate or misunderstood, occasionally an actual falsehood.”~Photon

        Your characterizations in the comment I take this quote above from are quite remarkable in the scurrilous nature of them.

        So to make an example of yourself using your own assertion above: Several of us have asked just what you are talking about when you say that >>”JFK had an abnormal neck.”
        Do you understand the question Photon? It is quite straight forward. But it has been weeks now, and you haven’t even attempted to explain what you mean.

        One more time then, what is “abnormal” about JFK’s neck?

        Now you are bragging about how straight forward you are here.
        I know for a fact that there are many here who make comments that would find such and assertion coming from you to be disingenuous. In fact I get messages on my blog from people who read JFKfacts, but do not make commentary, and they are saying thanks to me and are grateful that I counter what they see as nonsense coming from you.

        I am confident that if a close study were made of the dialog on this site, that it would clearly show that YOU are the champion”artful dodger” here.
        \\][//

        • Milicent Cranor says:

          Well, Willy, if Photon won’t explain, and if he can’t provide a reference from a respectable source for this claim, maybe it’s his own professional opinion that JFK had an abnormal neck. Did Photon ever explain his profession? As I recall, he often questions the credentials of others, so he should explain his own. I heard that someone claimed he is a morgue attendant. Or was it an ambulance driver? I can’t find the thread, but I rarely visit this website.

          • Yea Milicent?

            I understood that Photon is a counter clerk at MacDonald’s, and that he sometimes dresses up in a Ronald the clown costumes for fairs, blogs, and special occasions. But it’s all hearsay until the horse unplugs the stopper in his mouth.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What a Kroc ( get the pun?) At least I have a degree.
            Willy, I will give you a hint.
            Why was Pierre Salinger so deperate to kill the Beebe Santa Monica photo? It was a public relations dream photo, yet Salinger ( or perhaps others) saw it as a real threat to the re-election of JFK.

        • “I will give you a hint.
          Why was Pierre Salinger so deperate to kill the Beebe Santa Monica photo? It was a public relations dream photo, yet Salinger ( or perhaps others) saw it as a real threat to the re-election of JFK.”~Photon

          I didn’t ask for a hint Photon.

          You have just repeated the same nonsense that you started with about the Beebe photo at that beach. That tells us NOTHING!

          You surmising about Pierre Salinger’s motives for something you haven’t proven he did; “try kill the Beebe Santa Monica photo,” is all obvious BS and stalling.

          If this is all you have Photon then shove it.
          \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        BTW, Photon, how is that one little piece of information I requested from you?

        As you will recall (or not, you seem to ave selective memory), you stated just recently that JFK had an “abnormal neck condition”, and this “condition” made the otherwise impossible Single Bullet Theory actually possible.

        Would you please share with us the details of this secret “condition” that made JFK’s neck so remarkably different from every other human neck on the planet, and do so before some of us begin passing away from old age?

        Thanks in advance!

        • leslie sharp says:

          “BTW, Photon, how is that one little piece of information I requested from you?” — Bob Prudhomme

          Likewise, photon. those of us who have expended massive amounts of energy on this forum – in good faith – expect you to respond to the question: what precisely was abnormal about John Kennedy’s neck? So far, there is a deafening silence from you.

          I propose that you be ignored, and yes, be treated as inconsequential and disingenuous until you present facts to support your assertion.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Photon:

        Here is a ONE EXAMPLE for you to answer. What about JFK’s “abnormal neck” that is available ONLY to you and your vast knowledge of human anatomy could you share with us to explain how the bullet worked as it did?

        Here is another ONE EXAMPLE that you have refused to answer, besides your usual “he doesn’t understand anatomy” like I do BS.:

        Law: Were you surprised you weren’t called before the Warren Commission?

        Sibert: I was at the time, but now I can understand why.

        Law: Why do you think you weren’t called?

        Sibert: Why? In other words, with that single-bullet theory, if they went in there and asked us to pinpoint where the bullet entered the back and the measurements and all that stuff, how are you going to work it? See, the way they got the single-bullet theory, was by moving that back wound up to tile base of tile neck.

        ONE MORE for you to answer:

        Law: I was going to ask you to tell me your thoughts on Mr. Specter and the single-bullet theory.

        Sibert: Well I-that single-bullet theory-when they had me come up to the ARRB deposition there at College Park, I said, “Well before I come up there, I want you to know one thing. I’m not an advocate of the single-bullet theory.” I said, “I don’t believe it because I stood there two foot from where that bullet wound was in the back, the one that they eventually moved up to the base of the neck. I was there when Boswell made his face sheet and located that wound exactly as we described it in the FD 302.” And I said, “Furthermore, when they examined the clothing after it got into the Bureau, those bullet holes in the shirt and the coat were down 5 inches there. So there is no way that bullet could have gone that low then rise up and come out the front of the neck, zigzag and hit Connally and then end up pristine on a stretcher over there in Dallas.”

        Law: You don’t believe in the single-bullet theory. Period.

        Sibert: There is no way I will swallow that. They can’t put enough sugar on it for me to bite it. That bullet was too low in the back.

        Well, Photon. Care to comment on a man 2 FEET FROM JFK’S BODY?

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        Photon touts that the medical and scientific evidence supports Oswald’s guilt, but doesn’t name a single anti-conspiracy article published in the “peer-reviewed” literature that hasn’t been debunked – including Luis Alvarez’s “jet effect” claims in the Am. J. Physics from 1976, the silly JAMA articles from the early ’90s, Rahn and Sturdivan’s articles on Neutron Activation Analysis in the mid 2000s, etc. If he can find one, I’ll send him a check for $200.oo.

        (Dale Myers praises the work of Lucien Haag for a series of articles recently published in the peer-reviewed Assn. of Firemark and Toolmark Examiners Journal that endorse the long-discredited Neutron Activation Analysis evidence. http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015_05_01_archive.html)

        Despite having been reminded of it more than once, Photon has repeatedly ignored the fact the Warren Commissio selectively and misleadingly cited the opinions of three Dallas doctors who had treated Governor Connally’s wounds in Dallas: Drs. Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory and George Shires. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm

        Photon dismisses concerns that no FBI 302 report by Agent Bardwell Odum exists to support the FBI memo of July 7,’64 to the W. Commission that stated B. Odum interviewed Parkland witnesses Tomlinson and Wright. Odum told me and Tink Thompson he never wrote such a report because he never interviewed either Parkland witness. He also told us that if he had carried CE 399 around to show those witnesses, he’d sure as shootin’ have written up a 302. As we’ve written, searches by us and the govt. disclose no reports on 399 by Odum, 302’s or otherwise. Photon sneers that there’s no evidence 302 reports were even written in ’63-4, despite the fact that the Sibert and O’Neill report is, you guessed it, a 302 report.

        So, Photon, please cite for us, here and now, a single article published in the peer-reivew med/science literature that’s not been debunked, that’s not junk science. If, like me, you don’t need the $200.oo, donate it to charity.

        Still waiting to read your defense of NAA. But please cite checkable sources, since you rarely, if ever, do, and you’ve often been wrong on the facts.

  11. Kennedy63 says:

    Does anyone remember the 60 Minutes “Point/Counterpoint episodes where two talking heads square off and present their diametric viewpoints on a specific topic? JFK was assassinated, we can all agree to this fact. By whom? Unknown. The core plotters? Unknown. Motive? To eliminate someone apposed to a Pax Americana. A person who sought peace and energized the citizenry to help those less fortunate through the Peace Corps. The warmongers killed JFK in order to insert a criminal minded dupe (LBJ) into the Oval Office.

  12. Bogman says:

    If you believe there’s enough circumstantial evidence to conclude Oswald was the lone gunman, IMO to be credible you have to concede that there’s enough circumstantial evidence to conclude the US intelligence services were using Oswald, likely in a counter-intel program.

  13. Milicent Cranor says:

    For comic relief, read Dale Myers’s explanation of his computer modeling of the Zapruder film (“The Video Toaster User,” 11/94) Excerpts from my own article (“The Fourth Decade” in May 1995):
    Myers explains his amazing methods:

    Quote: “I began ‘keying’ the motion of the JFK and JBC models to the film.. Key frames were then periodically created for both men as the film progressed. Because of the computer’s ability to interpolate motion between two fixed positions, it was not necessary to create a key it every Zapruder frame.

    However, to ensure that the motion seen in this 3D version was faithful to the original, key frames were established for every major change in the occupants’ motion. In most cases, keys appear every 20 frames, though extreme motion areas required key frames at three to five frame intervals in order to keep the computer recreation locked to the Zapruder film.” Endquote

    Cranor: Three to five frame intervals? Why leave out a single frame during the critical periods? Why substitute guesswork even scientific guesswork, which it isn’t — when you have actual photographic evidence?

    Myers eliminates JFK’s apparent reaction to being hit before going behind Stemmons sign:

    Quote: “The House Select Committee on Assassinations interpreted the blurry images between Z-189 and Z- 197 as an indication that JFK had been shot.. .It appeared. ..the JFK’s right hand ‘froze’ at this point. However, the computer re-creation reveals something else a sharp, abrupt continuation of JFK’s turn to his right… it is clear that the President was tracking the women at curbside…” End Quote.

    Myers reveals what went on behind the sign!

    Quote: “Still frames clearly show the President grimacing as he emerges behind the sign. The question remaining is how much earlier was he hit and whether Connally shows a reaction to being hit at the same time.

    Quote: “It takes the human eye approximately Five to ten frames to recognize shapes in motion. By the time your eye locks on JFK or JBC, the film has already progressed to Z-230 to Z-235, where both are already reacting. The 3 D computer model. . .effectively eliminated these technical limitations.” End Quote

    Cranor: Actually, you can eliminate the “technical limitations” by examining the film one frame at a time. But if you do that, you will find something wrong with the lone assassin theory. But to continue Myers explanation:

    Quote: “The computer camera followed the action with an ultrasmooth pan, image sampling was nearly doubled from Zapruder’s original 18.3 fps to 30 fps, and the obtrusive Stemmons Freeway sign was assigned an 80 percent transparency value. The action behind the sign was interpolated bv the computer based on the first and last frames in which JFK and IBC are visible. What happened behind the sign is no longer a mystery .” End Quote.

    Cranor: Definitely ultrasmooooth! You can read the entire article here:
    http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Myers%20Dale%20K/Item%2002.pdf Or here: https://archive.org/stream/nsia-MyersDaleK/nsia-MyersDaleK/Myers%20Dale%20K%2003_djvu.txt

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Thank you Ms, Cranor. The depth of your post is not under appreciated by some.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Very good.

      Last time I saw an animation, the SBT wasn’t followed through to the alleged, ultimate resting place – in Connally’s left thigh, and I quickly dismissed it.

  14. jeffc says:

    The other salient distortion in the Myers animation is the Kennedy figure is portrayed as a much larger man than Connally, when it actuality the opposite was true.

    • Photon says:

      A myth already debunked by Myers. You guys need to update your talking points; Mr. Herrera wants to create his own animation, so at least some CTers accept the animation concept. Of course Failure Associates Analysis had some experience recreating scientifically episodes using animation and other mediums.
      Mr. Herrera has none.

      • jeffc says:

        What is the myth? That Connally was physically larger than JFK, or that Myers portrayed the opposite?

        • Tim Nickerson says:

          jeffc, the myth is that Myers presented JFK as being physically larger than Connally. Myers addresses the myth:

          “Mr. Speer used a frame grab from the Discovery Channel’s “Beyond the Magic Bullet” to make his point, but failed to note that the image he used was taken from a portion of the program in which my computer work was being displayed on a computer monitor which was at a significant angle to the camera – the effect being that the computer images of Kennedy and Connally were compressed horizontally and consequently the Connally image appeared smaller than the actual model.

          When Mr. Speer was informed that wide-angle sequences from the Discovery program showed the relationship of the computer monitor to the program camera (and therefore the fallacy of his argument), he wrote on his website, “I must admit I did not realize this footage was shot at an angle. I mean, why would they do that?” Believe it or not, Mr. Speer than proceeded to claim that the producers of the program and I conspired to deceive viewers (and presumably the hapless Mr. Speer) about the true alignment of the single bullet theory by purposely shooting the monitor on an angle!”

          • jeffc says:

            That rationale is almost as convoluted as the SBT itself. “Beyond Conspiracy”, which originally broadcast the animation, is one of the most dishonest major network documentaries ever produced – which is saying a lot.

          • Photon says:

            Jeffc, do you have anything specific to base your statement on?
            The only thing that I see dishonest about Myers” work is the constant drumbeat of CT criticism based not on any real evidence that his presentation is inaccurate ( see the Towner nonsense above) but on the conviction that since JFK was killed by a conspiracy any evidence to the contrary must be false,faked or simply wrong. Failing to impeach the animation rationally I see that you and other critics fall back to insults.

          • jeffc says:

            Note that the term “dishonest” was used to describe the ABC News documentary “Beyond Conspiracy”, which originally broadcast the Myers animation. I would not characterize Myers himself with that term, as it appears his opinions are sincerely felt however dogmatic. The animation itself, as it appears in the ABC broadcast, is not anatomically precise; Kennedy’s arms are freakishly long, the hunchback bizarre, and the comparative size between the JFK and Connally figures change from angle to angle with the Connally figure variously shrinking.

            In my opinion, the animation is not interesting beyond how it was used by ABC to bolster their dishonest and shoddy program, which cherry-picked “factoids” in a conscious effort to misinform the public. The back wound was clearly too low to activate the SBT, and so all the ensuing arguments and animations regarding this dubious theory are a waste of time.

      • Photon,

        A question lingers in the blogosphere that is not going to go away: Explain; what was “abnormal” about John Kennedy’s neck.
        \\][//

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        [Photon:]

        “Mr. Herrera wants to create his own animation”

        ==================================

        First of all, it will be more than an animation. Much more. It will be a 3D model. From it, everything else can be extracted:

        You would like an MP4 video with the point of view of the bullet, which stops a few yards above the limo?

        Consider it done.

        With the camera looking back?

        Consider it done.

        Details (with all the numbers) of the penetrating bullet?

        https://www.cgstud.io/3d-model/human-skull-anatomy-38487

        Consider it done.

        Secondly, this is not owned by Mr. Herrera. You (and Gerald Posner and Dale Myers) already are every bit as owners of this invaluable, historic resource.

        ps: You should check the concept of “Open Source”.

      • “The only thing that I see dishonest about Myers” work is the constant drumbeat of CT criticism based not on any real evidence that his presentation is inaccurate..”~Photon

        As has been shown conclusively here, Myers’ anatomy and pose of Kennedy does not even come close to reality. That certainly falls into the category of “inaccurate” Photon.

        It is also a further indication of why you are making this preposterous allegation that Kennedy had an “abnormal neck”
        — Perhaps like a long neck goose like Myers presents it, protruding from a Quasimodo version of President Kennedy.
        * * * * *
        All of this would be laughable if Myers, Von Pien, and Photon weren’t seriously trying to pawn it off here on this forum.
        \\][//

  15. pat speer says:

    I present a detailed look at Myers’ animation, here: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c:animania

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Hi Pat:

      I would like to present a version which will be much better, technically and aesthetically. It is already owned by you, as member of The People:

      Open Source 3D Model of Dealey Plaza
      https://goo.gl/jTy69B

      Our distances, angles and trajectories will not be for sale, at any price.

      BTW, I just secured this Internet domain:

      http://www.dealey-plaza.org

      Interestingly, if you remove the hyphen, you go to the Sixth Floor Museum’s site.

      We expect to produce animations, views, angles, diagrams, etc. on demand, free of charge. Even the sun will be in the exact location.

      The disappointing news is that I keep on looking for volunteers (to do the other buildings, etc.) and so far it looks that it will be a job done by Mark Messer and Yours Truly:

      http://simplymaya.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41914

      http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?386884-Open-Source-3D-Model-of-Dealey-Plaza

    • I commend you Pat Speer, for the exhaustively detailed critique of Myers animation. A job well done!!

      Dale Myers is obviously a hack.

      He is promoted and lauded by the MSM because he ‘goes along to get along’ – the prime directive for advancement in this pathological society.

      Myers doesn’t even have a Jr HS grasp of human anatomy. He wouldn’t even be considered an artist were it not for the computer assisted skills that bridge the gap between his lack of innate skills and his barely passable CGI presentations.
      \\][//

    • Bogman says:

      That is a great analysis, Pat.

      One thing I noticed as well is that in Myers’ animation of Z-236, there appears to be scarcely 4 inches of top seat cushion between the door of the limo and JFK, while in the actual Z film it appears to be a good 10 inches between Kennedy and the door. That simple discrepancy undermines the accuracy claim of his entire “3D” animation.

      I know quite a few people who became convinced of the LN theory from this animation, so the impact of Myers and the media’s dishonesty cannot be underestimated.

  16. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Some of you may remember this program, right?

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

    That’s the one where they spent a day making laser measurements of the crime scene.

    http://psg.leica-geosystems.us/page/why-3d-laser-scanning-is-invaluable-in-shooting-incident-reconstructions/

    Well, I got in contact with PBS/NOVA and sent them the preliminary e-mail below. I also talked with the PBS Ombudsman’s office.

    http://www.pbs.org/ombudsman/home/

    ============================

    From: Ramon F Herrera
    To: Christine Russo
    Subject: Precise Measurements of Dealey Plaza

    Hi Christine:

    Thanks for your kind assistance.

    I will soon meet my peers, a group of people interested in having a 3-dimensional model of Dealey Plaza with every distance, angle, etc. being publicly available, on the Internet.

    We already contacted the Dallas County and requested the floor plans and related information. However, as far as we know the most accurate measurements ever were done by NOVA’s Cold Case team. Kudos to you.

    With the utmost respect, we believe that it would be a tragedy if those numbers remain locked up in some computer at NOVA or elsewhere.

    That is the gist of it. We can write a formal letter, in paper, with the developers of Dealey Plaza computer models signing it.

    Best regards,

    -Ramon F Herrera
    Houston, Texas

    • Photon says:

      Now why would you want their laser data when you discont everything else reported on the program?

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        [Photon:] “Now why would you want their laser data?”
        ===================

        For comparison and double check.

        We can use the data that belongs to a company hired by PBS to compare it with the data that belongs to you.

        Additionally, for completeness:

        The NOVA crew spent a day making measurements while my only source is the floor plans (from the TSBD building only) that I requested from Dallas County and that has not been approved. I had to resort to FOIA.

        Notice that requesters need to obtain the floor plans from every individual building owner.

        If there are some differences:

        “Wait a minute! The actual distance between the Houston/Elm corner and Zapruder’s spot is x feet!”

        … they will have to be resolved and agreed upon somehow (I expect my heroes, the universities, to be involved). In your next trip to DP, bring along something like this gadget:

        http://www.homedepot.com/p/Stanley-IntelliMeasure-Distance-Estimator-77-018/203730442

        (22 bucks, at the Home Depot). Make some measurements and compare them with those in the web site:

        http://www.dealey-plaza.org

        (did I tell you that that web site belongs to you?)

        I expect my peers, the authors of 3D models of Dealey Plaza to make some sort of public statement such as:

        “We have looked at the dimensions of the Open Source Model of Dealey Plaza and we agree with them”.

        There is a list of those authors here (post #8).

        http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1875-3d-animation-of-dealey-plaza/

        So far, we are working with the people who made the movie “A Coup in Camelot”, the others will be enticed to collaborate. I plan to make them an offer they can’t refuse.

        Every company/person who is approached to contribute with this project will be prominently displayed in the web site. Whether positively or negatively, it is up to them. See comment about the Ford Motor Company here:

        http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1875-3d-animation-of-dealey-plaza/?p=9635

      • “Now why would you want their laser data when you discont everything else reported on the program?”~Photon

        Data is simply integer points with no inherent meaning in themselves. Data becomes “Facts”only when arranged in a reasonable context.

        Mr. Herrera wants the data so he can arranged those integers in a more reasonable sequence/fashion than those of PBS.
        \\][//

        • And Photon, you STILL haven’t answered the question about Kennedy’s so called “abnormal neck”.

          This isn’t time for your childish guessing games.

          Tell us WTF you are talking about or drop your spurious allegation.
          \\][//

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [Willy]:

          “Mr. Herrera wants the data so he can arrange those integers […]”

          ======================

          You are close. Do you remember THE meter? The original one? The one they kept in Paris? It was made of some alloy (platinum + iridium) and stored at a certain precise temperature:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_metre

          Every manufacturer of measurement equipment in the world was supposed to go to France and check its devices against the original. That’s what the priests told me in high school, anyway. It seems that each country got its own copy.

          This 3D model that we are building will be THE public, agreed upon by all parts reference.

          You may arrange your locations and hypotheses in one way, Photon, DVP and other followers of Mr. Myers may prefer another arrangement.

          The most important, the critical part is that up to the last comma and decimal point, everything will be PUBLIC.

          There will be 3 types of numbers:

          (1) Immutable: Distances between buildings, heights, etc. Those can be checked by any visitor.

          (2) Within a narrow range: the position of the limo at each time. Estimated. Extracted from the Z film and other sources.

          (3) The location of the shooters: all the way from sniper’s nest alone, to the water drain, to flying saucers.

          We promise to keep (1) accurate (*), we promise to do our best with (2) -helped by experts- and only you have control over (3).

          (*) And you will keep up honest.

          • Do I understand you correctly here?
            This group is having a full sized replica of the Book Depository Building being constructed in Europe somewhere?

            What will be the practical purpose of building this structure? Are you going to build a full size set of Dealey Plaza with Elm Street represented in it?
            \\][//

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [Willy:]

          “Do I understand you correctly here?
          This group is having a full sized replica of the Book Depository Building being constructed in Europe somewhere?”

          ===============================

          Everything is being done inside computers, Willy.

          The total budget so far is a few hundred dollars per month that I can afford, which explains the reason I am all over the Internet looking for volunteers to work for free:

          http://simplymaya.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41914

          http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?386884-Open-Source-3D-Model-of-Dealey-Plaza

          In addition to the fact that we are not allowed to shoot people, with software simulations the results are much more accurate than if we had a real Dealey Plaza made of brick and mortar.

          For the birth of the project, see this thread:

          http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php/topic/1875-3d-animation-of-dealey-plaza/

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Ramon, where can I see a full view of the surveyor’s plan of Dealey-Plaza? I want someone from my office to plot angles to Z313 from points along the picket fence and possibly the overpass.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        [Gerry Simone:]

        “where can I see a full view of the surveyor’s plan of Dealey-Plaza?”

        ===============================

        Check with Tony Marsh, he is an expert. His e-mail address (anthony.marsh@comcast.net) is publicly available in the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup, his one and only home base.

        Just don’t tell him that I sent you. For some reason I think he unfriended me a while back. 🙁

        • Tom S. says:

          Ramon,
          Tony will know it was you, he knows everything!

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            November 28, 2015 at 12:17 am

            Ramon,
            Tony will know it was you, he knows everything!

            I believe our own Willy has Anthony beat. A close race however. Both being brilliant men!

          • “I believe our own Willy has Anthony beat. A close race however. Both being brilliant men!” ~Bill Clarke

            I find your commentary here to be most curious. You seem to be insinuating by ‘contrast’, that you are in some fashion a humble commentator here. Yet you have blatantly called myself and others “liars”, you have insisted come hell or high water, that your opinions on the Vietnam war are to be held as the ‘Gold Standard’ by which all other opinions must be judged.

            I don’t want to mention the term “hypocrisy,” however it seems to have entered my text here somehow.

            Another question for you Bill, do you know how to use Quotation Marks? They are used when you quote someone directly.
            Such as:

            “Ramon, Tony will know it was you, he knows everything!”

            They are used to avoid confusion as to who is saying what.
            Didn’t you say you are college educated?
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 1, 2015 at 3:15 am

            “I believe our own Willy has Anthony beat. A close race however. Both being brilliant men!” ~Bill Clarke

            “I find your commentary here to be most curious. You seem to be insinuating by ‘contrast’, that you are in some fashion a humble commentator here.”

            You missed it Willy. I was poking fun about you never being humble. Never.

            “Yet you have blatantly called myself and others “liars”, you have insisted come hell or high water, that your opinions on the Vietnam war are to be held as the ‘Gold Standard’ by which all other opinions must be judged.”

            When a person makes a false statement you have two things to consider. Is the person simply misinformed or is he telling a lie on purpose. I have no doubt that you, Prouty, DiEugenio and Newman have read NSAM 263. Therefore you are not simply misinformed.

            “Another question for you Bill, do you know how to use Quotation Marks? They are used when you quote someone directly.”
            Such as: “Ramon, Tony will know it was you, he knows everything!”

            “They are used to avoid confusion as to who is saying what.”

            “Didn’t you say you are college educated?”

            Yes but it was a close call, Willy. I think the only reason they gave me a degree was because they were needing lots and lots of lieutenants at the time. I received my degree and my commission the same day.

            But I ask Willy, why can I see Newman, DiEugenio and Prouty as BS artist and you cannot? Guess who got the better education.

          • “Guess who got the better education.”~Bill Clarke

            Obviously John Newman, and Fletcher Prouty got the better education; both in life and schooling.

            I don’t see this continued back and forth between us as profitable. Dispense with the needless taunts, and you will avoid my responses.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 1, 2015 at 5:16 pm

            I don’t see this continued back and forth between us as profitable.

            Well I sure find it profitable, Willy. After months of you claiming All the troops would be withdrawn you now finally admit that you always knew not all of the troops would be withdrawn. As Bill Clinton would say, “it depends on how you define ALL” I guess. This is amazing progress on your part and I’m so proud of you.

        • Ramon F Herrera,

          I have a REAL problem with anyone involved with the group that put together ‘COUP IN CAMELOT’ – this group is run by Douglas Horne, who I am utterly convinced is a mole and disinformant, taking the JFK truth community for a big ride out into the weeds.

          Horne is an outspoken proponent for the Alteration of the Zapruder film. I have encountered Horne making bald face lies in defamation of Rolland Zavada. I have discovered that Horne hasn’t the slightest idea about special effects film, light, photography in general, nor movie making machinery. He fakes his way through this topic with the arrogance of ignorance as his guide.
          I speak to much of this here:
          https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
          \\][//

          • Ramon F Herrera says:

            “I have a REAL problem with anyone involved with the group that put together ‘COUP IN CAMELOT’”

            =========================

            Willy: All the producers did was to kindly give me the e-mail address of James Neal, the guy who did the artistic work. That is the total extent of their cooperation:

            http://www.jamesnealfilms.com/

            In my first attempt James ignored me. You know, people are busy. Interestingly, he is Polish and so is the guy who is doing the equivalent work on our side, Mark Messer, so they hit it off.

            Allow me to inform you that Doug Horne is officially retired from JFK activism.

            I am sure that the Zavada polemic will be definitely resolved by science and our best universities, as soon as they lose the widespread fear of working on the JFK case.

            Tragically, the writing on the wall by Secretary John Kerry was a failure: he should have used a much larger font or wider brush.

            The powers that be had a long running cover-up, and now they are working on an uncover-down. This movie is part of that strategy:

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3682448/?ref_=nm_flmg_act_7

            Whether the revealing phase is done in 2017 or 2039 is up to us.

            Our job is to communicate to our leaders clearly:

            WE ARE READY FOR THE TRUTH

          • “Allow me to inform you that Doug Horne is officially retired from JFK activism.”~Ramon F Herrera

            That is splendid news if accurate!
            I have always understood that “company men” never really retire.
            \\][//

  17. B Binnie says:

    FACTUAL QUESTION for Agent PHOTON: Someone calling himself LHO had a pre assassination Vacation in Mexico City and spent the bulk of his time at the most spook infested places in the American Continents making sure everyone he encountered knew he was there. We know that voluminous pictures and audio records were made of this person. We know that the US Agents who did this surveillance told their superiors about this evidence- The pictures we have are clearly not the man Ruby slaughtered in November- If we had tangible evidence that the man calling himself LHO in Mexico City was not the Lone Nut Carcano Cowboy, then a significant, and very well designed conspiracy is a given- QUESTION: Where are those pictures and audio recordings? We know there are files in Foggy Bottom from the good old OSS days that we still cannot see, so not much goes in the Langley dumpster-

    • B Binnie says:

      Agent Photon will debate cartoons until the chickens come home to roost but cannot speak to a simple fact because it is not a straw man exhumed out of the WC echo chamber- Where did all of the pictures and tapes of LHO vacationing in Mexico City go, after multiple parties verified in writing that they had seen and heard them, before and after the assassination took place? Wont touch this one with a 10 foot pole, I fear- PS- I already know your answer- It was spring cleaning at the Central American/ Latin Bureau, and of course, poop happens-

  18. Bob Prudhomme says:

    For the next “Comment of the Week”, I nominate one of Mr. Photon’s many references to the “abnormal neck condition” he claims JFK was afflicted with. This so called “condition”, which Mr. Photon has declined to explain or describe, despite numerous requests to do so, supposedly made it possible for a 6.5mm Carcano bullet to pass through the cervical vertebrae of JFK’s neck without disturbing any of those vertebrae; a miraculous feat, I must say.

    Perhaps, if one of these “abnormal neck condition” comments of Mr. Photon’s was highlighted as Comment of the Week, Mr. Photon would condescend to explain the nature of this “condition”.

    • Tom S. says:

      Well Bob,
      This is a first, using the “Comment of the week” as leverage. Not as intimidating as waterboarding, but an experience to avoid, given the option. Then again, it is JFK’s neck that is on the block, not Photon’s.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        You can call it anything you like, Tom. The fact remains, a certain poster by the name of Photon has made repeated claims about JFK having an “abnormal neck condition” that somehow made the impossible angles of the SBT possible, and yet has not provided a shred of information to back up this outrageous claim; despite repeated requests from many other posters.

        Does this not bother you?

        • Photon says:

          I have never said that JFK’s abnormal neck made the ” impossible” angles of the SBT possible, as even without his condition the SBT trajectory is entirely possible without hitting the spinal column, despite your incomplete and erroneous grasp of anatomy. Can you cite anybody with an M.D. after their name that agrees with your conclusion that the missile that caused JFK’s back wound had to hit the spinal column? Bob, did you know that there are literally dozens of gunshot wounds seen in ERs in the U.S. annually with similar trajectories that never even get explored , let alone involve documented cervical spine injury?
          I am still amazed that all of the medical geniuses here ( to paraphrase Sid of the Strib-Jeff will understand) have no idea what I am referring to. A third year medical student should be able to pick it up.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘I have never said that JFK’s abnormal neck made the ” impossible” angles of the SBT possible, as even without his condition . . . ‘ — photon

            Are you being deliberately tedious? If it has no bearing on the angles the alleged SBT had to take, what is your point? You are disingenuous, and you disparage this site with your presence.

          • Photon’s methods are all aimed at distraction and disruption and none of his comments make a bit of rational sense.

            Personally I do not take anything Photon says seriously. He is the most blatant propagandists on this site. There are some near runners up, but he takes the cake.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What I am doing is demonstrating that several of the posters here who claim enough knowledge of anatomy and medicine to contradict board certified Pathologists can’t even recognize a common medical condition .

          • theNewDanger says:

            Photon –

            Would you definitively describe the medical condition that you feel requires a medical degree (I assume you have one) to understand the condition, PROVE that JFK had the condition, and how it negates angles of missile paths?

          • Fearfaxer says:

            “[D]id you know that there are literally dozens of gunshot wounds seen in ERs in the U.S. annually with similar trajectories that never even get explored , let alone involve documented cervical spine injury?”

            This is as believable as the stuff you hear in a Donald Trump speech. Please cite something that provides backup of some kind. Otherwise everyone is justified in concluding you’re just spouting hot air again.

            Incidentally Paul, the victims of those dozens of gunshot wounds probably had an oral surgeon looking in if the wounds occurred anywhere in the vicinity of the head. You know, those people you scorn as being “only dentists.” That alone disqualifies you from speaking with any authority on matters medical, especially as it pertains to gunshot wounds and ER procedures.

    • leslie sharp says:

      photon, let’s talk necks, John Kennedy’s specifically. Do you see an abnormality in Kennedy’s neck in these candid photographs? When these shots were captured could Kennedy have known that decades later a photon might be waiting in the shadows of an internet forum to propose that he had a neck abnormality that proved a lone gunman murdered him? Of course not, that’s ludicrous. So we agree, these photographs capture Kennedy and his ‘normal’ neck au natural; otherwise you will have to argue that Kennedy always made certain that an otherwise compromised neck would appear “normal” in his photographs. I venture you won’t venture there.

      You seem to be suggesting (who knows for certain because no one has pinned you down on this issue) that because Kennedy had an abnormal neck, a bullet passed through his body, floated thru thin air, turned, re-entered the body mass of his host in Dallas, John Connally, and surfaced at Parkland Hospital on a stretcher.

      Seriously?

      http://jfklibrary.tumblr.com/post/22386012814/senator-john-f-kennedy-signs-a-copy-of-profiles

      http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/3R_r8EUZwkyk5JGge1tZ8g.aspx

      • Photon says:

        No, I do not see a neck abnormality in these photographs.
        Do physicians do examinations on patients wearing suits and ties?

        • “Do physicians do examinations on patients wearing suits and ties?”~Photon

          Well why not Photon, as you say yourself, a coat is part of human anatomy:

          “but his coat was riding up-as where other parts of his anatomy.”~Photon

          Why don’t you cut the crap Photon, there is no “abnormality” to Kennedy’s neck. You have squeezed this preposterous notion as far as you can. Your commentary on this forum is utterly worthless.
          \\][//

        • Milicent Cranor says:

          Dale Myers’s highly abnormal rendition of JFK — clothed — in profile is radically contradicted by these photos of JFK clothed.

          JFK had no anatomical abnormality that would ever justify Myers’s portrayal. Nor is there any proof that he was ever in that distorted position.

          But, again, why can you not provide a reference for what you claim “a doctor” said?

          • Photon says:

            Neither photo shows JFK sitting with his right arm resting on the side of the limo.Ergo, they are not pertinent to the animation.
            Myers’ animation is based on the Zapruder film, using actual body points noted on the film for the artistic recreation. Obviously you do not understand the digital process used.

          • “Myers’ animation is based on the Zapruder film, using actual body points noted on the film for the artistic recreation. Obviously you do not understand the digital process used.”Photon’s weird neck

            I understand the digital process Myers used, and he cheated that distances and the angles with his “artistic licence” – his “reproduction” is crap, and does not reflect Kennedy’s anatomy or posture.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘But, again, why can you not provide a reference for what you claim “a doctor” said?’ — Milicent Cranor

            response, ‘Neither photo shows . . .’ — photon

            Diverting from Ms. Cranor’s specific question falls short of the high standard you set for everyone else. Why not simply answer the question. Having additional high calibre, well informed researchers participate on this site is refreshing so please don’t drive them away with your adolescent, exhausting obstinacy.

      • Tim Nickerson says:

        leslie sharp wrote:

        let’s talk necks, John Kennedy’s specifically
        =========================================================
        Sure leslie, let’s talk necks. Quite a few here have claimed that the bullet could not have traversed Kennedy’s neck without striking a vertebrae. Bob Prudhomme being the most adamant and vocal of the bunch. I chased after Prudhomme for days trying to get specifics from him but he avoided me like the plague. What are your own thoughts on Bob’s claim?
        ——————————————————–

        Leslie sharp wrote:

        a bullet passed through his body, floated thru thin air, turned, re-entered the body mass of his host in Dallas, John Connally,
        =======================================================

        Turned in mid air? Seriously?

        • “Turned in mid air? Seriously?”~Nickerson

          If you insist that the bullet went through Kennedy’s back and out his throat at the trajectory proposed; Yes, it would have to have turned mid air.

          But we know it was never proven that a bullet passed through Kennedy. We know that CE399 was never fired in Dealey PLaza. We know the whole Magic Bullet story is hogwash made up by the lying bastards running the Warren Commission.
          \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          No Tim. I’m pretty sure Leslie was being sarcastic. But the mid air turn is what would be required for the SBT to work based on the angle a sixth floor shooter would have been firing from.
          It’s all somewhat of a moot point considering the back shot at T-3 did not exit the body. Read more about it from the Corpsmen who participated in the autopsy in the new version of In The Eye of History.

  19. EVAN CERNE-IANNONE SAID [AT FACEBOOK]:

    Watching CNN special on JFK assassination. I forget how stupid some people are. Honestly, why do they think there was a conspiracy?

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    It’s probably mostly just a “follow the leader” mindset. Most people don’t know very much about the details of Oswald’s guilt. They watch Oliver Stone’s fantasy film, or they read the latest crazy conspiracy book (like David Talbot’s new one about how *Allen Dulles Did It*), and they conclude that those silly theories *must* be correct.

    Too bad more of them don’t (or won’t) read this instead….
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1939521238

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      David,

      (Part 1)

      With all due respect to you, I find the idea of a “follow the leader mindset” a rather disingenuous way to try to lump the people who have SERIOUS doubts about what happened in Dallas into the same category. I have a great deal of respect for you, and this comment makes it seem that some of the people that have looked at this case for 30 plus years—myself—as incompetent, non-reading, believe anything that comes down the pipe buffoons. Speaking ONLY for myself, nothing could be further from the truth.

      For starters, I have never seen the movie JFK. Don’t know a thing about it. I don’t believe the Zapruder film has been altered. Never have. I don’t believe that a Secret Service man shot JFK on accident. Never have. I don’t believe there were sis gunmen in Dealey Plaza on 11-23-62. Never have. I don’t believe the two casket switch-a-roo story that has been proposed. Never have. So, to to say that everyone that does not believe ANYTHING our government says about this case is a kook is just as bad as people who believe in all of the crap that is out there right now.

      However, and let us be clear, I don’t believe a WORD that comes from J. Edgar Hoover. He was a liar and a power hungry loon AND the only reason he kept his job was because he had pictures of power players having sex with donkeys. Not a first class recommendation, would you say? The same for Gerald Ford. The most blatant ass kissing politician this country has ever seen. The man who provided a back channel to communicate to Mr. or Mrs. Hoover during the WC meetings, which as we know, was NOT supposed to have happened. Allen Dulles? A criminal. A criminal in ANY sense of the word. The man who helped overthrow governments—see the United Fruit company—so that his “friends” could help spread “American democracy” throughout third world countries. The idea that he was a “patriot” and wanted “freedom” for the rest of the world is FAR, FAR goofier than a Secret Service agent shooting JFK accidentally. If this man could orchestrate the overthrow of multiple foreign governments—see Iran and the Shah—then a US President is not completely out of the question.

      What SHOULD have happened, but DID NOT, was an INDEPENDENT investigation of the FACTS surrounding this case. I will not even get into the DPD and its Keystone Cops approach to helping with this case. The FBI? Look at Hosty and Sibert and Frazier and then tell me if the American people had a chance. I won’t even mention the CIA and Mexico City, because what happened there was PERJURY, and you and I know that NO ONE from the CIA was EVER put on the stand to answer under oath. And, EVERYONE in the FBI and the CIA KNEW that was NOT going to happen.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        David,

        (Part 2)

        I would ask that before you lump everyone together, you take a hard look at the FACTS that are available to us. The LN side has given American the “jet effect,” JFK’s “abnormal neck,” (whatever the hell that means), no photos of importance—the limousine for example, destroyed or mutilated evidence—see Hosty and the CIA ON EVERYTHING related to the murder, a “lone nut” who did more world traveling in 24 years that I have in 53 with a JOB, a cheap ass gun that could be bought in Dallas with NO ID—real or fake—required. The LN side has not given the American people a “rock solid” case by ANY stretch of the imagination. To pretend otherwise is just as stupid as thinking there were 6 gunmen in DP that day.

        I am college educated, times two. I can READ. I can think for myself. I don’t need to be told what to believe by anyone other than myself. To think otherwise is just as dumb as JFK’s abnormal neck causing a bullet traveling 2000 feet per second, or whatever it was, to perform “magic feats” on 11-22-63. I also, unlike some of your friends, have posted my REAL name and credentials on this site, not some bogus name designed to make one think he actually has some “keen” insight into this case.

        It is called TRANSPARENCY. Something the American people were denied in 63, continued through 64 with the Warren OMISSION and its “men of honor” and sadly, continues to this very day. Ask yourself David, why do people like Weisberg have to file MULTIPLE FOIA’s for information that is OURS to begin with? Seems a tad odd, wouldn’t you think? Please don’t use “national security” as a defense. Remember, LHO was a deranged LONE NUT and a solitary LOSER. What secrets could possibly be hidden with a man like that?

      • Steve,

        That’s why I prefaced my comment with word like “mostly” and “most”.

        I said that it’s:

        “**Mostly** just a “follow the leader” mindset.”

        And:

        “**Most** people don’t know very much about the details of Oswald’s guilt.”

        (And most people don’t.)

        My comment was a comment pertaining to the *general public*, not at all aimed at “Internet conspiracy believers”.

        • Steve stirlen says:

          David,

          Could you comment on some of the points that I raised in my two previous two posts? Can you see why educated people have SERIOUS doubts about what our government has given us as “truth.”

          Thank you,

          Steve

        • After the commentary that Mr Stirlen just addressed to you Von Pein, I find your response limp and pathetic, as though you simply breezed over it absent-mindlessly, like glancing in a window while stumbling down the street trying to remember where you parked your car.
          \\][//

    • David Regan says:

      Critique of Beyond Reasonable Doubt by Mel Ayton and David Von Pein: http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Sadly, Dave, it works both ways. This same ill informed majority of the public is also easily taken in by charlatans such as Dale Myers.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        Hi Bob:

        The fact that the majority of the public is ill informed and easily misled is a tragedy.

        Viewers watch some fancy computer generated graphics and immediately assume it MUST represent the truth. They lack the minimum skepticism and critical judgement to emit something as basic as:

        “I wonder the source of those numbers. Who verified them? Were they peer-reviewed? Are they published in a journal somewhere? After all: garbage in, garbage out.”

        and the most important of all, which should trigger red lights and alarms:

        “How come I don’t see the name of a university? Not even a semi-decent one? Isn’t that their job?”

        I took a graduate level course in Computer Graphics and both the book and the professor made us aware of the mentioned trick, of how easy the viewer can be fooled. An actual example of some Pentagon buyers was used.

        In one detail I am going to disagree with what you wrote, however:

        This is NOT working both ways. ABC/Myers issue a frontal attack against the truth, they have the insolence to call this travesty “science”, and what do we do?

        So far, nothing.

        You don’t bring a knife to a gun fight.

  20. Ray Mitcham says:

    I can honestly say that Beyond Reasonable Doubt fully lived up to my expectations. I expected that authors Mel Ayton and David Von Pein would add nothing to our understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy, and that is precisely what they did. I expected they would regurgitate the same tired old arguments and trot out the usual roster of long-discredited witnesses, and they did just that. And I expected that they would pontificate on the evils of “conspiracy theorists” at every available opportunity and, lo and behold!, they did.

    Beyond Reasonable Doubt is a standard format lone nut book, cut from the same cloth as Reclaiming History, Case Closed, and Conspiracy of One. It spends half its time trying desperately to convince readers that the Warren Commission was right all along and the other half-blaming conspiracy theorists for the confusion. Von Pein suggests in the book’s preface that for the last fifty years JFK’s murder has been “falsely shrouded in mystery” and those pesky conspiracy theorists are to blame. Which is ridiculous. Conspiracy theorists are not to blame for the Dallas Police Department’s mishandling of both its suspect and the physical evidence against him. Nor are they responsible for J. Edgar Hoover’s rush to judgement and his decision to limit the FBI’s investigation to Lee Harvey Oswald. It was not the conspiracy theorists who illegally removed Kennedy’s body from Dallas so that it could be flown to a military hospital where under-qualified and inexperienced pathologists bungled the autopsy. And no mere conspiracy theorist is accountable for crucial autopsy photos, X-rays and even the President’s brain being surreptitiously removed from the archive never to be seen again. The sad truth is that every confusion at the core of this case was created by those in officialdom who failed or refused to conduct a proper investigation and chose instead to cover their own butts whilst papering over the holes in the case against Oswald.

    To be fair to the authors, it is true that a good number of conspiracy theorists have, as Von Pein puts it, “twisted and misrepresented the evidence” in the Kennedy case. But the exact same thing is true of Warren Commission apologists. Beginning with the Warren Commission who, as historian Gerald McKnight put it, “went through the motions of an investigation that was little more than an improvised exercise in public relations”, the twisting and misrepresenting of evidence in the Kennedy assassination has been carried out by those with an agenda. And Ayton and Von Pein have such a massive agenda that they manage to one-up the Commission by making not even a pretence of objectivity. The authors shamelessly omit important facts contradicting their position whilst promoting any scrap of information that appears to support it without giving consideration to the reliability of its source.

    • MARTIN HAY SAID (Not RAY MITCHAM; Ray should have identified the actual author of these comments, but he failed to do so; he didn’t even put quotation marks around Martin’s words):

      I can honestly say that ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ fully lived up to my expectations. I expected that authors Mel Ayton and David Von Pein would add nothing to our understanding of the assassination of President Kennedy, and that is precisely what they did.

      DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

      What a surprise — a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers.

      ~yawn~

      And it’s no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day—trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.

      […]

      Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay’s review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity.

      More….
      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html

      • Tom S. says:

        David,
        Ray Mitcham’s first comment submission did attribute Martin Hay. It seems it did not make it into the edited version of
        his comment that I did approve. He was editing to reduce his comment to 500 words or less.

      • “a conspiracy theorist”~David Von Pein

        You seem to be from the old dinosaur school of commentators who think that simply using the term “conspiracy theorist” has the force of fear and loathing that was once attached to the term, as if it is a curse to be hurled that will make the target of that curse shrivel and melt like some phantom from your nightmares.

        Anyone who knows the history of the JFK assassination, knows of CIA Document 1035-960, that is actually the proximate source for the propagation of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ as a pejorative slur to be used against critics of the Warren Report:

        CIA Document #1035-960

        RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

        1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission’s published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission’s findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission’s report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.
        […]
        More at: http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
        \\][//

        • WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

          “a conspiracy theorist”~David Von Pein

          You seem to be from the old dinosaur school of commentators who think that simply using the term “conspiracy theorist” has the force of fear and loathing that was once attached to the term…[snip]…

          DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

          Geez, Willy. Would you prefer to be called the “K” word instead?

          Any additional silly semantics complaints today, Willy?

          • “Any additional silly semantics complaints today, Willy?”~David Von Pein

            No Von Pein, I am satisfied to see you bungle along here without a shred of substance in your commentary.

            I remarked upon the historical facts as to where that term “conspiracy theorist” became a slur, by the propaganda efforts of CIA and their media assets.

            Your attempt to misdirect from the substance of my remarks with your jejune quips is noted and cataloged on these pages.
            \\][//

      • David Regan says:

        You do realize there was dissention amongst Committee members themselves on key aspects of the case, not to mention officials closer to this case than anyone posting on this site.

        It’s very telling you stand behind the work of Gerald Posner and his fictitious interviews. It will be interesting to see your reaction to Buell Wesley Frazier’s book when released in the near future. He had some interesting things to say in Dallas last weekend.

  21. Ray Mitcham says:

    cont..

    Perhaps the most troubling thing about Beyond Reasonable Doubt is that it tries to push the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald should be treated as guilty until proven innocent. In the final chapter, Ayotn and Von Pein try to outdo the prince of hyperbole, Vincent Bugliosi. The authors actually state their absurd belief that “not a ‘scintilla’ of evidence has been found which would call into question Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt, beyond all reasonable doubt.” Not only is this statement laughably wrong on a factual level, the attitude behind it is one that attempts to turn the American judicial system on its head. Had Oswald lived to face trial, he would have been legally entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In death, the Warren Commission and its acolytes have attempted to strip him of that right. Yet the cold, hard fact remains that no one has ever come remotely close to proving Oswald’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—least of all Ayton and Von Pein.

    What do the authors offer? They give us the testimony of Howard Brennan; a man who failed to pick Oswald out of a line-up and admitted that his own recollection had been clouded by outside influences. They give us an old, dry palm print and some fibers on the rifle that may or may not have come from a shirt Oswald was probably not wearing at the time of the assassination. And they offer a highly contradicted, uncorroborated, and probably false claim that fragmentary fingerprints on the rifle could be matched to Oswald’s prints. In the end, their entire case rests on the dubious claim that the rifle found on the sixth floor belonged to Oswald. Yet assuming that to be true, what does it actually prove? Would it not make sense for someone wishing to set Oswald up to use a rifle traceable to him? The inarguable fact is that Oswald did not have the rifle in his possession for at least two months leading up to November 22, 1963, and nobody can vouch for its whereabouts during that time.

    As Former Dallas Police Chief, Jesse Curry, candidly admitted to the Dallas Morning News in 1969, “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.” This statement remains as true today as it did in 1969, whether Ayton and Von Pein like it or not. In the words of attorney Jeremy Gunn “…there is just no question that [Lee Harvey Oswald] is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

  22. One of the major problems I have with the Warren Commission Cult that haunts these pages, is their turning standard and established jurisprudence inside out an backwards. This by making a presumption of guilt is their prosecutorial ‘briefs’, rather than the standard of “Innocent until PROVEN Guilty”.

    The effect of this is that they expected us to prove Oswald’s innocence.

    In fact all we have to do is provide reasonable doubt. And by that standard, the case is chock full of exculpatory evidence.

    The excuse used by some, that this is not a court of law, but a forum of inquiry and opinion, that such legal standards need not apply. This is a scurrilous argument, as law is based on reason, and debate is based just as much on reason as law.

    If our adversaries here wish to stand on the lax standards of the Police State, that they seem to support, and make judgement through obvious fiat and prejudice; it will only reveal their authoritarian mind set. And it is this conflict of political principles that is at the center of these debates: Whether human beings have Unalienable Rights to Liberty, or whether Authority can revoke such Rights at will.
    \\][//

    • Bogman says:

      Not to mention that any and all evidence was in the hands of the govt and they could reveal and destroy evidence at its discretion following Oswald’s murder. And they were doing whatever they could to “settle the dust of Dallas” as quickly as they could.

  23. Milicent Cranor says:

    Regarding George Burkley. Photon insinuates that Burkley may not have ever said he thought more than one shooter was involved in the assassination — but if he did then (1) he would have told the HSCA, (2) they would have documented his comments, (3)they would have presented his comments to the public.

    But those intimately involved with the HSCA — e.g Gaeton Fonzi and Robert Blakey — despaired of its intention to ever present the truth.

    If the HSCA was interested in publicizing the truth about JFK’s head wounds, why didn’t they interview William Kemp Clark, Parkland’s former chief neurosurgeon?

    Clark had closely examined the back of Kennedy’s head, and even looked inside it through the large hole. The Journal of the AMA also did not include Clark among the Parkland doctors they interviewed.

    No one could ever force Clark tell them what they wanted to hear.
    Was George Burkley also pressured to change his story?

    Why didn’t the Warren Commission ever ask him to testify? They interviewed all sorts of extraneous people. Why not Burkley?

    And why did Burkley’s daughter change her mind — at the last minute — about allowing the AARB to examine Illig’s files?

    • Milicent,

      I have brought up the issue of the Intelligence Services MO concerning coercion and sociopolitical pressure up to and including torture, murder and disappearance, several times on this blog recently. The pretense to naivety of our detractors is transparent and foolish. Anyone who denies the historical record of such thuggery is either disingenuous or spectacularly stupid.

      Allow me to repeat a legal decision at the heart of this matter:

      Rule 406. Habit; Routine Practice
      Evidence of a person’s habit or an organization’s routine practice may be admitted to prove that on a particular occasion the person or organization acted in accordance with the habit or routine practice. The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.

      Habit Evidence
      The proponent may also introduce evidence of habit or routine practice to establish the chain of custody. Federal Rule 406 provides that evidence of the routine practice of an organization is relevant to prove that the conduct of the organization “on a particular occasion was in conformity with the … routine practice.”
      http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1344&context=faculty_publications

      Note in particular that: “The court may admit this evidence regardless of whether it is corroborated or whether there was an eyewitness.”

      In other words we need not prove the details of any particular instance; but only that it is reasonable to assume, that the Intel Services, or other “authorities” who have an established MO of such coercive tactics used to shut their critics up. Such suspicions are well justified both lawfully and rationally.

      It is a fairly simple matter of identifying those who had important first hand information who were likely targets of such coercive pressures, various doctors and law enforcement officials who showed initial signs of not going along to get along. Dr Perry comes to mind, Seymour Weitzman, Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig, indeed Humes and Boswell themselves.
      \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Clark supported the Warren Report-what is your point?
      Burkley had every opportunity to state publically any disagreements he had with the Warren Report. conclusions-he never did..

      • “Burkley had every opportunity to state publically any disagreements he had with the Warren Report. conclusions-he never did.”~Photon’s weird neck

        In 1976, Burkley’s lawyer William Illig contacted Richard Sprague of the HSCA, saying that his client had information that “others besides Oswald must have participated.” Sprague was ousted days later, and the reconstituted HSCA and its medical panel never took Burkley’s testimony. Instead, a short phone contact the following year was followed up yet months later, when the HSCA was done with all its public medical presentations, with an strange affidavit signed by Burkley. The affidavit, in which Burkley attested to his constant presence with Kennedy’s body from Parkland Hospital on, seemed almost solely devoted to refuting David Lifton’s as yet-unpublished Best Evidence.
        https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/The_Missing_Physician.html
        \\][//

      • “Burkley had every opportunity to state publically any disagreements he had with the Warren Report. conclusions-he never did..”~Photon’s weird neck

        “Treason doth never prosper. What’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
        ~Sir John Harington
        \\][//

    • Tom S. says:

      Dr. Burkley left a lot of questions.

      Dr. Burkley and the U.S. Navy did not Appreciate JFK’s Appointment of Dr. Janet Travell – http://jfk.education/node/15

      • It seems to be a general situation all’round, that the military was unhappy with John Kennedy on grounds of “who’s in control here?”

        It reminds of Alice’s conversation with Humpty Dumpty as he sat on his wall (Lewis Carroll)

        “‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.
        Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘
        ‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.
        ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
        ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
        ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’
        http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php
        \\][//

  24. Bob Prudhomme says:

    Photon and Company

    Simple geometry.

    As determined by investigators gathering evidence for the Warren Commission, the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD (referred to as the Sniper’s Nest) was 9° removed laterally from a centre line running lengthwise down the centre of the limousine, measured when the limo was at the position it occupied at z223/224 (alleged moment the SBT occurred).

    The medical and autopsy report shows there was damage to the right side of JFK’s trachea (windpipe) and it was alleged by the WC that this damage was caused by a bullet transiting JFK’s neck, from back to front (WITHOUT striking bone), and that this bullet originated in the Sniper’s Nest on the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD.

    MRI images of cross sections of the human neck, at the level of vertebrae C7/T1, clearly show the trachea to be sheltered by the vertebrae from a shot entering from the rear, to the point a bullet would have to transit JFK’s neck at a right to left angle of a MINIMUM of 26°, to be able to miss the outer right portion of the vertebrae and still pass through the right side of the trachea. This angle would be measured from a centre line drawn through JFK’s spinal midline and the centre of his sternum (breastbone) and would be parallel to the centre line through the limo.

    Clearly, a shot originating from the Sniper’s Nest, only 9° removed from these centre lines, could not transit the right side of JFK’s trachea without passing through his vertebrae, and shattering them.

    • Good exposition Mr Pruhomme. Simple geometry, does indeed prove the impossibility of a shot coming from the 6th floor of the TBDB to be impossible as to the wounds that JFK did and did not suffer. The spine would of necessity have had to been hit with a shot from that angel.
      This supports the original opinion of Dr Perry that the wound in the throat was an entry wound. A shot from the front.
      The Magic Bullet theory fails on every angle it is looked at.
      \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Bob, were your MRI scans with or without contrast?
      You DO know the difference,right?

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Another move by Photon, right out of the disinfo handbook, designed to achieve two things; distract readers from the main issue at hand and call into question the qualifications of the poster being attacked, by insinuating his own vastly superior qualifications.

        Photon, why don’t you share with everyone here the difference between contrasted and uncontrasted MRI scans, and then tell everyone how this minor point makes no difference whatsoever in determining whether or not a bullet originating from the Sniper’s Nest could transit JFK’s neck and pass through the right side of his trachea, without passing through his vertebrae.

        When you are finished that, please share with us all you know about JFK’s “abnormal neck condition” that made the otherwise impossible Single Bullet Fantasy somehow possible.

        • Photon says:

          Apparently you don’t know. Have you actually ever seen an MRI scan? Can you give an example of a T1 image?
          How about a T2? Or why don’t you just admit you know nothing about Magnetic Resonance Imaging and that you just made up your claim?
          There is a very serious problem with contrast MRI exams-do you know what is?

          • Bob Prudhomme says:

            Distraction, obfuscation, intimidation. We are dealing with a professional here, folks.

            I take great pride in being able to strike such a sensitive nerve in the company, they feel obligated to send out their best.

            Okay, Photon, tell us what difference it would make, and how we would not be able to see C7 or T1 vertebra plainly in a cross section of the neck, if the wrong one was used.

            If the goal was to produce an image of vertebrae in a cross section, do you really not think the operator would not know the proper procedure?

            Quit dodging, and get back to the main topic, that being the ridiculousness and impossibility of the trajectory of the Single Bullet Fantasy.

          • Photon says:

            So you never saw any MRI images despite your claim-and you made the whole narrative up. You should have said CT scans!
            As I stated before,Bob-can you find one individual who would actually know anatomy (ie. with an M.D. after their name) who agrees with your premise? You won’t find a single forensic pathologist who has reviewed the case that agrees with your conclusion .Why? Because it simply isn’t true.
            Of course, APS II can affect imaging results anyway. Did you know that JFK had documented osteoporosis since 1944 and that his physician upon examining him in 1955 noted that in addition to his back issues his NECK was immobile?

          • “Did you know that JFK had documented osteoporosis since 1944 and that his physician upon examining him in 1955 noted that in addition to his back issues his NECK was immobile?”~Photon

            One needn’t have a doctor’s report to simply go through the thousands of photographs of John Kennedy with his head turned in every conceivable position, looking sideways, up down, all around.

            You are really foolish to make such an obvious false statement here in a public forum.

            But should anyone wish to learn the facts about the various medical problems, the following link is a good start:

            John F. Kennedy’s Odyssey in Search of Diagnosis
            http://www.the-rheumatologist.org/article/john-f-kennedys-odyssey-in-search-of-diagnosis/?singlepage=1

            Not a single mention of the osteoporosis effecting JFK’s neck. And certainly nothing about his neck being “immobile”.
            \\][//

  25. Bob Prudhomme says:

    We are finally getting somewhere. Osteoporosis? Please explain how this condition could make the SBT possible.

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      Photon is making a mountain out of a mole hill, in a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the obvious.

      MRI images, as well as CT scans, plainly show the location of the vertebrae in the human neck. Using these images, it is a simple matter of measuring angles to determine the trajectory of the Single Bullet Fantasy, and to see it could not have passed through JFK’s neck, in the manner described by the SBF, without going through JFK’s cervical vertebrae; osteoporosis or no osteoporosis.

      • Photon says:

        Dr. Prudhomme, you still have not named any colleague who agrees with you.
        If you have never dissected a human neck what makes you an expert on this subject-even for a neck with normal anatomy?
        It is as accurate as your claim that JFK had a pneumothorax, ie. wrong.

  26. Bob Prudhomme says:

    If JFK’s neck was “immobile”, how was he able to turn his head so far to the right?

    • leslie sharp says:

      http://ss100x.com

      I guess the president was having a good day, photon?

      • leslie sharp says:

        Immobility refers to function, not shape. Get it? function. What does this have to do with the abnormal appearance of JFK in Myer’s rendition?

        Obviously JFK could turn his head to the right and to he left. So what was it he could not do? Was he even able to bend his neck into the Myers position?

        And, what else did that report say, photon?

    • Photon says:

      Immobile in 1955. Look at pictures of JFK in 1955. With treatment mobility improved.

      • “With treatment mobility improved.”~Photon

        So you admit that the trigger point therapy worked, and was no longer an issue by the time of Kennedy’s political career.

        The question then arises; ‘Why this whole pointless carousel, with assertions of an “abnormal neck” as if it had any bearing on this issues discussed here?’

        We have been led into the weeds for better than a week with your spurious argumentation. A sure application of Cognitive Infiltration.
        \\][//

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        SO, what, then, was the “abnormal neck condition” JFK supposedly had that made the ridiculous and impossible trajectory of the Single Bullet Fantasy not so ridiculous and possible?

        We’re all ears, Photon. So far, he had a stiff neck in 1955 that got better with treatment by 1963.

        You will have to do better than that to overcome the impossible.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Can we return to this assertion please, photon.

        ‘Actually a physician who did not actually examine him, but was close enough to observe his abnormality.’ – – Photon, November 29, 2015 at 11:42 am

        Did the physician who “did not actually examine him, but was close enough to observe his abnormality” identify that abnormality as osteoporosis? Or have you blended two distinct diagnosis into your argument? I assume no reputable doctor would dare introduce the confusion you have into this debate.

        • Bob Prudhomme says:

          Leslie

          Reminds me of the doctors at Parkland who were also close enough to observe JFK’s head wound, but did not actually examine it.

          Of course, the doctors at Parkland are all full of manure, right, Photon?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          A “physician who did not actually examine him, but was close enough to observe”. Dr. Crenshaw did this, sued the Journal of the American Medical Association over their slander and won.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Yes his mobility improved. Look at the pictures, on 1/22/63. It improved so much the SBT was impossible, just a later figment of Arlen Specters fertile imagination.
        Much like your distraction about JFK’s neck in the first place.

  27. D. E. Mitchell says:

    “…honestly, i find it utterly amazing that someone with an obvious amount of intelligence such as Dale Myers, can continue on and on spouting off about the same dribble…
    …what i really think is that some people, and Dale Myers is one of them, cannot handle the truth without their whole world falling apart…
    …like Gen. Eisenhower stated(to paraphrase),”…Americans have a great deal of common sense and are not easily stampeded(or bamboozled)..
    …come on Dale, wake up and smell the coffee!
    I mean, even “LBJ” stated it was a conspiracy!”-DM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more