Listen in on LBJ and Hoover talk about Warren Commission

Audio flashback: On November 29, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J Edgar Hoover discussed how to investigate the mysterious assassination of President Kennedy. (H/T DVP and

180 comments

  1. Anthony Martin says:

    Interesting: Hoover, energeticly pointing out discrepancies. LBJ…no sadness for the loss of JFK, marginal concern or curiosity about whether others were involved, no outrage towards Oswald or the possible involvement of Cuba.( No “Day of Infamy”) What givers?.

  2. Hoover says the Third shot (Head shot) did not splinter and whole bullet rolled out of his brain. 3 shots in three seconds. Each shot was a hit. found gun and shells on 5th floor. No wonder LBJ wanted only Hoover to investigate. Why did they not question LBJ how many shots he heard and how far apart they were? This is the beginning of the official cover-up. Hoover and The Connally’s who were in the car never believed in the single bullet theory. When silencers are used with witnesses near motorcycles, “shots heard” are based on ignoring proof of guns without silencers. There were missed shots and several bullet holes in the limo as Agent Roy Kellerman testified “A flurry of shells came into the car.” Proof of silencers. LBJ says in this that he does not believe the bullet that hit JFK also hit Connally.

    • ed connor says:

      The SBT did not yet exist when JEH spoke to LBJ on 11/29/63.
      It was an invention of the very clever opportunist counsel, Arlen Spector, when the missed shot that wounded James Tague
      was discovered.
      Aside from the anatomical impossibility of the SBT, one merely has to look at the Zapruder film. It supports Gov. and Mrs. Connally’s testimony. JFK, who had only suffered soft tissue injury at that point, clearly reacts immediately. Connally, who sustained fractures of the rib and wrist, clearly does not react until just before 313.
      Spector’s confection and Myer’s cartoon cannot erase the clear evidence that Connally was not hit until well after 224.

      • PBR says:

        An excellent summation of the evidence Ed.

        • ed connor says:

          Thanks for the link, professor.
          I am aware of the lapel flap, etc., @ 224.
          It is certainly evidence of a possible phenomenon concerning Gov. Connally, to be weighed with all the other evidence.
          As trial lawyer, I know no case is perfect, including the indictment or exoneration of LHO.
          I find the evidence clear and convincing that the governor was not struck by 224, but I grant that there is some evidence to the contrary.
          I agree with Jeff Morley and the webmaster that this site benefits from an open forum. I appreciate the criticisms you and Paul and others bring up from time to time.
          But please loose the “buff” insult.
          Everyone here is interested in exploring the evidence. That is why there is no Garfield or McKinley site (as far as I know).
          Let’s agree that the evidence strongly suggests LHO’s involvement, but also shows LHO was far from a babe in the woods in the summer of 1963.
          The problem your side has, apart from Ruby, is, if there WAS a conspiracy, who in the hell would tie his fate to Lee Harvey Oswald, as you portray him?

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          “Itek Analysis

          In 1976 the Itek Corporation, specialists in photographic analysis, looked at the issue of exactly when Connally was showing a reaction to being hit. The following is their report. ”
          ====================================

          Esteemed professor McAdams:

          Since you are the de facto leader of the LN crowd (in Usenet, anyways)…

          Could you please produce the following:

          (1) The invoice of Itek Corporation to the HSCA?

          (2) The name of university or universities that are willing to admit being affiliated or related in any capacity with Itek Corporation?

          We will be waiting.

          • Itek didn’t work for the HSCA. CBS commissioned the 1970s report, so far as I know.

            I’m not going to search up a bunch of universities for you, but the following shows that the company grew out of laboratories at Harvard and BU.

            https://www.osapublishing.org/ao/abstract.cfm?uri=ao-11-12-2729

            But let me guess: you think everybody at ITEK is a spook, right?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Itek’s primary business was fulfilling military contracts including the collaboration with Lockheed. That alone is sufficient to speculate that most folks at Itek held high security clearances.

            There is also a direct alignment with the powers that be at CBS and those at Itek, dovetailing with Lockheed. This is not a mystery, professor, except perhaps to you.

  3. Roy W Kornbluth says:

    A substantial part, at least a third, of this conversation (wish I’d timed it), the entire end, deals exclusively with bulletproof limos. Johnson asks Hoover, “Do you think I should have one?” As if J Edgar’s gonna say, “Naw, Mr. President, you oughta get yer brains shot out just like your predecessor.”

    Hoover goes into a long love-song about his THREE bulletproof cars. One in New York, one in Los Angeles, and one with him at the Seat of Government; one in each of his favorite party towns. Anyone who can listen (without laughing, crying, and/or getting sick) to the fat old transvestite racist coward explain the necessity for his three armored vehicles all over the country, “Y’see, when we make a raid…” (as if he ever made a raid in the prime of his life–ask Melvin Purvis) is a much tougher homo sapiens than I am.

    • Roy W Kornbluth says:

      Oops, meant to say re this phone call a scant week after the assassination, two things are obvious:

      1.Hoover doesn’t have a clue what went down 12:30 11-22 in Dallas. And all the info he’s been spoon-fed about LHO leading up to the coup is very murky.

      2.LBJ’s main concern is heading off any investigation that he cannot control; there’s talk about Senate, House, and other inquiries. When Johnson asks JEH what he thinks about that prospect, the duteous villain of a lapdog replies with his (in)famous sneer, “It would be a three-ring circus.” And when LBJ queries Edgar for an opinion about Johnson’s idea of “A Blue Ribbon Panel” (of JFK’s enemies), J Edgar practically orgasms with his flunky agreement, “Oh yes, Mr. President, that’s the way to go.”

  4. bogman says:

    LBJ sure is cozy with a guy who missed Oswald as a threat. Johnson should’ve been holding Hoover’s feet to the fire but he’s playing footsy with the director instead. Incredible.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Bogman’s “footsy” point may help us understand LBJ’s role in the whole nighmare of November 22, 1963, and beyond.

  5. theNewDanger says:

    @4:52, Hoover surprisingly honest: “It’s a misnomer to call it a lie detector … it is an evaluation … any human being is apt to make the wrong interpretation.”

    @8:52, Hoover pre-emptively debunks the stretcher bullet scenario in the 1964 fiction thriller “Warren Commission. Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”: “in trying to massage his heart at the hospital … on the way to the hospital … they apparently loosened that and it fell on the stretcher”
    — WHAT! THE! FUDGE! What heart massage occurred on a stretcher “on the way” to the hospital? How does a heart massage “loosen” a bullet that had already entered and exited (or broken apart) in an already massively perforated wound?

    @9:38, LBJ and Hoover definitively debunk the SBT before Spector needed to invent it: LBJ: “if Connolly hadn’t been in his way?” | Hoover: “Oh yes, yes the President would no doubt have been hit.”
    — WHAT! THE! FUDGE! How could Connolly have been “in the way” of shots fired from behind?!?!?!?!

    @10:04, Hoover: “On the fifth floor …”
    — Really? Really dude? The fifth floor?

    This is the globalist hegemony’s reactionary thinking in their corporate DC offices on display in how to get away with coup de etats by false flag propaganda, blood, and/or fractional reserve banking manipulation.

    More fingerprints of those writing blank checks that their accounts of the event can’t fund: “Our intention is … to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.” – Norman Redlich, April 27, 1964

    • “Our intention is … to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.” – Norman Redlich, April 27, 1964

      I think you are misquoting Redlich.

      Kindly provide a citation.

      • “I think you are misquoting Redlich.
        Kindly provide a citation.”~John McAdams
        * * * *
        “Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.”
        ~ Norman Redlich, April 27, 1964

        MEMORANDUM
        TO:J. Lee Rankin
        FROM:Norman Redlich
        * * * *
        And here is the funny part of this situation, this is found on McAdams’ own website:
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm

        • Fearfaxer says:

          That’s rich! Good detective work. 😉

        • Thank you for taking that quote out of context. Here is the first part of the memo:

          The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine.

          Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.

          As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.

          So the WC had a “reasonable hypothesis, and Redlich was saying that it needed to be tested.

          • More of the Redlich memo that Willy deliberately omitted because he’s a rabid CTer….

            “Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier.

            We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin would have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.

            I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor’s diagram which would indicate the approximate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare
            such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us.

            I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

            It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.”

          • “Out of context” McAdams??

            Here is the context in the very text you use to show it is “out of context”:

            “The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.”~Redlich

            The Commission HAS their prefab conclusion, now they just need the data to juggle around to try to make that conclusion at least appear to be reasonable.

            This is simply too obvious to deny for any lucid thinking person.
            \\][//

          • Full paragraph:
            “[1] Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. [2]The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building.”

            1. The predicate. 2. The conclusion. The predicate never extinguishes the conclusion in the structure of a text. Here the predicate is ‘presumptive’, it is the conclusion that is ‘declaratory’.
            \\][//

          • “More of the Redlich memo that Willy deliberately omitted because he’s a rabid CTer…”~Von Pein

            Not so Von Pein, a certain amount of brevity is essential in a forum such as this in order to parse specific passages of text.

            I am rather expert at deconstruction, But if I were to deconstruct the entirety of the text at once in your current comment, it would be not only over the word limits set for this forum, it would be bulky, unmanageable and difficult to read.

            This is one of the reasons English is constructed of sentences and paragraphs with punctuation – for ease of consumption.

            Now, here is an interesting conclusion that stands out, despite the predicates I shall; “deliberate omitted because I’m a rabid CTer…”:

            “As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination.”~Redlich

            Now, it is obvious to many here is that, the Commission; “have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above,” and they never did. They gave the appearance of substance to pure air. To paraphrase Orwell.
            \\][//

          • Not so Von Pein, a certain amount of brevity is essential in a forum such as this in order to parse specific passages of text.

            No, this is intentionally being quoted out of context to create a wrong impression.

            A lot of evidence said Oswald shot Kennedy from the TSBD.

            What Redlich is demanding is that this “reasonable hypothesis” be tested by plotting trajectories in Dealey Plaza.

            Quite possibly, such a test would show the “reasonable hypothesis” to actually be impossible.

            So Redlich was doing what an honest investigator would do.

            As was Spector when he insisted that the WC needed to look at the autopsy photos and x-rays.

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

      • May 7, 1964 memo from Rankin to Hoover:

        Mr. J. Edgar Hoover
        Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
        Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20535

        III.PLOTTING TRAJECTORIES FROM THE RAILROAD OVERPASS

        “From each of the ground points established in parts I and II trigonometric readings should be taken from a point on either end of the overpass to chart the path which a bullet would travel if fired from those points on the overpass to the rear seat of the car. It should be determined whether a bullet could reach the rear seat without hitting the windshield, and the angle with the horizontal which would be made by a bullet fired from these points to a car located at each of the points to a car located at each of the points on the ground as determined in parts I and II.”~J. Lee Rankin- General Counsel
        http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wcsbt.htm
        * * * * *
        Of course this is exactly what Sherry Fiester finally has done … all these years later. See:
        https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/
        \\][//

        • Of course, what this shows is the WC trying to determine and plausibility of other scenarios.

          • “Of course, what this shows is the WC trying to determine and plausibility of other scenarios.”
            ~McAdams

            If that is so then where are the subsequent reports; “PLOTTING TRAJECTORIES FROM THE RAILROAD OVERPASS”?

            The only reports I have read, or ever heard of have exclusively to do with plotting the trajectories from the TBDB.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            John, you have four of six of the last comments on this site at the moment. With your own site to moderate, like DVP, it makes one wonder if your not a paid mockingbird dis informant, or at the least simply a troll.

          • Tom S. says:

            RE: “four of six of the last comments on this site at the moment.” My fault…. I try diligently to avoid any one commenter from appearing more than twice in that “Recent Comments” list box to the right
            of jfkfacts.org articles. Often commenters group their comments, and when it is “slow” I hold back on approving some of the multiple comments of one commenter until enough new comments of other authors are submitted. So, you do not see how common this is because I am usually very careful to hold off approving some comments until they can be diluted in the “Recent Comments” list. I made the exception you described and criticized McAdams for because I considered that I planned to be away for a few hours and that several commenters were pressing Assoc. Prof McAdams for replies. Nearly half the effort of this comments editor responsibility is taking care to avoid the complaint you are making Ronnie. It is irritating to have to keep reloading the main page to check “Recent Comments” to avoid any one name dominating the list. You, for example, just posted three comments and there are only a couple of others awaiting approval. I am going to approve your other two comments and I am going to be less concerned about this because it is a petty consideration taking up too much of my time and concern. Frequent commenters will benefit from my revised method, and so will I.

          • John, you have four of six of the last comments on this site at the moment. With your own site to moderate, like DVP, it makes one wonder if your not a paid mockingbird dis informant, or at the least simply a troll.

            If you could actually debate the evidence you would.

            But since you buffs are constantly being put on the defensive for misrepresenting the evidence, you turn to abuse.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thanks for your explanation and efforts Tom. Other than some week day evenings I don’t “stay” on the site monitoring it. When I do post it’s often the result of reviewing multiple other posts since I’ve last logged on. While I’m commenting I don’t think the long diatribes and lectures are conducive to the readability of the site. While some are informative many are distracting from a conversational perspective. I could see a 200 word limit being productive. JMO. That’s up to Jeff and you.
            Thanks again for the explanation. Hope you enjoyed your (short) time away.
            (am I over 200?)

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Oh Dr. John. I’m not a buff but a Conspiracy Realist. I often support my comments in this debate with documented research by those respected for their search for the Truth regarding the Execution of Our President. Such as the site owner, have you ever read Our man in Mexico? I’ll buy you a copy if not. What would you like to debate? Jack Ruby having no Mafia affiliations per the Warren Omission? Arlen Specter and President Ford’s creation of the SBT? No one being able to put Oswald on the Sixth Floor with the joke of a gun in his hand and firing three shots in six seconds as Chief Curry said? Oswald not being able to run from his rooming house to the Tippit murder scene in time to do it.
            The three wallet’s?

          • What would you like to debate?

            Anything you want to.

          • Tom S. says:

            You will “debate”? What a relief, I was beginning to think you were running from this controversy.
            Given her statements and the actual record, what drives your faith in, and lack of curiousity about
            Priscilla and her “CIA cousin” David C. Davenport, and his friend “Jerre” step-father of Clark McAdams Clifford’s first cousin, Joanne Mcadams? (No relation to Assoc. Prof. John McAdams)

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-833667
            ….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 ….

            http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/11/the-only-person-who-knew-both-kennedy-and-his-killer/281712/ Nov 21, 2013
            You met Marina in 1964, but your book wasn’t published until 1977. What took so long?

            Well, it’s just the way I work. I guess I’m lazy. I was living in different places because I got married. I was very much into civil rights in Atlanta and the South. But mostly I just work slowly.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=Marina%27s%20New%20York%20Agent,%20Perry%20Knowlton,%20and%20Harper%20and%20Row%20editors%20have%20forbidden%20%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers&gfe_rd=ssl&ei=FFRmVvKdDIap-gW1yS8#q=%22forbidden+her+to+discuss+the+upcoming+book+without+their+permission+for+at+least+a+year+after%22+site:news.google.com%2Fnewspapers
            Book To Be Published In The Fall .Oswald’s Widow Breaks …
            news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2194&dat…id…Google News
            … and Harper and Row editors have forbidden her to discuss the upcoming book without their permission for at least a year after its publication Harper and Row …
            Oswald Widow’s Book .By Lynn Galloon . – Google News
            news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat…id…Google News
            … Perry Knowlton, and Harper and Row editors have forbidden her to discuss the upcoming book without their permission for at least a year after Its publication.

          • You will “debate”? What a relief, I was beginning to think you were running from this controversy.

            How am I supposed to debate something that makes no sense?

            You can connect anybody with just about anybody else. Given your “research methods,” half the population of the U.S. killed Kennedy.

          • Tom S. says:

            Baloney! You vouch for Priscilla’s reliability from 1959. You have total faith in her account of meeting a “six footer” (height amended, after the fact.) Clearly the evidence indicates her father had
            a relationship with the brother (James Augustus Thomas, Jr.) of Dulles cousin and maid of honor in Allen’s daughter, Clover’s wedding. Thomas hosted Stuart Johnson’s last meal and was last to see him alive. The actual record indicates Priscilla and her publisher, Harper’s, “bottled up” Marina for fourteen years….fall 1964 to one year after 1977 publication of “Marina and Lee”. The narrative is that, anticipating the impending release of the WC Report, Priscilla shields Marina from the expected throng of inquiring reporters by taking her to this cousin, David, described by Sam Ballen as a “former CIA man.” Two months later, in December, 1964, David dispatches his friend, Jerre Hastings, aka Jerome Hasty, to Dallas to drive the two ladies in David’s Corvair to Sedona and to stick so closely to them that Jerre is mistaken for their bodyguard. :
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60397&relPageId=146
            Nothing to see here, except a pattern, illuminated in a complaint about these two men six months later, by Clark Clifford’s first cousin.
            You are curiously incurious, John McAdams, but you have a lot to say. How did you learn any of it, given your incurious nature?

            http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/35602601/
            ….Miss Me Adams, who is not represented by an attorney in the suit
            relates in the complaint that she had come to Santa Fe to visit her
            mother, Mrs. Marguerite McAdams Hasty, and her mother’s husband, Jerome
            Hasty, and David Davenport, a friend of Hasty, induced her to consult Dr.
            Roscnbaum. As a result, she claims, the sheriff of Sazita Fc County, Perez
            Roybal, arrested her without a warrant and she was transported lo
            the-State Hospital at Las- Vegas, where she \vas incaceratcd from July 28,
            1965 to August 15, …

            Soon after the lawsuit, Hasty filed a legal notice to change his name to
            Hastings, but he had already been using the name.

            And you’re not reading these details for the first time. These facts do not fit your belief system,
            and so you “address” them with some Kevin Bacon gobbeldy-gook.:
            http://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/exwnALMK/was-clark-clifford-containing-marina-oswald-in-1964

          • Tom S. says:

            Cousin David C Davenport’s car actually had an Alaska license plate, and the short plate number
            belies that. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60313&relPageId=49&search=68767
            In 1964, David had left his longtime position at a Santa Fe bank to take the role of V.P. of the
            Alaska Development Corp. but he still found time to host Marina in Santa Fe in late September and
            to coordinate and equip “Jerre” Hastings December hospitality toward our two ladies, and of course,
            David was available the following July to aid in committing Clark Clifford’s first cousin Joanne Mcadams in a New Mexico state mental hospital. I wonder if Marina would have been subjected to similar
            “intervention” in the autumn before, if she rocked the boat similarly to JoAnne’s “rocking”?
            But John McAdams, if he replies this late in this exchange, will reiterate that I must be a CT, “buff”
            to even hunt down and present these details!

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            I have to chuckle every time I hear a government believer refer to me as a conspiracy theorist. If you taken any time to read my posts the last two years, you would know that I really don’t care about the question of who killed JFK. No amount of debate will bring the man back. You would also know if you took the time to read my posts that I was not ever a fan of JFK. He was a politician, and a rather poor one if you believe most “historians.” I could care less about whether LHO or Superman fired the fatal bullets. JFK was a womanizer, had mob ties, and his dad paid for him to win the election. So, while I appreciate you calling me a conspiracy theorist, a careful review of the FACTS reveals that you are WRONG. Is this where I should put in your ad hominem in relation to your view of me? Okay, I will. Ad hominem! I now feel better.

            What I DO care about, and what I will fight you to the end is your misguided belief that our government in 1963 did a “thorough and complete” investigation of JFK’s murder. I will also fight you to the end that the people who investigated the “crime of the century” were honorable and just men. They were not. They were politicians, liars, men of deception, scumbags, etc. And while you continue to spout their “credentials,” I will continue to point out that you are completely and utterly FULL OF IT. (Insert your ad hominem right here.)

            As Tom S. and others on this website have pointed out on NUMEROUS occasions, the men of the WC did not really care about “settling the dust” and “following the leads wherever they lead.” They were ONLY worried about reputations, furthering careers, covering their ass, and putting out a thick enough report to “convince” the public that they had accomplished their task.

            As for me, I remain as unconvinced TODAY as I was in 1978 after my first visit to Dallas. In fact, I am more convinced than ever that the key players of the WC should be in jail for perjury, or destruction of evidence, or outright lying. You do not. You wish to keep your head in the sand, and continue to believe that J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ were men of honor. Feel free to keep your head in the sand, but eventually you will suffocate. (Insert ad hominem comment here.)

            Tell me, John, LBJ lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us into the war of Vietnam under the guise of “stopping the commies.” 58,000 INNOCENT Americans died, as well as three or four million Vietnamese. Tell me, John, was LBJ ever held accountable for his actions? And this is a man I should believe about ANYTHING?

            Who killed Kennedy? Who cares? Our government then and now? Worthless. Deceitful. Liars. War-mongers. Scumbags.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams (and Mr. Von Pein)

            I would like to “discuss” what seems to be your selective use of ‘experts” and their ‘testimony.” I am always amazed how the government believers “decide” who is an expert to believe and who is just expressing their “opinion.”

            Tell me, John, where in the WR can I find the mention of Priscilla Johnson? I have looked through the 888 pages of the spectacular document, and I can find no mention of her credibility in vouching for LHO’s wife. Am I wrong? The government believers are reticent to look at any “evidence” that is not contained in the Warren Omission conclusion, so I find it hard to believe that YOU would have ANY faith in a woman that wrote a book that helped prove Marina was a poor, helpless, Russian girl that was trapped in a horrible marriage to a deranged, lone nut, intent on violence and ready “to make history.”

            The “fact” is Priscilla and Marina were as goofy and unreliable in their “story” as you claim Jean Hill was. However, since it helps prove the government’s version, Priscilla has been given “credibility” by you. Interesting.

            Let us now look at the FBI. Yes, the wonderful “law-dog” that kept this country safe from hoodlums and bad guys. Led by J. Edgar Hoover, a man of sterling reputation that stayed awake all night making sure the rest of us could sleep soundly at night. Or, was it he was awake all night looking for best buys on sterling silver necklaces? I get confused. I DO know that Hoover had a smear campaign against Americans—MLK Jr.—that demanded the same rights promised to him as you and I by our constitution. Yes, Hoover was a just and honorable man! I will believe ANYTHING he has to say!

            Robert Frazier was the FBI’s ballistic efforts, and through his diligence, we now have UNDISPUTABLE proof that LHO was the criminal who changed history by firing a sniper’s weapon of choice in 6 second or 8 seconds, depending on whether you believe Specter or Ford. Frazier is a ROCK SOLID expert and his “testimony” is beyond reproach. He is to be believed beyond a shadow of a doubt, by golly!

            However, Robert Sibert was 2, I repeat, 2 feet away, and he stated in front of the AARB that Specter’s SBT was a pile of sh.. and NO ONE can put enough sugar on his “theory” to make a man standing TWO FEET away from JFK believe it. Mr. Von Pein on this VERY website INSISTS that Sibert’s views are just an opinion and does not square with the “known facts” so he is dismissed. How exactly do the government believers decide WHO is an expert and who an opinion maker? I mean, Sibert is TWO feet away and Howard Brennan is 50 or so away and he was able to positively identify LHO as the deranged shooter.

            Oh well…

          • You are curiously incurious, John McAdams, but you have a lot to say. How did you learn any of it, given your incurious nature?

            Don’t flatter yourself into believing that you are posting anything that has to do with the JFK assassination.

            All you are doing is connecting A with B who is connected with C, and none of them having any connection with any assassination conspiracy.

          • Tom S. says:

            Your rules; only coincidences you determine are evidence, carry any weight?
            I do not know what these details determine, any more than you have the ability to know.:
            http://jfk.education/node/10
            Facts are, John Newman points out that Priscilla’s 201 file was mixed in 1956, with that of Priscilla
            Livingston Johnson, OSS WWII.: http://jfk.education/images/PriscillaJohnNewman.jpg ..next page: http://jfk.education/images/NewmanPriscillas2.jpg

            1946: Priscilla Livingston Johnson weds for life, Tom McCoy.: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-6K6YiaVtfBo/T_jSzd3LjMI/AAAAAAAAA0c/oYGimxFSn0U/s512/PriscillaLivingstonJohnsonWedtoOSSmajor.jpg

            1956: Johnson McCoy’s 201 file (b. Stockholm, Sweden, 1922), “merged with Priscilla Mary Post Johnson’s, b. 1928, LI, NY. U.S., Consular Reports of Births, 1910-1949 > Alphabetical > Jamieson – Johnson: https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3-g1yJLNZMk/UEoaae5UuCI/AAAAAAAAA0c/b5c3d8NmnRk/s720/USConsularReportsofBirths19101949_187253755.jpg

            1964: Clark Clifford’s first cousin’s stepdad, Jerome Hastings, is reported ferrying around Priscilla
            and Marina,
            http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1525290.1385076841%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/president-assassin.jpg
            ….at the behest of Priscilla’s first cousin, David C. Davenport, described by WC witness Sam
            Ballen as a “former CIA man.” This “tie” is supported in Davenport’s obit.:
            http://tomscully.com/Images/DavenportObit2OCT2001.jpg

            1968: Clark Clifford’s law partner, Tom Finney, “loaned” to CIA in 1956, joins Tom McCoy in high level
            positions in the Gene McCarthy presidential campaigns. John Safer writes that McCoy described Finney
            as his “closest friend.”: http://johnsafer.com/library/articles.html#storie10
            John Safer page image.: https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-R3CfZ7MGj-o/U78q0W94MJI/AAAAAAAABvY/WY_KZeUEFi8/s512/MccoyFinneyCliffordPriscilla.jpg

            THOMAS D. FINNEY JR., A ‘SUPERLAWYER,’ DIES; Partner of …
            ‎….Washington Firm Gave Advice to Two Presidents and to High-Ranking Politicians Praised by Muskie ‘Had Good Judgment’ Father Also a Lawyer
            New York Times – Feb 1, 1978
            … Md. Mr. Finney, a partner of the law firm of Clifford, Glass, Mcllwain Finney, … for the Democratic Presidential -Adlai E. Stevenson in 1960, Eugene J. McCarthy in … 1952 to 1955, served with the Central’ Intelligence. Agency in Copenhagen.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/05/AR200912

            Thomas F. McCoy CIA officer, political consultant
            5 December, 2009

            Thomas F. McCoy, 91, a retired CIA officer who later had a long career as a political consultant, died Nov. 25 of heart disease at his home in Chevy Chase.
            Mr. McCoy joined the CIA in 1951 and served as a political officer in Rome for six years in the 1950s. He had additional overseas assignments in Spain and Southeast Asia before he retired from the agency in 1968.
            As a friend of Sen. Eugene J. McCarthy’s (D-Minn.), Mr. McCoy joined his campaign for the 1968 …Survivors include his wife of 64 years, Priscilla Johnson McCoy of Chevy Chase; four children,

            Assoc. Prof. McAdams, my last two comments are brimming with well supported historical details, yet these details are absent from your website. Instead, as David Lifton has, you extoll the uncontroversial nature of Priscilla Johnson MacMillan, a HSCA witness describing the covered up suicide of her father, as an excuse for taking thirteen years to release Marina from a book deal gag order!

          • Tom S. says:

            The Supreme Court Under Earl Warren, 1953-1969 – Page 282
            https://books.google.com/books?id=7zNAzo_xJEMC&pg=PA282&lpg=PA282&dq=Clifford+suggested+that+the+President+nominate+a+non+political+Republican+lawyer,+such+as+Albert+Jenner&source=bl&ots=pWV5fubqGN&sig=3l2ICIzP4sCzi2w3MrLESDUZQ4k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2l-6009HJAhVMXR4KHY0eBAwQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=Clifford%20suggested%20that%20the%20President%20nominate%20a%20non%20political%20Republican%20lawyer%2C%20such%20as%20Albert%20Jenner&f=false
            Michal R. Belknap, ‎Earl Warren – 2005 – ‎
            Secretary of Defense Clark Clifford, a lawyer and longtime adviser, was alarmed. … Clifford suggested that the President nominate a nonpolitical Republican lawyer, such as Albert Jenner of Chicago, chair of the ABA’s Committee on the

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6515#relPageId=2&tab=page
            3. Rocca felt that garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6514&relPageId=2
            3. Rocca felt that McCone should be briefed, and perhaps also Hoover and Clifford…

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8316&relPageId=4
            ….In other words CIA does not have the same protection for its people in the U.S. as the FBI and certain other agencies have for their operations.

            Other Organizations and Individuals In and Out of Government.
            1. The President’s board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities as a body,
            or Clark Clifford as Chairman, could be briefed in detail on all problems growing out of Garrison’s false charges.

            2. Mr. McCone could be fully briefed along the lines already discussed above. He is in a position to exert extensive influence in Catholic and Republican Party circles. The events under discussion took place during his Directorship.

            3. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover is probably the single most important person to be considered in reacting to Garrison’s false charges. Garrison has obviously made a play in the past four months to detach the FBI from CIA. (When he began his investigation, apparently he considered both the FBI and CIA equally vulnerable.)….

            What is this? A “journalist” breaching his code of ethics, taking advantage of Jim Garrison’s trust that he was a journalist, and immediately informing to the FBI before publicly publishing the results of ten hours of “interviewing” Jim Garrison?:

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60406&relPageId=49&search=james_and%20phelan
            FBI April 3, 1967…James Phelan…called my office today and said he had information he wanted to pass along regarding Garrison’s investigation….

            Why, this FBI informer posing as journalist is none other than James D. Phelan, ten year employee on the Alton Telegraph, a rookie hire learning the newspaper business by…Clark Clifford’s Mcadams uncle, a brother of Clark’s mother, and of William Douglas McAdams, father of Joanne, the woman who sued Priss’s cousin David Davenport and her step-father, Jerome Hasty aka Hastings, for involuntarily committing her to a state of NM mental hospital in July, 1965, six months after Davenport and Hasty were “shadowing” Marina Oswald. (Lawsuit article image = https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-QP7Y7FFiUSU/UXDF-gVFmBI/AAAAAAAAA8M/G8lNTcIcos4/s720/PriscillaDavenportHastyLawsuit1967_1of2.jpg )

            Jerome Hasty “name change” legal notice image, Oct., 1966:
            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20170#entry273064

          • Tom S. says:

            Assoc. Prof. McAdams, as a poli-sci expert, do you find any of these “associations” interesting coincidences? Or, is the danger of exposing these details to young minds too great to take the risk of including some of it on your website? Oswald was never afforded voir dire, related to the concept of Warren Commission as judge and jury.

            Counsel to the President: A Memoir – Page 28
            https://books.google.com/books?id=P6TWAAAAMAAJ&q=clark+m+clifford+represent+douglas+mcadams&dq=clark+m+clifford+represent+douglas+mcadams&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzw_mk2tHJAhVJVh4KHTRpByoQ6AEIHDAA
            Clark M. Clifford – 1992 – ‎Snippet view – ‎More editions
            A Memoir Clark M. Clifford … My mother’s youngest brother, William Douglas McAdams, went into the advertising business, moved to New York, and….

            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=0KJpVp_WM4Kf-AXz76_wBw#q=alton+telegraph+mcadams+phelan

            James R. Phelan, 85, Is Dead – Biographer of Howard Hughes
            http://www.nytimes.com/…/james-r-phelan-85-is-dead-bi...
            The New York Times
            Sep 12, 1997 – Born in Alton, Ill., Mr. Phelan began his career at The Alton Evening Telegraph, then moved to the West Coast in 1947 to work for newspapers …

            Alton Evening Telegraph from Alton, Illinois · Page 18
            http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/16331176/
            Alton Evening Telegraph (Alton, Illinois), Wednesday, December 24, 1941, Page … S. Cousley John D. McAdams, Jr. Henry McAdams Advertising Department L A. … Brunner Mary Pfeiffenberger James Phelan Circulation Department Richard .

            https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/4425939/
            February 9, 1957
            Alton Evening Telegraph from Alton, Illinois · Page 10

            Mrs. Georgia McAdams Clifford, widow of Frank A. Clifford, and a sister of the late John D. McAdams, business manager of the Telegraph, died Friday M the home of her son, Clark M. Clifford, at Bethesda, Md. She was 76 years old. She was born in Orterville, daughter of the late Mr. and Mrs. William Douglas McAdams. Her fa (her wa« a noted archaeologist. The family came to Alton when she was two years old. She was married in 1MO at Denver to Frank A. Clifford of Alton, for many years an official of Missouri Pacific Railroad. They took up residence in St. Louis, where he died in 1942. Mrs. Clifford w .1 s widely known hs a story-teller, and was the author of several books, children’s stories and stories about Indian legends. She conducted story-telling courses at the Alton YWCA. Surviving is a son, Clark McAdams Clifford. Washington attorney, who for four years was special counsel to President Truman. She also leaves five grandchildren and six great-grandchildren. Also surviving are two sisters, Mrs. J. H. Dickey of Decatur and Mrs. Rupert Neely of Portland. Me. A brother, the lat« 21ark McAdams, was editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Funeral services will be at noon Tuesday at Lupton Funeral Home, 7233 Delmar Blvd., University City, Mo. Burial will be in St. Patrick’s Cemetery, Alton.

          • LBJ lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident to get us into the war of Vietnam under the guise of “stopping the commies.”

            Actually, no. The Maddox really was attacked. Turner Joy believed it was under attack and reported it was, but apparently this was just an overwrought response from edgy sailors.

            If you want to blame Johnson for being to keen to use the incident as an excuse for escalation, be my guest.

            But don’t tell an untruth about what happened.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams and Mr. Von Pein,

            At the risk of being “ad hominem,” I am curious to ask both of you a question. You both moderate a site that gives glowing reviews to the government and its key players in ‘63 and ‘64. I am sure that you have a devoted and loyal group of “kool-aid drinkers,” that believe that LBJ and JEH and Allen Dulles were patriots and freedom loving democracy hounds, intent on reassuring this country that they had no stone left unturned in solving the “crime of the century.”

            Why do you wish to join this site which is filled with “conspiracy theorists” and ‘kooks” who believe anything they are told—“JFK WAS SHOT BY A SPACE ALIEN RELATED TO AN EWOK”—when you could stay on the top of your throne and continue to tell the world the three men listed above were wonderful, caring, truth seeking men?

            Why grovel with us “uneducated buffoons” who lack a brain to think and simply cannot read anything that does not begin with the word conspiracy?

            Since this is the giving season, let me just say thank you for mingling with us commoners…

          • However, Robert Sibert was 2, I repeat, 2 feet away, and he stated in front of the AARB that Specter’s SBT was a pile of sh.. and NO ONE can put enough sugar on his “theory” to make a man standing TWO FEET away from JFK believe it.

            How does Sibert’s opinion matter? What did he see that would have any bearing on the SBT?

          • John McAdams,

            I ask you again:
            Where are the subsequent Warren Commission reports, “PLOTTING TRAJECTORIES FROM THE RAILROAD OVERPASS”?

            Can you produce anything other than flatus on this site?
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            How does Sibert’s opinion matter?

            Let me ask you, John. Why does Robert Frazier’s opinion matter? You believe his “results,” but a man two feet away looking at the bullet hole states that it is too low to allow the SBT, and he has an “opinion?” Have YOU seen the striations on CE399 to KNOW that it came from the LHO’s rifle? Or, do you believe Frazier and his tests? Again, you are selecting which ‘expert” is credible and which is not.

            DON’T give that crap about looking at the “evidence.” Sibert was there. You were not. He should have been called before the WC. HE WAS NOT.

            “On 11th September, 1997, Sibert provided a deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). Sibert rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: “What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don’t know.”
            Like
            1

            Tweet
            “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.”

            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.”

          • “How does Sibert’s opinion matter? What did he see that would have any bearing on the SBT?” ~John McAdams

            Sibert’s “opinion” McAdams?

            No what Sibert saw with his own eyes not two feet from Kennedy’s body – the back wound on Kennedy was lower on the back, at T3, where he saw personally as Boswell made the mark on his facesheet.

            Is it your mere opinion that you are looking at the computer monitor as you read these words McAdams? Or is it simply your direct observation?
            \\][//

          • J.D. says:

            According to an internal NSA report, the Maddox fired first on the North Vietnamese ships.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#First_attack

            So we have two incidents: one that didn’t happen at all, and another in which we fired the first shot. Johnson characterized this as an act of North Vietnamese aggression. Anyone who doesn’t think that was an outright lie has a curious attitude toward the truth.

          • No what Sibert saw with his own eyes not two feet from Kennedy’s body – the back wound on Kennedy was lower on the back, at T3, where he saw personally as Boswell made the mark on his facesheet.

            First, you are ignoring witness testimony that puts the wound higher:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=266

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280&relPageId=295

            Secondly, Kennedy’s back was photographed:

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

            Why in the world would you prefer witness testimony to photos?

        • Good God Y’all … !!!

          Lol… The forum finally turned over and it is now a madhouse of confused commentary crisscrossing from person to person with slots taken in-between by others — such as Von Pein interjecting himself between McAdams and myself: A perfectly placed incendiary to blow the context of the entire conversation to smithereens.

          So what IS the overall context to the argument on this page now?

          It is whether or not the WC Report set out to frame Oswald as the lone shooter. Yet that is obvious from the very first phone discussions between Hoover and Johnson, before and after Oswald was murdered by Ruby.

          The context shifts dramatically after Oswald is out of the way and no trial stands in the way of the plotters agenda.

          Again, the context shifts for the Commission when Tague suddenly bursts their tidy little “three shots three hit” scenario, and their highly unlikely “single bullet theory” becomes necessary. It is simply transparent that the members of the commission are intent on maintaining the “single shooter theory” come hell or high-water.
          But we have the apologists in denial every step of the way with their spurious charges of taking the text of the commission “out of context” — when the overall context is as plain as day; the commission was set up specifically to charge Oswald as the lone shooter, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

          So now we have these tomes of commentary, argumentum verbosium made by a relay team of WC apologists, fragmenting any reasonable structure to the argument on the page. What should be as clear as an azure lake in spring is as muddy as the Mississippi overflowing its banks.
          \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy,
            I do not understand why you are persuaded that Tague’s claim influenced the Warren Commission. Is that
            a theory, or are there executive session transcripts or memos of WC assistant counsels supporting Tague’s influence?

          • “I do not understand why you are persuaded that Tague’s claim influenced the Warren Commission.”
            ~Tom S.

            It is clear that as far along as the memos we are discussing on this page, that the commission was still going with the three shots-three hits scenario.

            When did that suddenly shift to the three bullets, one miss scenario?

            The Tague incident was known officially by local DPD that very day. The FBI knew about it by the end of that day. It only became an “issue” when Tague himself went to the papers and started making noises. And that is when the commission suddenly recognized they were going to have to alter the shot sequence.

            That is why I am personally persuaded. I do not know who else may or not be…
            \\][//

          • Charles says:

            I agree, Willy. These threads do end up an unattractive mess. That is why I am not such a fan of LN participation here. Yes, they do provoke or draw out a lot of ideas that we might let otherwise pass but it is at a brutal cost of clairity.

            I think that is exactly why the LNs are here.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “The Tague incident was known officially by local DPD that very day. The FBI knew about it by the end of that day. It only became an “issue” when Tague himself went to the papers and started making noises. And that is when the commission suddenly recognized they were going to have to alter the shot sequence”

            That time line is provably false.

            Tague “made the papers” and “started making noises” in June 1964. Specter had been asking hypothetical SBT questions of witnesses long before that. This SBT trajectory photo was taken in May:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=110&tab=page

          • It seems odd that the Warren Commission would call Jim Lehrer when he put Tague’s account out on the wires on June 5th, if they were already cognizant of the incident’s implications; and Specter was figuring on the magic bullet already in May.

            The fact remains that the WC should have known from day one that this incident took place the day of the assassination. I would say they likely did know and Specter was holding certain cards close to his chest. But they weren’t going to complicate things that they weren’t forced into explaining.

            Why was the FBI was at Lehrer’s Dallas Times Herald office at 4:30 on the afternoon of June 5, 1964?
            Did they have Tague under surveillance the whole time since the assassination? Remember, the FBI tipping off certain members of the Commission as to how things were developing on the ground; Jerry Ford being one of these conduits.

            Was Tague’s meeting Lehrer the pure happenstance it has been assumed to be? Was Tague’s agitation bringing attention to himself earlier? Did Lehrer seek out Tague because of a lead he has never mentioned?

            Again, taking “fate” for granted in these situations – ones that have political repercussions, is hard for me to buy into.
            \\][//

          • We have spent a lot of time on Tague’s possible influence on the Magic Bullet theory. But nothing has been mentioned about his actual testimony.

            Let us begin with this tidbit:

            Mr. LIEBELER: “I understand. Did you have any idea where these shots came from when you heard them ringing out?”

            Mr. TAGUE: “Yes; I thought they were coming from my left.”
            * * *
            Tague was located just at the mouth of the triple underpass on Commerce. He was facing Elm St where the motorcade was passing when the shots rang out.

            To Tagues left then, would be at the underpass area. “Coincidentally” this area where Tague was located is situated in the trajectory cone provided by CSI Fiester. A sniper on the rise just above where Tague was standing is where Ms Fiester’s analysis shows the shot originating from.

            Tague describes the sound as very loud; …”definitely louder and more solid than a rifleshot.”

            The sharp “Crack” of a rifle shot is what is heard some distance from the rifle. The sound very close to the shot would be as Tague describes, “louder…more solid”. The shooter may very well have been just a couple of yards or less from Tague, perched on the knoll there behind bushes just before the underpass structure.

            Of course as soon as Tague mentions where he thought the shot came from Liebeler breaks in immediately with the leading “information” that it had been determined the shots all originated from the TBDB.

            But this obviously was not Tague’s personal impression.
            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/tague.htm
            \\][//

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Mr. McAdams and Mr. Von Pein,

          I have asked this question several times of you, and yet to receive an answer. I will try again. Now, this is not covered by the Warren Omission report, so if that bothers you feel free to avoid or shout out “ad hominem!”

          Dwight Eisenhower and Allen Dulles and probably Bill Harvey and E. Howard Hunt and several other goons overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they refused to “play ball” with American oil companies. They set up the puppet Shah, who promptly committed genocide against his own people.

          Next, this same cast of characters helped the United Fruit Company do the SAME thing in Central America.

          Your question:

          WHERE in our constitution does it allow the US to overthrow foreign governments because they DARE try to exercise the same rights that you and I enjoy? Can you give me the EXACT part of the constitution that allows that to happen? Having trouble? Me too.

          I would think that you, Mr. McAdams, given your recent troubles at Marquette, would be especially OUTRAGED at the very thought of our government taking away the very rights they are supposed to protect. However, we are not talking about the rights of Americans in Iran and Central America because they are not as “worthy” of freedom and democracy because God did not give them the good fortune of being born in the good ol’ USA, correct?

          So, while you continue to insist that the CIA had nothing to do with JFK’s murder, and the picture of the man from the MC embassy that looks like a Russian wrestler the CIA provided the WC was a simple “mistake” I will continue to think that you are full of it for refusing to ask for accountability of the Central Intelligence Goon Squad. (Insert ad hominem reference here.)

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Mr. McAdams and Mr. Von Pein,

          I have asked this question several times of you, and yet to receive an answer. I will try again. Now, this is not covered by the Warren Omission report, so if that bothers you feel free to avoid or shout out “ad hominem!”

          Dwight Eisenhower and Allen Dulles and probably Bill Harvey and E. Howard Hunt and several other goons overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran because they refused to “play ball” with American oil companies. They set up the puppet Shah, who promptly committed genocide against his own people.

          Next, this same cast of characters helped the United Fruit Company do the SAME thing in Central America.

          Your question:

          WHERE in our constitution does it allow the US to overthrow foreign governments because they DARE try to exercise the same rights that you and I enjoy? Can you give me the EXACT part of the constitution that allows that to happen? Having trouble? Me too.

          I would think that you, Mr. McAdams, given your recent troubles at Marquette, would be especially OUTRAGED at the very thought of our government taking away the very rights they are supposed to protect. However, we are not talking about the rights of Americans in Iran and Central America because they are not as “worthy” of freedom and democracy because God did not give them the good fortune of being born in the good ol’ USA, correct?

          So, while you continue to insist that the CIA had nothing to do with JFK’s murder, and the picture of the man from the MC embassy that looks like a Russian wrestler the CIA provided the WC was a simple “mistake” I will continue to think that you are full of it for refusing to ask for accountability of the Central Intelligence Goon Squad. (Insert ad hominem reference here.)

        • So we have two incidents: one that didn’t happen at all, and another in which we fired the first shot.

          The claim is that the Maddox fired the first shots to warn off the North Vietnamese boats, which were coming out to attack. The North Vietnamese admitted they had attacked the Maddox, and even claimed one torpedo hit.

          Further, you are citing an NSA study, which contradicts the Pentagon Papers account. Either way, the confrontation was not made up.

          And the Turner Joy really did believe itself to be under attack.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Which, of course, would cause the United States to enter into WAR with a country the size of a peanut?

            Good one, John.

            The “war” was for MONEY, John. Plain and simple. Continue to push your alternative theories, but one day sticking your head in the sand will cause you to suffocate.

      • theNewDanger says:

        See Willy’s comment below (http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/listen-in-on-lbj-and-hoover-talk-about-warren-commission/#comment-835452). The ENTIRE Redlich memo is pure exposition on how they needed to create the right narrative to justify the conclusion, as there was no evidentiary basis for the conclusion that could be independently authenticated by the public without government interference or outright gatekeeping.

        • bogman says:

          As someone once said, the SBT, and the WC in general, was created to prove a lone gunman was possible but not was PROBABLE.

          • theNewDanger says:

            Based on the conversation seeking to preclude any Senate investigation, the collectivists’ whip LBJ wanted to convene the WC to “get by” by using Hoover’s report that had already concluded that Oswald was the sole shooter. I opine that the SBT and WC weren’t just to prove a lone gunman was possible or probable, but that a lone gunman was an absolute.

          • Bogman says:

            I agree. I didn’t express myself very well. Hard as they tried to prove the lone gunman theory, the WC only showed it was possible but not probable. They didn’t go into the case with the intention of that result.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “@8:52, Hoover pre-emptively debunks the stretcher bullet scenario in the 1964 fiction thriller “Warren Commission. Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy”: “in trying to massage his heart at the hospital … on the way to the hospital … they apparently loosened that and it fell on the stretcher”
      — WHAT! THE! FUDGE! What heart massage occurred on a stretcher “on the way” to the hospital? How does a heart massage “loosen” a bullet that had already entered and exited (or broken apart) in an already massively perforated wound?”

      Yeah, where did Hoover get such a wacky idea? From the Sibert/O’Neill report:

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62265&search=%2225_caliber%22+%22copper+alloy%22#relPageId=85&tab=page

      Hume was puzzled when he found no bullet in the back wound and speculated that “external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital,” according to the S/O’N report. But no such thing happened. Humes wasn’t yet aware of the bullet hole where the trach incision was.

      • “Hume was puzzled when he found no bullet in the back wound and speculated that “external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital,” according to the S/O’N report. But no such thing happened. Humes wasn’t yet aware of the bullet hole where the trach incision was.”~Jean Davison

        And what resolution was come to as per the back wound and throat wound? None whatsoever; isn’t that right? As the bullet wounds were not tracked by sectioning the wounds and following the tracks, there is nothing but pure speculation to make the assertion that a bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and exited through his throat.

        There is also the problem of the throat wound being recognized as a wound of entry by Dr Perry, the very doctor who performed the “trach”

        As there was no bullet to associate to either wound found in the X-rays, it would be essential to perform dissection to find the paths of said bullets.

        These X-rays rather were indicative of a fragmenting bullet, that left what was referred to as “a constellation” of fragments, most prominently ending at the rear of the brain.

        One more critical point here: Why were the bullet paths not searched by dissection? Here Dr. Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial is answered. The prosecutors of this autopsy were ordered not to by the general officers in the gallery.

        Here we have a serious set of very troubling facts. Facts that you Jean, apparently wish to hand wave as “happenstance” and “coincidence”. Which is in fact the stand of a superstitious mind, not a critical mind.

        PS, the doctors name is Humes, not “Hume”.
        \\][//

        • theNewDanger says:

          “Here we have a serious set of very troubling facts. Facts that you Jean, apparently wish to hand wave as “happenstance” and “coincidence”. Which is in fact the stand of a superstitious mind, not a critical mind.”

          Brilliant point, Willy. Somehow, the MSM has correlated a superstitious mind with conspiracy theorizing. Regardless of how conpiracy theorizing has been characterized, critical minds are less theorists and more unwelcomed authenticators (or debunkers) of the “official” story, which NATO-coerced Egypt has nearly outlawed for journalists to do if authentication reveals differing conclusions from the “official” story. Saudi Arabia is beheading people for this kind of dissension and Wes Clark would have people to be placed in internment camps for this “sedition” for not being “grateful” to a fascist hegemony killing millions in our name. We must be critical evaluators of the official story, not blind counterintelligent propagandists (ABC,C(IA)NN,Fox,NBC,CBS,McAdams,DVP,Photon,etc.) or psuedo-conspiracy theorists of our own invention (e.g. Fetzer).

        • Jean Davison says:

          “And what resolution was come to as per the back wound and throat wound? None whatsoever; isn’t that right? As the bullet wounds were not tracked by sectioning the wounds and following the tracks, there is nothing but pure speculation to make the assertion that a bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and exited through his throat.”

          That’s not so, Willy. Damage from a passing bullet could be seen when the autopsy doctors opened the chest, as explained starting at the bottom of this page of the autopsy report:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=584#relPageId=4&tab=page

          For instance, the apex of the right lung was bruised.

          “There is also the problem of the throat wound being recognized as a wound of entry by Dr Perry….”

          Studies have shown that ER doctors aren’t experts in distinguishing exit/entrance wounds and are often wrong.

          If Perry had seen the entrance wound on JFK’s back, what do you think he would’ve thought then? “Obviously, two bullets fired from different directions and neither left an exit wound”? Or would he have revised his opinion: one entrance, one exit?

          “These X-rays rather were indicative of a fragmenting bullet, that left what was referred to as “a constellation” of fragments, most prominently ending at the rear of the brain.”

          No, the “constellation” of fragments was in x-rays of the *brain*, not the neck.

          Humes said that he was in charge of the autopsy not any “general” and that the decision not to track the wound was his.

          “Here we have a serious set of very troubling facts. Facts that you Jean, apparently wish to hand wave as “happenstance” and “coincidence”. Which is in fact the stand of a superstitious mind, not a critical mind.”

          The very opposite is true. For the superstitious mind there are no coincidences.

          • “Studies have shown that ER doctors aren’t experts in distinguishing exit/entrance wounds and are often wrong.”~Jean Davison

            Studies have shown that brushing your teeth with fluoride enhanced toothpaste can help prevent cavities. However recent studies show this is not true. But floride can also cause dementia in later life and often leads to lower IQ in children in areas where floride is added to the water supply.

            Do You have citations Jean? I do.
            \\][//

          • “No, the “constellation” of fragments was in x-rays of the *brain*, not the neck.

            Humes said that he was in charge of the autopsy not any “general” and that the decision not to track the wound was his.”~Jean Davison

            So we are to assume from your commentary that two different types of ammunition was fired in Dealey Plaza that day?
            The bruising on the lung could well have been caused by an explosive bullet as well.

            The central question remains; where is the bullet in both the case of the head shot and the shots to the throat and back?

            Must it be stressed ONE MORE TIME Jean, that there is no proof whatsoever that a bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and out through his throat.

            Humes is a liar Jean, and is guilt of obstruction of justice and destroying evidence.

            The assertion that the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back exited his throat, is pure speculation.

            We will not relitigate the issue of lack of custody for the bullet claimed to have done this magic act. The WC Apologists have been forcing rides on this rickety carousel for too many decades now to take another ride.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Do You have citations Jean?”

            Yes.

            1. http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/8113716

            2.
            http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=405624

            QUOTE: “THE ODDS that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin, according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center. The study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets that struck the victim.”

          • Thanks for your citations Jean!
            So that leaves you with the autopsy doctors, none of which even knew there was a bullet wound in JFK’s throat to determine whether it was a wound of entry or a wound of exit.
            Isn’t that peachy?

            I will take the opinion of Dr Perry who did in fact see the wound in question, and in fact did the incisions for the tracheotomy.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Studies have shown that ER doctors aren’t experts in distinguishing exit/entrance wounds and are often wrong.’ — Jean Davison

            Thankfully the Warren Commission had Arlen Specter, a licensed attorney, to walk Dr. Carrico thru exit and entrance wound analysis, speaking of ‘leading the witness’:

            Mr. SPECTER – Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.
            First of all, assume that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet from a rifle having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a time when the President was approximately 160 to 250 feet from the weapon, with the President being struck from the rear at a downward angle of approximately 45 degrees, being struck on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula 14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process.
            Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in, the posterior aspect of the President’s body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity, but bruising only the apex of the right pleural cavity and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung, then causing a hematoma to the right of the larynx which you have described, and creating a jagged wound in the trachea, then exiting precisely at the point where you observe the puncture wound to exist.
            Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in consistent with being an exit wound?
            Dr. CARRICO – It certainly was. It could have been under the circumstances,
            Mr. SPECTER – And assuming that all the facts which I have given you to be true, do you have an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether, in fact, the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound?
            Dr. CARRICO – With those facts and the fact as I understand it, no other bullet was found this would be, this was, I believe, was an exit wound.

          • “Damage from a passing bullet could be seen when the autopsy doctors opened the chest, as explained starting at the bottom of this page of the autopsy report…
            For instance, the apex of the right lung was bruised.”~Jean Davison

            And just so__but they did not locate the bullet. The surmised that it exited Kennedy, but did not prove it. That is my whole point Jean. You have supposition & conjecture, but no actual proof. This is the case on every aspect of the arguments made by the WC apologists. No matter how many times this is pointed out, you and they keep rambling on without acknowledging the facts.

            You have framed Lee Harvey Oswald on naught but conjecture, empty assertions and innuendo.
            Our objections are sustained.
            \\][//

          • And just so__but they did not locate the bullet. The surmised that it exited Kennedy, but did not prove it.

            So a bullet entered his body.

            But no bullet remained in his body.

            Figuring this out is not rocket science.

        • One more critical point here: Why were the bullet paths not searched by dissection? Here Dr. Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial is answered. The prosecutors of this autopsy were ordered not to by the general officers in the gallery.

          You are omitting the part where Finck said “the family” did not want the wound dissected.

          Indeed, in the Blumberg Memo, Finck had said:

          THE PRESIDENT’S FAMILY INSISTED TO HAVE ONLY THE HEAD EXAMINED Later, the permission was extended to the CHEST.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/finck1.htm

          If you read Manchester, you’ll see that the Kennedy entourage, up on the 17th floor, was regularly calling down to the autopsy theater, asking “when will it be over.”

          BTW, it was probably Adm. Burkley, and not some general, who was pressuring the autopsists to hurry.

          • “BTW, it was probably Adm. Burkley, and not some general, who was pressuring the autopsists to hurry.”~McAdams

            Yes, “probably” perhaps, maybe, could be, it is possible…etc…

            All presumption, just like the assertion beyond fact that a missile passed through Kennedy from the back and through his throat.
            Pure speculation due to the lack of dissection of the bullet paths.

            Even your assertion that this was meant to “hurry” the autopsy is naught but speculation.

            By any path taken, it is obvious that Humes who was lawfully designated head of the procedure, was following someone else’s orders. This is a felonious infraction, compounded by his burning of evidence and lying about the extent of the evidence destroyed in such manner on several occasions.

            You and your associates keep squirming around the plain and simple fact that you simply have no case at all. Not a weak case McAdams NO CASE at all.
            \\][//

          • Bogman says:

            Humes burned the autopsy notes the same day Oswald was killed when there would be no trial and the evidentiary trail could be revised with no real fear of punishment. In fact, I don’t think he would’ve done it without the direction from somebody above him.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bogman, who? Not just his immediate superior, it would have come through channels. Dulles, LBJ?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Funny, I read Dr. Jerome Corsi’s quote of Finck’s testimony in the Shaw trial and he doesn’t mention that the family ordered them not to dissect the neck, just that he was ordered not to by some general of which he doesn’t remember.

            If the family indeed influenced the extent of the autopsy, why would Finck forget that? (That would’ve been a convenient ‘out’). His testimony seemed like he was skirting around the issue when asked until ordered.

            Maybe Finck wrote that to not implicate the military in his report.

            I noted another thing in your link to the Blumberg memo.

            Finck also wrote:

            The tracheotomy wound was examined by the three prosectors. None of us noticed a bullet wound along its course.

            If they didn’t find or notice a bullet wound along it’s course, how could they still say that the bullet coursed from the back through the neck?

          • Funny, I read Dr. Jerome Corsi’s quote of Finck’s testimony in the Shaw trial and he doesn’t mention that the family ordered them not to dissect the neck, just that he was ordered not to by some general of which he doesn’t remember.

            If the family indeed influenced the extent of the autopsy, why would Finck forget that? (That would’ve been a convenient ‘out’). His testimony seemed like he was skirting around the issue when asked until ordered.

            I think we have a teachable moment here.

            Q: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

            THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

            THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

            http://www.jfk-online.com/finckshaw07.html

            So Corsi left this out?

            Should you not be noticing a pattern with conspiracy authors?

          • Let’s get back to Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial. McAdams has kindly reproduced that testimony on his own website.

            Therein we do indeed find the blurb that McAdams provides in his latest comment.

            One will note however within the actual context of this specific blurb, that Finck is being an uncooperative witness during this exchange with MR. OSER, and has avoided answering a direct question several times.

            That question being:
            “Why did you not trace the track of the wound?”

            Finck was asked this question 6 times in a row, and still would not make a direct answer until the judge ordered him from the bench to answer the question.

            At that point Finck finally answered:
            “As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.”

            Oser continues with: “You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?”

            Finck answers: “Right.”

            MR. OSER: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

            Finck replies: I don’t recall.
            * * * *
            The entire testimony is at the link offered by Mr McAdams.
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Professor McAdams,

            THE WITNESS: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn’t remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

            I’ll check again if he left this out (don’t have it with me ATM) and will advise later.

            However, Finck’s statement isn’t a direct answer and doesn’t necessarily mean that dissection of the neck was prohibited.

            As a result, Mr. Oser persists in asking the unanswered question about the neck’s dissection, and the response is by someone that he can’t recall, so it can’t be the family.

            BY MR. OSER:

            Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

            A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don’t remember by whom.

            Q: You were told not to but you don’t remember by whom?

            A: Right.

            Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

            A: I don’t recall.

            Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

            A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn’t include the removal of the organs of the neck.

            Q: You are one of the three autopsy specialist and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

            A: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

            Q: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

            A: From what I recall, yes, but I don’t remember by whom.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Willy is understanding the context correctly.

            I can’t believe that an important breach of autopsy protocol was tolerated by the pathologists for such an extremely important examination of two wounds. If they could get permission to open the President’s chest cavity and head, how do we know that the Kennedy family wouldn’t have extended permission for the neck, if implored by the autopsists?

            Finck never truly answered the question.

            When pressed, it’s surprising that he didn’t say,

            “I told you, it was the family that instructed us not to dissect the neck!”.

            But he never does.

            Why?

            My guess is that he was under oath, and it would be lie if the family gave that specific instruction.

          • Finck’s view was that “the family” did not want the track dissected.

            You folks haven’t shown anything that contradicts that.

            Read Manchester. People in the Kennedy entourage were calling down to the autopsy theater asking “when will this be over.”

            The HSCA studied this in considerable detail, talking to a lot of witnesses in addition to Finck. Same conclusion:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy3.txt

          • bogman says:

            Ronnie – My guess it would be from the same source at the autopsy who told them not to track the path of the bullet in the neck.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ John McAdams of Dec 7, 2015, 11:38 a.m.

            I checked Jerome’s Corsi book now and he does include Dr. Finck’s response that the family wanted an examination of the head and chest, but he didn’t say it was at their insistence (page 29, Chapter 1).

            Finck’s earlier testimony confirms that he didn’t take orders from an Army General because there were Admirals, and that when you’re a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army, you just follow orders, when pressed by Oser.

            Oser continued with his line of questioning asking why Finck specifically didn’t dissect the track in the neck.

            He alluded to disclosure of medical records as if he wanted to say that they didn’t want to remove the neck organs because this would shed light on the President’s medical condition or records (adrenal glands – Addison’s disease).

            But the cross-examination shows that Finck was trying to dance out of a difficult line of questioning, and would only answer if continually pressed. Oser misses a beat here and there, it seems, but the overall context suggests that he was told by someone other than the family to not dissect the neck.

            He also gives some explanation that “he had the cause of death” (duh – why carry out an autopsy in the first place?), and that bruising at the point of entry and the point of exit was entirely compatible with the bullet path.

            Basically, he’s concluding before actually verifying.

            As Corsi says, “Dr. Finck acquiesced to Arlen Specter’s hypothetical questions that all the wounds seen in JFK’s body could have been caused by shots from the rear because politics dictated him to do so. As a junior military officer, Finck did not feel he had the authority to countermand orders.” (p. 31)

          • But the cross-examination shows that Finck was trying to dance out of a difficult line of questioning, and would only answer if continually pressed.

            Of course it was difficult, because he probably knew that the wound in the upper back should have been dissected. So of course he’s embarrassed by that. Remember, he would not sign a statement saying a complete autopsy was done.

            Oser misses a beat here and there, it seems, but the overall context suggests that he was told by someone other than the family to not dissect the neck.

            “The family” was up on the 17th floor. So their preferences (or more likely the notion that this needed to be finished quickly) was conveyed by a military officer.

            Admiral Burkley is the most likely person.

            Again, see Manchester, and the HSCA treatment of the issue.

          • theNewDanger says:

            REPOST ATTEMPT #4 (maybe my browser is tripping out on this site … ghosts in the machine)
            • If it is true that JFK’s family (gatekeeping Burkley doesn’t count) did not specifically ask autopsists not to dissect the wounds, how long would dissecting the wounds have taken that would have unbearably prolonged the autopsists from gathering the most information possible that could be used to make their most substantive conclusions about the cause(s) of death beyond all theories? At most, theories are what the Warren Commission was left with and what we’re now left to ponder without wound dissection, among other investigatory failures that the WC perpetrated in the most massive presidential protection failure in US history, even greater than the non-response to protecting Bush when his collectivist masters’ false flag began on 9/11.
            • Is there any documentation directly issued by the Kennedy family that they couldn’t wait for the already dead JFK’s autopsy to be completed if it including dissection of the wounds?
            • What was the rush to have the autopsy go quickly? JFK wasn’t going anywhere.
            • Why wouldn’t the family want a complete accounting for how and what killed their patriarch in training?
            • Did the family need the autopsy to be over quickly because they needed JFK’s spirit’s help to prepare Thanksgiving dinner the next week?
            This claim that the Kennedy family wanted to rush the autopsy sounds like the same crap similar to Ruby’s rushed killing of Oswald with the crackpot story that doing so was to preclude Jackie Kennedy from suffering the pain of a trial. Just my opinion, but the crap about the orders not to dissect being based on the Kennedy family’s wishes for a speedy autopsy sounds like pre-planned bullspit to cover up whatever admirals’ orders to not dissect the wounds.

          • the most massive presidential protection failure in US history, even greater than the non-response to protecting Bush when his collectivist masters’ false flag began on 9/11.

            So 9/11 was a false flag operation. Splendid.

          • theNewDanger says:

            “So 9/11 was a false flag operation. Splendid”

            You wouldn’t believe a false flag was possible at the hands of the government if you were placed back in time witnessing the writing of Operation Northwoods. Meanwhile, the three tall white men dressed like Craft International tac ops mercenaries dress were identified by witnesses as killing civilians in San Bernardino are no where in the MSM narrative about a Muslim couple carrying out the attack (one who was only 90lbs) conveniently getting killed in an ambush nearby. Get from behind the 8-ball and you might see the individual trees in the forest.

      • Bill Pierce says:

        Jean Davison writes:
        “Hume was puzzled when he found no bullet in the back wound and speculated that “external cardiac massage had been performed at Parkland Hospital,” according to the S/O’N report. But no such thing happened. Humes wasn’t yet aware of the bullet hole where the trach incision was.”

        This was a charade. [And, in fact, external cardiac message had been performed at Parkland.]

        The three autopsy doctors were not insane, incompetent or brain dead. Everyone IN THE WORLD knew that the Parkland doctors, just after JFK’s death, had made public comments about an anterior neck wound which was described as an entrance wound.

        Jean, you are proposing the following: that three intelligent doctors and the rest of the autopsy team – including Burkley – were completely oblivious to the wounds that were referenced at the Parkland press conference. For four or more hours after the president’s death, when everyone IN THE WORLD was transfixed by the news coming out of Dallas, the entire autopsy team, collectively, missed the message, and no one in government filled them in. **This includes Burkley who was in the Parkland trauma room and later supervised the autopsy!** [No wonder he was never called as a witness.]

        Humes story is simply not believable in any sense.

        Was Humes lying about this? Yes.

        • Tom S. says:

          Welcome back, Bill! I was concerned you mistook my last communication to you as unwelcoming.

        • Photon says:

          How do you know that any of them saw or heard about the press conference?
          At the risk of sounding like a broken record, you and many CTers are simply ignorant of how superficial JFK’s physical examination was during his 10-15 minute resuscitative effort. Despite the massive head wound apparently nobody noticed it for what it was-an obviously fatal wound making all attempts at resusitation pointless. You can prove that assumption by the actions taken to prepare to crack the chest-only aborted when Dr. Jenkins suggested that the team take a good look at the head.Up to that point the magnitude of JFK’s head wound was clearly unknown-probably obscured by his heavy shock of hair already matted down with coagulated blood.
          Bill you and other CTers on this site simply refuse to accept the published studies( previously quoted by me) that prove that even at the best trauma sites in this country correct interpretations of bullet wound trajectories and specifics are correct only about 50% of the time. These were cases of individuals receiving full exams of more completeness and duration than JFK’s at most 15 minute superficial evaluation.

          • “Bill you and other CTers on this site simply refuse to accept the published studies( previously quoted by me) that prove that even at the best trauma sites in this country correct interpretations of bullet wound trajectories and specifics are correct only about 50% of the time.”~Photon

            Yes indeed it is a fact that I and many others here take nothing you assert on this forum as serious in any way, shape form, or matter.

            That you would be surprised by this at this point is rather hilarious.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            What DO you believe Willy? It seems that you have a problem accepting anything that conflicts with your own opinions-even documented facts. I understand that you can’t accept the peer-reviewed medical literature.I understand that you have never taken care of a patient in the ER and are ignorant about ER procedures and physical exams.
            If you can’t accept that Flouridation was the greatest advance in Public Health dental care, perhaps you can explain the decline in Dental School enrollment and the closure of several prestigious Dental Schools. While Federal fund cutbacks did contribute, the vast reduction in caries among susceptible populations played a significant role.What is your basis for the claim that it did not? Where is your proof that Flouridation causes dementia? Maybe you find something in crackpot articles devoid of any scientific or statistical evidence, but do you really want to go there
            Of course if you believe that 9-11 was an inside job and Brother Nathanael is an expert on the international Zionist conspiracy it may be difficult for you to accept that your positions are erroneous.

          • JohnR says:

            Right Mr. Whitten. Prove Photon wrong, he changes the question. Mostly I laugh.

          • Fluoride is a waste product in the manufacture of aluminum, it like aluminum is toxic and affects the nervous system of creatures that have fluoride introduced into their body. This is true of drinking it in treated water, ingesting it by swallowing toothpaste treated with the substance, or by receiving inoculations with aluminum or fluoride as a binding ingredient in the vaccine.
            Rather than pay out huge sums to isolate this toxic substance in containers and landfills, the aluminum industry hit upon a clever but criminal solution, to promote this poisonous chemical as “beneficial” for maintaining tooth health.
            The rise in autism can be directly correlated to the use of fluorides in public waterworks, the dental profession, and toothpaste products.
            See:
            Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis
            AL Choi, G Sun, Y Zhang, and P Grandjean.
            CRD summary
            This review found there was a possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. The varied and observational nature of the included studies meant that there was a high risk of bias due to confounding factors, so the results may not be reliable. Therefore, the authors’ cautious conclusions and recommendations for further research are appropriate.
            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0052088/
            Also see:
            http://feingold.org/resources/studies/fluoride/
            And:
            http://krauthammerlab.med.yale.edu/imagefinder/Figure,$DirectLink.direct?state:Figure=BrO0ABXcRAAAAAQAACmRvY3VtZW50SWRzcgARamF2YS5sYW5nLkludGVnZXIS4qCk94GHOAIAAUkABXZhbHVleHIAEGphdmEubGFuZy5OdW1iZXKGrJUdC5TgiwIAAHhwABLhaQ%3D%3D
            And:
            http://realfoodforager.com/why-you-should-refuse-fluoride-treatments-for-your-child/
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            As I stated, you can find evidence in crackpot articles devoid of scientific and statistical significance. Your Choi,Sun et. al. article is based on Chinese communities with undefined levels of fluoridation and none of the quality control methods used in the United States. Even with that, the only conclusion made was that fluoridation ” might” be associated with neurological development issues-not confirmed by any peer-reviewed public health literature in the U.S. Why don’t you just use the medical opinions of Gen. John D. Ripper, USAF as a reference?

          • “Why don’t you just use the medical opinions of Gen. John D. Ripper, USAF as a reference?”
            ~Photon

            Great idea, I cite the film, DR. STRANGELOVE as proof that Amerika is run by psychopathic maniacs!
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Despite the massive head wound apparently nobody noticed it for what it was-an obviously fatal wound making all attempts at resusitation (sic) pointless. , , , only aborted when Dr. Jenkins suggested that the team take a good look at the head. Up to that point the magnitude of JFK’s head wound was clearly unknown-probably obscured by his heavy shock of hair already matted down with coagulated blood. – photon

            What a bold assertion. That’s not what Dr. Carrico said in his testimony:

            Mr. SPECTER – What action did you take by way of treating President Kennedy on his arrival?

            Dr. CARRICO – After what we have described we completed an initial emergency examination, which consisted of, as we have already said, his color, his pulse, we felt his back, determined there were no large wounds which would be an immediate threat to life there. LOOKED VERY BRIEFLY AT THE HEAD WOUND and then because of his inadequate respirations inserted an endotracheal tube to attempt to support these respirations.

            Carrico and his team didn’t miss ‘the magnitude of the head wound’. They were forced to immediately focus on getting the trach tube inserted. There is a significant difference in what Carrico is saying and what photon suggests with his obfuscation: “Up to that point the magnitude of JFK’s head wound was CLEARLY UNKNOWN -probably OBSCURED by his heavy shock of hair already matted down with coagulated blood

            Photon also asserts “nobody noticed it for what it was-an obviously fatal wound.” However Diane Hamilton Bowron, the ER nurse who had arrived from Britain only months earlier, was the first onsite Parkland Emergency medical staff to see John Kennedy’s head wound. She remained in the ER with the president up until the time she went to retrieve blood from the blood bank.

            Mr. SPECTER – And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy’s condition? 

            Miss BOWRON – He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy’s knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. 

            Mr. SPECTER – You saw the condition of his what? 

            Miss BOWRON – The back of his head. 

            Mr. SPECTER – And what was that condition?
            
Miss BOWRON – Well, it was very bad—you know. 

            Mr. SPECTER – How many holes did you see?
            
Miss BOWRON – I just saw one large hole.

            Are we to believe that Ms. Bowron never said to anyone in ER “by the way, you might want to look at that one large hole in his head?” Is photon arguing that Bowon did not recognize the degree of the head wound the president had sustained the moment she saw him?

          • bogman says:

            Ok, I’ll take the bait…

            “Despite the massive head wound apparently nobody noticed it for what it was-an obviously fatal wound making all attempts at resusitation pointless.”

            WTH are you talking about, Photon?

            In every account I’ve read of the Parkland doctors they knew almost immediately the cause was hopeless due to the massive head trauma but they kept going because it was POTUS.

          • Photon says:

            No bogman , the initial perception was that the neck wound was responsible for his moribund state-why else did Perry perform a surgical exploration of the neck-as described by Dr. McClelland? That is why the tracheostomy incision was atypically large. I doubt very much that Perry would have done more than a simple tracheostomy if he has been aware of the true nature of the head wound. But heck, I’m sure that you have spent hours as an ER physician and you can clue us in as to how often ANY resusitative effort would be performed on an individual with a head wound similar to JFK’s-if it was as obvious as you think it was.

          • Photon says:

            Leslie, can you read? Carrico PRECISELY confirms what I stated-that the head was NOT closely examined. Obviously the back examination was clearly inadequate as Carrico missed a potentially fatal wound. Leslie, it is apparent that you have never resuscitated anybody in the ER-nor anywhere else. Do you know how much time it takes to put in an ET tube? About 30 seconds in an unresponsive patient. Again, Perry’s actions pursuing a neck exploration confirm that he was not aware of the magnitude of JFK’s head wound. Why were they preparing to crack the chest until Jenkins actually reported the magnitude of the head wound? Because they DID’T KNOW the magnitude of the head wound.
            You need to get your facts straight. Bowron was not the first Parkland health professional to see JFK. It was Dr. William Midgett.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bowron, Midgitt, surgical exploration of the throat wound. You’ve started making stuff up to distract? Please provide links to these imaginary subjects or have you resorted to ought-right lies?

          • leslie sharp says:

            And down the Rabbit Hole we go, yet again, courtesy of photon.

            Dr. Midgett, trained in obstetrics and gynecology, did not testify before the Warren Commission. Diane Hamilton Bowron did. Why is that?

            Mr. SPECTER – And were you wheeling one stretcher by yourself, or was someone helping?
            Miss BOWRON – No; the orderly from the triage desk was helping us.
            Mr. SPECTER – Was helping you?
            Miss BOWRON – Yes.
            Mr. SPECTER – Who was that?
            Miss BOWRON – Joe—I’ve forgotten what his last name is, I’m sorry. I know his first name is Joe and he’s on duty today.
            Mr. SPECTER – And who was bringing the other stretcher?
            Miss BOWRON – I don’t know, sir, I heard afterwards that Dr. Midgett took one stretcher. I don’t know who was assisting him.
            Mr. SPECTER – And what is Dr. Midgett’s first name?
            Miss BOWRON – Bill.
            Mr. SPECTER – And, where did you take your stretcher?
            Miss BOWRON – To the left-hand side of the car as you are facing it, and we had to move Governor Connally out first because he was in the front. We couldn’t get to the back seat. While all the Secret Service men were moving Governor Connally I went around to the other side of the car to try to help with the President and then we got him onto the second cart and then took him straight over to trauma room 1.

            Photon’s argument seems now to have shifted to the matter of minutes perhaps seconds separating the moment that Diane Bowrow saw the large hole in the back of President Kennedy’s head vs. when Dr. Midgett, an obstetrician saw the president? What precisely is the significance? And following that, did Dr. Midgett testify before the commission that he also observed a “large hole” in the president’s head? And following that, did he attend the president in the ER room along with Ms. Bowron where he advised Dr. Carrico that there was a gaping wound in the head of their dying patient? And if so, did the Warren Commission ask him about this wound? Clearly the WC did not. The question is, why not?

            WC Witness List:
            Meyers, Lawrence V.WC Testimmony, HSC depositionAssociate of Jack Ruby
            Michaelis, Heinz W.WC TestimonyManager, Seaport Traders, Inc.
            Milam, WallaceARRB Testimony – Assassination Researcher

            Attempts by photon to reduce the assassination investigation to a board game are unseemly.

          • Photon says:

            Ronnie, let me refer you to You Tube: JFK Assassination 50th Anniversary :Interview with Robert McClelland,MD-Part 1.
            No , I’m not a CT enthusiast. I don’t have to make things up. I have the facts-whether you want to believe them or not. I have no problem when individuals have a different interpretation of the facts than I do. What bothers me is wholesale denial of those facts in the face of documented evidence. The recent fiasco of the CT claim of Oswald’s money order not being cashed is a prime example-despite documented evidence even clear to CTers who originally believed the Money order was not genuine or completed by Oswald some people will simply not accept the fact that they were wrong.
            That blindness leads some CTers to claim that the Zapruder film was faked, that the pictures of Oswald holding the Carcano taken by Marina were faked, that Marina could not be trusted to be honest-until she started to repeat CT talking points years later, that ER physicians opinions of cervical entrance wounds are totally accurate and inviolable -even when the authors of those statements backtrack the statements within hours off seeing them misinterpreted, that those same ER physician initial impressions formed during a 15 minute resusitation period when they were completely ignorant of a potentially fatal back wound trump the findings of a 3-4 hour autopsy by board certified pathologists the finding of which have been confirmed by every single forensic pathologist to have revied them-except the pro CT Cyril Wecht, who still agrees that JFK was hit in the head by a round from behind.

          • David Regan says:

            An entrance wound in the throat could hardly have made the Parkland doctors believe their patient was moribund. It is most unlikely the small, clean entrance wound below the Adam’s apple, is what caused Clint Hill to give the thumbs down to the follow up car before even arriving at Parkland hospital. Or maybe the Trauma Room 1 staff were still clueless about the severity of the head wound when JBK handed Dr. Jenkins “a good-sized chunk of the President’s brain”?

          • bogman says:

            You really are full of it, aren’t you, Photon?

            See around 9:35 where McClelland says the doctors all knew about the head trauma immediately: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHfWG1S6SZM

            And on another front, on this very site, McClelland is also quoted saying this:

            “That’s where there was a massive hole in the back of his head,” McClelland said. “I looked at that hole from 18 inches for about 12 minutes.”

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-did-dr-mcclelland-think-about-jfks-wounds/

            So that’s 12 of YOUR noted 15 minutes of time in the trauma room with Dr. M peering at the head wound and somehow he got it wrong. Amazing.

            BTW, per your obsession with credentials, what medical expertise did Ford have to unilaterally call the back wound a neck wound in the first pages of the WC?

            I’ve asked before, I won’t expect an answer. Look up disingenuous in the dictionary and I think you’ll find your picture.

          • Photon says:

            14:30: ” his head was covered with blood and I didn’t see any wound in his left temple, but I wrote that in my immediate impressions that I wrote down after we left Trauma Room 1.”
            15:56:”there was no wound in the left temple as I was mistakenly led to believe…”.
            So how closely did Dr. McClelland actually look at the head? He admits that he committed to writing a statement that claims that there was a wound in the left temple-which he LATER admitted was in error.
            Why aren’t you folks harping over where this left temple wound is? Is McClelland part of a conspiracy to cover it up?
            Or perhaps McClelland didn’t get such a good look after all.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Bill,

          Why do you assume that everyone in the world knew about the throat wound?

          This was 1963 and the Parkland news conference wasn’t broadcast live by radio or TV. It was attended by reporters like Tom Wicker of the Times but his report didn’t appear until the next day. I think the TV anchormen mentioned the conference and provided some quotes but it wasn’t simultaneous coverage on all networks as it would be today.

          Dr. Burkley was in the trauma room but since he had gone to the Trade Mart first he probably arrived too late to have seen the throat wound before the trach procedure was done. Here’s his written account that appeared in the WC Hearings:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=124&tab=page

  6. Terry Kirkpatrick says:

    The very best men

  7. Anthony Martin says:

    Sometimes what is unspoken is just as important is what is spoken. All the circumstances of JFK’s murder could not have been known a week after the event. Compare the recent tragedy in SOCAL. (Two people gone mad? Two people acting under orders? Two people acting in conjunction with others, yet unknown?) One would expect LBJ on a private call with a friend , neighbor, & head of the FBI to voice concerns about his own personal safety and for JEH, on his own initiative, to ramp up security for him and his family. One would expect LBJ’s first act as new head of state would be to ascertain without a doubt that the assassination was not a potential act of war, a domestic conspiracy, a foreign conspiracy, or some other attempt to decapitate the government’s leadership (himself included!). That would initiate a request and response to go all out (right now) to find out the facts of the matter. One would have hoped for at least a minimum of human misgiving: This is going to be hard on Jackie. There’s a lack of concern, a lack of interest, and a lack of response on both LBJ’s and JEH’s parts. Why? (Oh, ho hum, Oswald did it.)

  8. Notice that in the conversation that day that it was Johnson who brought up Allen Dulles, as the first candidate for being on a committee being considered.
    This is why it is absurdly disingenuous to assert that Robert Kennedy recommended Dulles.
    \\][//

    • The date of the memo from Walter Jenkins to the President is 11/29.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/WalterJenkins11-29-63.pdf

      • And why should Katzenbach be taken at his word that “the attorney general” was actually part of this choice of members for the commission? He and Moyers were obviously loyal “Johnson Men” at that point.

        Why doth treason not prosper McAdams?

        I don’t know whether you are actually as naive as you make out here, but it is clear; when a coup has taken place, the only safe political position to take is to align oneself with the successful usurpers. It is the rule of Realpolitik.
        \\][//

        • And why should Katzenbach be taken at his word that “the attorney general” was actually part of this choice of members for the commission?

          Why should he not have been?

          Note what you are having to do. After you conspiracists have loudly denied that RFK wanted Dulles on the WC, you are faced with a memo that says RFK did.

          So what do you do? You call Katzenbach a liar.

          Every piece of evidence you find inconvenient is a “lie,” isn’t it?

          Why doth treason not prosper McAdams?

          Begging the question.

          • Me thinks the ladies doth protest too much.

            The leopard that can change its spots is a cat that will not so readily go extinct.

            The term “honest and honorable people” begets a thousand laughs when concerning Intelligence agents and their operations.

            I shan’t join the ranks of the gullible malleable herd despite your pleadings and formal invitations.
            \\][//

          • The term “honest and honorable people” begets a thousand laughs when concerning Intelligence agents and their operations.

            I shan’t join the ranks of the gullible malleable herd despite your pleadings and formal invitations.

            So when faced with actual facts that contradict your theories, you fall back to “these men were scum, so of course they killed Kennedy.”

          • “So when faced with actual facts that contradict your theories, you fall back to “these men were scum, so of course they killed Kennedy.”~McAdams

            “Facts”? you call this? Lol

            But yes indeed these men were scum, psychopaths, social climbers without conscience, traitors to the principles of Liberty and Justice the Republic was founded upon.
            But that Republic was long gone by the time of Kennedy’s administration, replaced by the vile and cultist National Security State.

            A system where vicious and vindictive thugs are called “Honorable Men” — and actual honorable men are held in contempt by the ongoing fascist state.
            \\][//

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            Here is a question for you to answer. It is not about the JFK murder. However, it does relate to your use of the words “honorable men.”

            Can you point to the part of the constitution that allows a US president and/or a US CIA director to overthrow a democratically elected government to replace him with a US business friendly puppet? You know, like Eisenhower and Dulles did to Iran?

            Where is that in our US Constitution, John?

            Tell me, which member of the Eisenhower served jail time for overthrowing a foreign government that posed NO threat to any US civilian?

            These were “honorable men?” No, John, they were scum, to use your words. Actually, they were worse than scum, but Tom won’t allow me to use the words that best describe their character. Maybe Hitler-like?

          • “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
            I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”~Antony

            And don’t forget…Brutus is an honourable man!!

            Lol
            \\][//

        • Photon says:

          To impune the integrity of Nicholas Katzenbach is simply pathetic, but an unfortunate trait of CTers willing to smear honest and honorable people-usually those who are dead and cannot defend themselves.
          It was Katzenbach whom the Kennedy Administration turned to to confront George Wallace publically and on national TV and compel him to admit two black students to the University of Alabama.In the face of extreme opposition to integration from many individuals and groups prone to violence his was a truly courageous act, physically and morally.
          He pushed to get all of the information about the assassination investigated-and more importantly public.The fact that you don’t like the results of that investigation is no excuse to denigrate the reputation of an honorable man.

          • “To impune the integrity of Nicholas Katzenbach is simply pathetic..”~Photon

            Yes, pathos often comes to mind when reading your commentary Photon.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, aren’t you the unequivocal one? “Nothing to see, here folks, move along, to your couches!” Katzenbach and Willens were arrogant, wrote their own legacies, to be etched on their tombstones. We merely point out their “ownership”.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Katzenbach_Memo.html
            “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.” -Katzenbach, November 25 1963

            Did not Katzenbach promote this man’s son to head the Criminal Division, and then send him to the Warren Commission?

            http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1962/03/06/page/1/article/release-list-of-coroners-special-aids
            RELEASE LIST OF CORONER’S SPECIAL AIDS
            ‎Chicago Tribune – Mar 6, 1962
            previously had refused to release the names on the ground that it might embarrass them. …Toman said he gave the Kor- ers deputy coroner s badges, with the authority to carry a gun, but insisted that they do not do anv work for his office…1434 N. Menard cv.; Jerome Wexler. 1506 Ashland cv.. River Forest. cnd Harold Wexler, 2914 Balmoral DV. Joseph Willens. 935 Franklin cv. .

            http://mobstersinthenews.blogspot.com/2014/09/mob-linked-river-forest-home-up-for-sale.html
            What sort of a man would deliberately move his wife to a residence immediately adjacent to the residence of Anthony and Clarice Accardo? The FBI thought this “arrangement” noteworthy.:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62237&relPageId=187
            deter- mined that the senior Mr. Willens was a next-door neighbor of Tony Accardo, prominent Chicago hoodlum. Mr. Willens was interviewed by the Bureau in…

            But the CIA included everything but the “neighborliness”.
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=110307&relPageId=4

            I know none of this is “what it looks like,” right, Photon. Joseph Willens is exempt, but not this
            next door neighbor?

            http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1966/03/12/page/1/article/mob-home-swindle-bared/index.html
            5 Indicted Linked with Three Top Hoods – March 12, 1966 pg. 2 lwr third column
            ….Detectives offer as evidence of Varelli’s stature in the mob the fact that he is a next door neighbor of Paul [The Waiter] Ricca, elder statesman of the Chicago Mafia.

          • Tom S. says:

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21140

            http://howardwillens.com/
            …from an entry in Willens’ journal from August 21, 1964.
            ….They suggest that the organization
            and the screening of these materials will take this long, but of course the principal interest here is making sure that sufficient time elapses before any real critics can get access to material other than those which the Commission desires to publish simultaneous with its report. Apparently the Chief Justice intends to talk with the National
            Archivist on this subject.

            Tom Scully, on 26 Nov 2011
            ….When (Samuel) Stern was giving the 1978 interview you posted, he had to be aware that in the year following the publishing of the WC report, Earl Warren chose the son of organized crime principal, Paul Ziffren as Warren’s law clerk.

            The CIA combined its “investigations” of Stern with Howard Willens, described as number 3 in the U.S. DOJ, with a troubling past including an arrest in 1947 on the charge of breaking street lights. Willens’s father, Joseph is of concern to the CIA because of his 1930 arrest on a minor charge, a 1940’s accusation of mortgage fraud, and his travels to South America, the Soviet Union and several Soviet bloc countries.

            Somehow the CIA did not include in its report, the fact that Willens’s father purchased the residence next door to Tony Accardo’s in 1958. :
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=110307&relPageId=3

            Howard Willens designed the organizational structure of the WC and of its investigative priorities, minimizing the need to fully investigate Jack Ruby’s Cuban connections:
            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15205&pid=237868&st=0&#entry237868

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18349&pid=237930&st=0&#entry237930

            Samuel Stern is Anaconda Copper’s counsel just 4 months before the coup in Chile that resulted in the death of the elected leader, Allende, and ushered in the 17 years long reign of terror of Gen. Pinochet.:

            http://www.google.co…iw=1280&bih=783
            Size of US Copper Profits in Chile Disputed Here; Procedures…
            – New York Times – May 5, 1973
            Shortly after, Samuel A. Stern of the Washington law firm of Wilmer, Cutler Pick – ering counsel for Anaconda, said he had “never heard those numbers for .

            Was Anaconda counsel and CIA asset Samuel A. Stern working hand in hand in South America with James Greene, who Stern must have remembered from his WC days?:
            http://www.google.co…facffac0e408c2c
            Unknown Diplomal Reconciles Peru, Companies .

            Palm Beach Post – Feb 10, 1974
            President Nixon appointed Greene In July to reach an nccomVnodatlon with Peru over its nationalization plans which put the Interests of the United States, …

            Quote

            http://www.jfk-assas…ol9/page278.php
            Warren Commission Hearings: Vol. IX – Page 278 «
            Mr. Jenner…Now, would you read the column to the right of those two columns?
            Mr. DEMOHRENSCHILDT. “Mr. C. J. Charles, honorary citizen of.. New York. Mr. Clemard Joseph Charles, president and director of the Bank Commercial of Haiti,.. has come back yesterday.. from a trip of 2 weeks in New York, and was accompanied by Mr. James R. Green, vice president of the Manufacturers Hanover Trust,
            ….

          • Bogman says:

            Tom – is the implication here that Willens’ dad was mob and that influenced the agenda and direction of the WC? Also not sure who Greene is and how he fits into this, especially with GdM.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bogman, Accardo continued to live next to Willens, Sr. for five years.
            On the one hand, the fact that Varelli was in 1966 the next door neighbor of retired mob boss Paul Ricca was offered by detectives as,

            evidence of Varelli’s stature in the mob

            …neither Willens’s father receiving a parking violations immunity pass and a weapon carry authorization for a “no show” deputy coroner’s “position” or his choice of residing next door to then mob boss Accardo, even prompted further investigation by Katzenbach, as he promoted Willens
            after the coroner’s 1962 disclosure and appointed him to the WC staff, or by the FBI, or by Lee Rankin. The CIA avoided these connections entirely, and so did almost all journalists and authors. At best, it conflicts with the best interests of the residents of the United State, for Willens to
            be elevated to number 3 at DOJ, head of the Criminal Division, with this “overhang” entirely uninvestigated any futher. Father, Jospeh Willens was not questioned again about the disclosure of the Coroner, after Joseph worried out loud to the FBI in 1961 that his hope was no negative judgment would be made in reaction to his choosing to reside next to Accardo. So, I cannot really answer your question because the FBI, Katzenbach, and Rankin ignored these conflicts, according to the record.

            https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/70005778/
            March 14, 1962
            …Two brothers, holders of Toman badges, were accused of using them in connection with the purchase of vehicle licenses in Melrose Park. They are Gary and Howard Korer of Skokie who turned, in their shields. Their father, whom Toman described as “a nice old guy,” kept his. Some of Toman’s deputies are newspaper reporters. One said the badge gives him access to news of value to the coroner…

            I posted only one example (above, in 1966) of the problem of being next door neighbor of Ricca, who was lower in stature than Accardo.

            1979, pg. 8- http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1979/01/30/page/1/article/new-snow-command-chief-tied-to-mob-figures
            ..In 1966, Varelli was the next-door neighbor of Paul “the Waiter” Ricca…

            Sec. 1 pg. 7 http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1967/07/19/
            July 19, 1967 ….Varelli, who is a next door neighbor of Paul “the Waiter” Ricca…

            We do not know what the relationship of Clemard Charles or George DeM was with James Greene, but since Jenner raised Greene’s name, and Willens’s WC co-counsel Samuel Stern’s immediate career overlapped with Greene’s assignments from Nixon, at least Jenner highlighted another puzzling feature.
            My core point was the Photon telegraphs that it is disgraceful and dishonorable to press these very flawed officials. I was around in ’63, and despite being younger than voting age, I would have more appreciated a 25 November pledge from Katzenbach to leave no stone unturned in presenting the truth behind what happened to President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, to the American people.
            Under the influence of Photon, I am wondering if it is disrespectful to veterans of the Pearl Harbor Attack, both living and dead, to approve any comments tomorrow critical of government or of government officials. After all, the right to be critical of government was not among the list of what the veterans of WWII were fighting to preserve and protect.

          • Photon says:

            Tom S. , what exactly is in Katzenbach’s memo that wasn’t true?
            You could interpret it another way-not calling for a conclusion on Oswald’s guilt, but for an open investigation that would confirm ( or call into question) Oswald’s guilt.He merely stated that without an official and thorough investigation the lack of a trial for Oswald precluded an official finding of guilt, despite the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the conclusions of the DPD, the FBI and the Secret Service. Unfortunately, despite three official investigations coming to the conclusion that all of the shots that hit JFK and Connolly came from Oswald .Some people will never be convinced.
            I remember seeing Katzenbach confronting Wallace-it was on TV live at the time, I believe.I do remember hearing comments of other viewers wondering who would shoot Katzenbach first-local Klan members or the cops behind Wallace. Some on this blog have no recollection of how high feelings were against the decision to force enrollment of the two black students. It took real guts and integrity to do what Katzenbach did-and in my mind completely destroys any slander that he would engage in a cover-up that would shield the murderer of the man he respected and honorably served, the brother of the man who entrusted him with this challenging assignment.
            If you have some evidence to the contrary, please post it.

          • Tom S. says:

            I’ve demonstrated that in the aggregate, Katzenbach was incompetent. Willens should not have been appointed head of DOJ Criminal Division, unless I’ve missed a full investigation of his father’s visible “issues”. I have not even touched here on the problem of Drew Pearson claiming that Hoover and Tom Clark were aware that Henry Crown was at least on the level of Accardo in Chicago organized crime hierarchy, and thus the inappropriate appointment and assignments of Crown’s personal attorney, Albert Jenner as WC assistant counsel. Related support comes from FBI surveillance of Gus Alex and Sidney Korshak’s intimate association of that very time, with Crown’s hand picked lieutenant, Patrick H. Hoy. All of these details were available to Katzenbach. Please present his reaction. This, for example, was published by Pearson October, 1963.:
            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15588&p=185918
            In 1971, Pearson’s stepson named the names described by Pearson as familiar in Chicago households…. Crown, Hilton, Walter Annenberg.:
            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13139&p=200375
            Impropriety, and even the appearance of it, should be scrupulously avoided, especially in an assassination investigation in which the alleged LN is gunned down on live national TV feed in the basement of the arresting agency’s HQ. Everything I’ve outlined and well documented makes your reaction, and spirited defense of Katzenbach’s judgment all the more troubling. Your reaction, in this instance, is not reasonable, considering the facts. If you can challenge my presentation of
            facts, I am sure you will.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            NO ONE involved in the WC and its investigation were “honorable men.” They were all politicians, intent on advancing their careers—see Ford and Specter if you need help. To claim that anyone, LBJ, JEH, Allen Dulles, were honorable is a disservice to men like Bill Clarke, a Vietnam veteran, who served this country with HONOR so people like LBJ and his buddies could make more money by killing innocent men, women and children.

          • Photon says:

            Gee Tom S, maybe Jack Kennedy shouldn’t have been elected President because his father had documented ties to organized crime figures. Or maybe Katzenbach’s superior RFK should never been appointed A.G. because as a high ranking functionary in JFK’s campaign he had to be aware of the use of Mob money to ensure JFK beat Hubert Humphrey in the West Virginia primary-again, probably at the behest of Joe.
            But even if Katzenbach was incompetent as you say, what does that have to do with his honesty and integrity?

          • “Jack Kennedy shouldn’t have been elected President because his father had documented ties to organized crime figures.”~Photon

            But Kennedy was elected President, and his brother Robert was named Attorney General. And one of Robert’s major contributions to history was his pursuing organized crime figures. Hounding them mercilessly.

            Which of course enraged the Mob, as they felt they had been “double-crossed”.

            And this becomes another factor in the murderous coup in Dallas.

            The entire industrialist class had ties with organized crime. Drugs, Prostitution, Money Laundering, gun running; all big BIG business.
            And there is no business but big business in Amerika.

            The “People” are as corrupt as their leadership who is the People’s “shining example”- thus this Psychopathic Society, which is based in murder, corruption, rape, enslavement, totalitarianism, torture and war.

            To be well adjusted to this system is to be a psychopath oneself.
            \\][//

  9. Fearfaxer says:

    A little background to this: Johnson and Hoover weren’t friends (people like that never really have friends), but they liked each other, got along well, and helped each other out over the years. Hoover was soon to face mandatory retirement, something no longer legal, on January 1, 1965 — his 70th birthday. Only Presidential intervention could override this. Johnson waived this requirement for Hoover just before he testified before the WC. . . .

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Ironic that Hoover, the ultraracist, when not speaking for the general public, sounds like he’s auditioning for a Louisiana minstrel show. Just what is with that accent? He was a DC native, had a stammer that he overcame with rapid-fire speech, but even given all that, the accent is weird. I’ve lived in the DC area for the last 20 years, you don’t hear anything like that here today, from anybody of any race. Old films of him in other venues, such as testifying before Congress, don’t feature any trace of the accent you hear in this recording.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Hoover keeps calling Ruby “Rubenstein,” quite telling. At approximately the 8 minute mark he claims the FBI has tied Oswald “into the Civil Liberties Union [sic] in New York”[.] No such connection was ever made, in fact Michael Paine tried to get Oswald interested in the ACLU, and claimed LHO had no idea what it was when he dragged him to a meeting.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          And shortly after that, Hoover mentions 3 shots were fired and Johnson asks “Any of them fired at me?” The very essence of narcissism.

          Discussion of which of the 3 bullets hit whom at approximately 8:50 — ironically funny in lieu of subsequent events.

          Hoover at 11 minutes in discussing Oswald’s flight from the TSBD to the Texas Theatre, sounds like a confused old man trying to remember which lie not to tell to which person he’s not supposed to tell it to.

          And over and over talking about the 5th floor being the place from which the shots were supposed to have been fired.

          Approx 12:50, Hoover is desperate to tie Oswald to the ACLU. He seems more excited about that than any other possible ties to Cuba, the USSR, or even the FPCC!

          Approx: 13:30, Hoover says Marina Oswald has been very hostile, but if she was assured she could stay in US “she might cooperate.” Anyone putting any credence in her WC testimony, please take note!!!!!

          15:30 — Hoover expressing astonishment that the Secreat Service has no armored cars! Followed by Hoover telling LBJ (in answer to his question about whether Hoover has any armored cars), about the splendid fleet of such vehicles he has at his disposal — all no doubt driven (as permanent assigned duty) by the only black agents Hoover allowed in the FBI.

          At 16:20 Hoover prattling on about how Presidential limos have only protection from underneath in case of hand grenades or bombs, and how this is so un-American, unlike Europeans, look at how they tried to kill de Gaulle, with bombs! — displaying his ignorance of the attempt on de Gaulle’s life, which was done by automatic weapons fire.

          About 17:40 — Hoover thinks LBJ should ride around his ranch in a bulletproof car.

          18:20 — Hoover says LBJ has to be “in the capacity, so-called, of a prisoner” with regard to security. A pertinent comment. That’s certainly what Presidents have been post-1970. Sad reflection on our society.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Video of Eisenhower’s reaction to JFK’s death. Ike looks stunned throughout, even given that he’d suffered a number of minor strokes at this point, his demeanor is one of a person who suspects something truly horrible has happened, and it’s shaken his faith in our country. He tries to mouth anodyne platitudes, but can’t generate the requisite enthusiasm. Rather chilling.

          • “Approx: 13:30, Hoover says Marina Oswald has been very hostile, but if she was assured she could stay in US “she might cooperate.” Anyone putting any credence in her WC testimony, please take note!!!!!”~Fearfaxer

            Aha indeed! And there we have it right from the mare’s rectum.
            \\][//

  10. McAdams did this on a thread I cannot locate at this moment:

    When we point out that an opponents argument is in fact an ‘Appeal to Authority, there are times when this is attempted to be thrown back in our face if we have cited experts in our arguments.

    However, there is a distinction between the concept of “experts” and “authorities”? The words are often used interchangeably, but there is an an important difference:

    noun, plural; AUTHORITIES:

    1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.

    2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization :
    Who has the authority to grant permission?

    3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency: The housing authority provides rental assistance payments to low-income residents.
    The bridges and piers are built and maintained by the Port Authority.

    4. Usually, authorities. persons having the legal power to make and enforce the law; government
    . . . . .
    EXPERTS:
    An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study.

    So you may make an appeal to authority as you just have, which is a common logical fallacy, but you can be assured that there are many experts who are not beholding to authority ie; government who agree with dissenting views on many topics.
    \\][//

    • theNewDanger says:

      REPOST: If he’s allowed near the Wehr Building, maybe a freshman alcoholic can walk him through ad verecundiam. It’s not just the WCR’s defender’s blind and uncritical acceptance of the WCR in their initial appeal to authority, it is the erroneous injection of that argument where the pretension of “authority” that is investigating (or not investigating themselves) are themselves subject to authority, especially in severe security failures; this renders the WCR defenders repetitious appeal to authority nothing more than argumentum ad verecundium. The self-defeating “X is F” evidentiary reasoning (over 7 wounds, pristine bullet; wide ranging target acquisition including Tague misfire, Tippit murder timing, etc.) renders the emitting conclusive authority, The Warren Commission, instantaneously impeached, as their conclusions were arrived upon using contrived evidence based on defeasible and inductive reasoning (sniper’s nest, SBT, etc) used to retroactively substantiate the ultimately desired conclusion (Lone assassin). They just weren’t good enough lie-yers.

      It isn’t conspiracy theorizing or conspiracy theory thinking – it is skepticism that the powers-that-shouldn’t-be find unwelcome based on the so-called “authority’s” claims that do not substantiate its conclusion(s) in this and other events that have caused major shifts in government policy coupled with shifts in corporate actions before, during, and/or after major events or periods of cataclysmic banker-engineered socioeconomic turmoil.

    • Fascista Amerikana in livery red, white, & blue
      The time hath come to feel the screw
      As it turns
      The brand as it burns the tumult that churns
      Come hither and bear thine neck
      The reed has slipped from the shaft
      The ax is in the headsman’s grip
      Time to take that grizzly trip

      (The Flower of Zanzibar)
      \\][//

  11. So after 118 comments and counting the Warren Commission Apologists have again spun the forum on yet another Carousel Ad Nauseam, wherein they have scratched and clawed at straw to keep from drowning in the actual rational interpretation of the data at hand.

    The entire argument here about WHO ordered the autopsy prosecutors not to dissect the back and throat wounds is moot: the essential point being, they were NOT dissected and therefore the assertion that a bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and exited his neck is simply conjecture. Because it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

    This is not to say that a reasonable person cannot read Col. Finck’s testimony and see that the doctors were ordered not to section the wounds. Finck may have been aware of the “family’s wishes” but he also testified that he and the other doctors were ordered not to section those wounds by someone he claims he cannot name. After all his resistance to admit the order was given, it is reasonable to assume that he knew or had a good idea, and that the officer that gave that direct order was NOT Admiral Burkley. That would have set the “family wishes” issue straight, but Finck did not do that. He wanted out of that hot seat, and he wanted out of reach of the perpetrators he knew were going to be furious and vengeful at his breach of their secrets.

    Regardless of the opinions that go around in circles here, there are these facts on record;

    >The back to throat bullet path remains conjecture.

    >The chain of custody of the Parkland Bullet connecting to CE399 is nonexistent.

    >The Z-film clearly shows John Connally upright and not wounded a good 3 to 4 seconds after Kennedy was shot in the throat.

    >The trajectory from the 6th floor window to Kennedy’s back wound at T3 is utterly impossible.

    >>ULTIMATE FACT, based on these integers: The Magic Bullet story is a fantasy. The Warren Commission Report collapses like a house of cards.
    \\][//

    • Sandy K. says:

      Willy, It’s been the same con game for 53 years. But technology and time are on the side of truth. The original cover-up bunch couldn’t foresee the Internet’s massive data base capability, today’s instant global communications or modern-day computerized forensics. The JFK con game will get busted. Sgt. Joe Friday sums it up in this classic clip as he speaks truth to a con man.

    • they were NOT dissected and therefore the assertion that a bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and exited his neck is simply conjecture. Because it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

      Let’s see:

      1. There was an entrance wound on Kennedy upper back at T1. It was known to be an entrance wound because it had an abrasion collar.

      2. There was a wound on Kennedy’s throat.

      3. No bullet was found in the body, either by examination or on the x-rays.

      4. The tip of the right lung was bruised.

      5. Fibers on the shirt collar were pushed outward.

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

      So put all that together.

      • “There was an entrance wound on Kennedy upper back at T1. It was known to be an entrance wound because it had an abrasion collar.”~John McAdams

        This is McAdams proximate point, which is not true, Kennedy’s back wound was at T3. So everything that follows in McAdams little list here is based on a falsehood and thus irrelevant.
        \\][//

        • theNewDanger says:

          Observing the shifting in my own skin while alive while sitting up vs. laying horizontal (I work out, stop it.), one of the possible mistakes in the evidence is assuming the entry wound on the back that occurred while JFK was sitting up is depicted in the exact same spot as seen in the back wound autopsy photo. Could “slippage” have an impact on where the wound appears to be located on the corpse in the autopsy photo versus where the back wound actually was when JFK received it while sitting up alive in the motorcade? A corpse with even minor slippage just a few hours after expiration would potentially have movement of the actual bullet entry location relative to the path of the subsequent internal injury, especially as dermal layers begin to lose oxygen from lack of blood circulation. Even when alive and awake, skin shifts on the body when horizontal versus when sitting up. If JFK’s body was moved around during the autopsy procedure or he was on his side or prostrate during the autopsy photo, could the skin on JFK’s body including that around the back wound have shifted and made it seem that the wound was even higher by a few centimeters than it actually was versus when JFK was sitting up straight in the motorcade when he received the back wound, thus obliterating the SBT? Too few photos taken from limited and terrible viewing angles … this autopsy seems to have been its own kind of turkey shoot. (MLK’s autopsy was pretty bad, too. There is a belief that he was shot from a roof to the right, not the rooming house from in front.)

  12. Fearfaxer says:

    “But since you buffs are constantly being put on the defensive for misrepresenting the evidence, you turn to abuse.”

    I’d like to point out that this John McAdams comment, a typical example of what he posts here, is the very essence of an ad hominem attack, a thing he claims to deplore.

  13. The Master of Leading a Witness, Mr Specter:

    Mr SPECTER: Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.

    First of all, assume that the President was struck by a a 6 mm. copper jacketed bullet from a rifle having a muscle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second at a .time when the President was approximately 160 to 250 feet from the weapon, with the President being struck from the rear at a downward angle of approximately 45 degrees, being struck on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula 14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromlon process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process.
    Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President
    striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior aspect of the President’s body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity, but bruising only the apex of the right pleural cavity and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung, then causing a hematoma to the right of the larynx which you have described, and creating a jagged wound in the trachea, then exiting precisely at the point where you observe the puncture wound to exist.
    Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion
    consistent with being an exit wound?”

    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/wh3_carrico.pdf

    \\][//

    • theNewDanger says:

      Christ! He’d be stopped after that first sentence.

      • Yea! That’s what happens when you cut a mad dog prosecutor loose on a mild mannered unsuspecting witness without a judge to restrain him.
        And as we read these WC interrogations, it is the same thing over and again — type of treatment one would find in a gulag situation. One almost expects the thumbscrews to be brought out!
        \\][//

    • Jean Davison says:

      Specter didn’t have to lead Carrico because Carrico had already told him that the throat wound could’ve been either an entrance or an exit.

      QUOTE:
      SPECTER – Do you have an opinion, Dr. Carrico, as to the cause of the punctate wound in the President’s throat?
      Dr. CARRICO – No; I really don’t—just on the basis of what I know. […]
      Mr. SPECTER – Was there any discussion among the doctors who attended President Kennedy as to the cause of the neck wound?
      Dr. CARRICO – Yes; after that afternoon.
      Mr. SPECTER – And what conversations were there?
      Dr. CARRICO – As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after—later in the afternoon to determine what exactly had happened, and we were not aware of the missile wound to the back, and postulated that this was either a tangential wound from a fragment, possibly another entrance wound. It could have been an exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.
      Mr. SPECTER – Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?
      Dr. CARRICO – Yes.
      Mr. SPECTER – Or, did it look to be more one than the other?
      Dr. CARRICO – No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck.
      UNQUOTE

      That’s when Specter asked the question you quoted, listing the size and velocity of the missile and the tissues it struck.

      Mr. SPECTER – Dr. Carrico, assume these facts, if you will—first, that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5-mm. missile which entered the upper-right posterior thorax, just above the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion, a-c-r-o-m-i-o-n (spelling) process, and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, and that the missile traveled between two strap muscles…,” etc.

      By the way, notice where Specter placed the back wound: upper-right posterior thorax… 14cm below the mastoid process. That’s not “neck.”

      • leslie sharp says:

        ‘Specter didn’t have to lead Carrico because Carrico had already told him that the throat wound could’ve been either an entrance or an exit.’ — Jean Davison

        Are you kidding?

        Then why didn’t Specter posit in a similarly measured approach – (a highly informed approach in spite of the fact that Specter was an attorney not a physician or forensics expert) the possibility that it was an entrance wound, just for good measure? And why didn’t Specter pursue Carrico’s earlier statement that the head wound was not tended because Kennedy’s respiration was obviously compromised. No where in Carrico’s testimony does he suggest the head wound was not a significant consideration, nor does he suggest there was a hair screen that prevented them from realizing just how serious the wound was. Let’s get real here, Jean.

      • “By the way, notice where Specter placed the back wound: upper-right posterior thorax… 14cm below the mastoid process. That’s not “neck.”~Jean Davison

        It is also not where the wound was actually located, that being at the level of the T3 vertebrae.
        \\][//

      • “Specter didn’t have to lead Carrico because Carrico had already told him that the throat wound could’ve been either an entrance or an exit.”Jean Davison

        Yes he DID lead Carrico, because Carrico said it could be either initially, only after Spector’s leading instructions to the witness did Carrico agree that it was a wound of exit. This is IN FACT a change of his original testimony.

        As NewDanger and I both point out, this type of interrogation would never be allowed in a court of law with a fair judge managing the lawyers properly.
        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          Willy,

          “…only after Spector’s leading instructions to the witness did Carrico agree that it was a wound of exit.”

          No, he did not say it was a wound of exit, he said, “I certainly think it could.”

          Besides, Carrico’s opinion is not dispositive — remember the “coin flip” odds that ER doctors get it right?

          We should be looking for the most plausible explanation here. With an entrance wound in the back, another wound in the front, no bullet in between, and testimony from firearms experts that a rifle bullet would’ve transited the body, what is the most likely solution?

          • “and testimony from firearms experts that a rifle bullet would’ve transited the body, what is the most likely solution?”~Jean Davison

            The most likely solution is that it was a frangible bullet – that no one seemed to consider as they were all hung up on the idea that the bullet was CE399.

            But we KNOW that the Parkland Bullet was not CE399, and that the bullet in evidence must be a plant.

            So the most likely solution is that the official narrative is utter BS.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            “remember the “coin flip” odds that ER doctors get it right?”

            Can your side have it both ways, Jean. Previously the argument has been that ER docs cannot be relied upon to understand gunshot wounds. Yet with a little help from an attorney – who by the way was not a physician nor was he a forensics expert yet he was leading this witness with apparent expertise in both disciplines – Mr. Specter gleaned that Carrico’s acquiescence to his version of the throat wound was enough to “move along” with the single bullet theory in the weeks and months ahead. A house built on sand.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “The most likely solution is that it was a frangible bullet …”

            “It”? What about the other wound? Was that another frangible bullet? Is it your theory that they meet in the middle and poof! they’re gone?

            Frangible bullets don’t disappear according to photos on this site:

            http://www.arizonaammunition.net/50bmg-general/detailed-info/frangibl

            “But we KNOW that the Parkland Bullet was not CE399, and that the bullet in evidence must be a plant.”

            “We” know no such thing.

          • “But we KNOW that the Parkland Bullet was not CE399, and that the bullet in evidence must be a plant.”~Jean quoting me

            “We” know no such thing.”~Jean Davison

            That’s right Jean, the “We” that know the bullet in evidence is a plant, are the “We” that can analyze the evidence rationally.

            The other “we”, are those of you who are in denial over the facts and their obvious indications.
            \\][//

        • Yet with a little help from an attorney . . . Mr. Specter gleaned that Carrico’s acquiescence to his version of the throat wound was enough to “move along” with the single bullet theory

          It’s not “having it both ways” unless somebody says that Carrico was a wound ballistics expert. You folks make the doctors out to be such when convenient.

          Spector should not have been asking the ER doctors wound ballistics questions.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Carrico’s lack of resistance has been used to argue the single bullet theory. His acquiescence to Specter’s theory provided attorney Specter with momentum. Whether or not Carrico was a wound ballistics expert is not in question, it’s using him when it’s convenient that is obnoxious. Specter’s introduction of facts that apparently came from – whom? – and used to ‘lead the witness’ is at issue. Then Caricco doesn’t challenge Specter that having observed the wound, it was quite possible it was one of entry . . . and Specter begins to kick the can down the road. What a disservice he was to our democracy.

          • leslie sharp says:

            apologies, some misspellings in my haste. Read: Carrico and Spector.

  14. Here is another strange situation. Not one of Specter leading the witness during actual questioning, but one where seemingly, Dr Perry was coached to misrepresent what he had actually said that press conference at Parkland on 11/22/1963:
    * * *

    Mr. SPECTER. Did you participate in a press conference or press conferences
    following the death of the President?
    Dr. PERRY. Yes.
    […]
    Mr. SPECTER:Well, what questions were asked of you and what responses did you give at that press conference?
    Dr. PERRY :Well, there were numerous questions asked, all the questions of course I cannot remember of course. Specifically, the thing that seemed to be of most interest at that point was actually trying to get me to speculate as to direction of the bullets, the number of bullets, and the exact cause of death.
    “I did not know, if there were one or two bullets, and I could not categorically state about the nature of the neck wound, whether it was an entrance or an exit wound, not having examined the President further- I could not comment on any other injuries.”
    http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Perry.pdf
    * * * * * * * *
    Of course the actual video of that interview has gone missing. However there is a transcript available in which Dr Perry in fact gives his opinion that the neck wound was one of entrance. He repeats this twice:

    QUESTION-
    Where was the entrance wound?
    DR. MALCOLM PERRY-
    There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
    QUESTION-
    Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
    DR. MALCOM PERRY-
    It appeared to be coming at him.

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm
    \\][//

    • Photon says:

      So what do you want Willy? Perry obviously did not feel that the impressions that he gave during the first press conference were definitive and always felt that they were misinterpreted by a medically ignorant press. He was reluctant to give any further statements on this matter-those that he did were few and far between. Even Kemp Clark commented later on Perry’s reluctance to talk to the press after the first conference. While the neck wound certainly looked like an entrance wound initially , the fact that Perry and everybody else in Dallas were totally ignorant of JFK’s back wound makes Perry’s comment what it is -a speculative statement based on a rushed interpretation of a wound that was obliterated within seconds of Perry’s initial exam. Had he known of the back wound I doubt that he would have ever commented on whether it was an entrance or exit wound. Being a neophyte in front of the Press didn’t help the situation-as Perry later admitted he “learned a lot” about press reports that day and by the time of the next press conference said little further.

      • Tom S. says:

        Photon, did Dr. Perry make ALL evidence of his and Dr. Kemp’s 22 Nov. remarks inaccessible for thirteen years?

        http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/clark_w.htm
        ……
        SPECTER – Were you a part of any press conference which followed on the day of the assassination?
        Dr. CLARK – Yes sir; I was.
        SPECTER – And who made the arrangements for the press conference?
        Dr. CLARK – Mr. Malcolm Kilduff, the Presidential press secretary.
        SPECTER – At what time did the press conference occur?
        Dr. CLARK – Approximately 2:30.
        SPECTER – Where was it held?
        Dr. CLARK – It was held in room 101-102, Parkland Hospital.
        SPECTER – What mechanical instruments were used, if any, by the press at the conference?
        Dr. CLARK – Tape recorders and television cameras, as well as the usual note pads and pencils, and so forth.
        SPECTER – And who was interviewed during the course of the press conference and photographed?
        Dr. CLARK – Dr. Malcolm Perry and myself.
        SPECTER – No one else?
        Dr. CLARK – No.
        SPECTER – What, if anything, did you say then in the course of that press conference?
        Dr. CLARK – I described the President’s wound in his head in very much the same way as I have described it here. I was asked if this wound was an entrance wound, an exit wound, or what, and I said it could be an exit wound, but I felt it was a tangential wound.
        ………..
        SPECTER – Did you describe at that time what you meant by “tangential”?
        Dr. CLARK – Yes, sir; I did.
        SPECTER – What definition of “tangential” did you make at that time?
        Dr. CLARK – As I remember, I defined the word “tangential” as being—striking an object obliquely, not squarely…
        SPECTER – Now, referring back to the press conference, did you define a tangential wound at that time?
        Dr. CLARK – Yes.
        SPECTER – And what else did you state at the press conference at 2:30 on November 22?
        Dr. CLARK – I stated that the President had lost considerable blood, …….
        …….
        SPECTER – What did Dr. Perry say at that time, during the course of that press conference, when the cameras were operating?
        Dr. CLARK – As I recall, Dr. Perry stated that there was a small wound h the President’s throat, that he made the incision for the tracheotomy through this wound. He discovered that the trachea was deviated so he felt that the missile had entered the President’s chest. He asked for chest tubes then to be placed in the pleural cavities. He was asked if this wound in the throat was an entrance wound or an exit wound. He said it was small and clean so it could have been an entrance wound.
        SPECTER – Did he say anything else that you can recollect now in response to the question of whether it was a wound of entrance or exit?
        Dr. CLARK – No, sir; I cannot recall.
        ………
        SPECTER – Going back to the first press conference for just a minute, which television networks were involved on that?
        Dr. CLARK – Without sounding facetious, everyone, including some I had never heard of.
        SPECTER – Can you recollect any besides the three major networks–..?
        Dr. CLARK – This is all I remember. I remember seeing in the room two reporters from Dallas newspapers whom I know and the radio and television stations were also present.

      • “So what do you want Willy?”~Photon

        I want the truth Photon. What do YOU want?

        Dr Perry stated twice that the wound to the throat was an entrance wound. He is one of only two people in the world to have seen that wound close up.

        You and your gang can “huff and puff” as McAdams would say, as much as you like about how “unreliable” ER physicians are in recognizing entry verses exit wounds; but the fact is that Dr Perry had experience with up to 200 bullet wound patients at the time of his testimony.

        I am, as well as others here are, quite sick and tired of your pretenses here as some sort of “medical expert”. I am equally as fed up with the pretense that you are a reasonable and critical thinker.

        Your agenda is quite clear to anyone with two neurons to click together. You’re as phony as a copper quarter.
        \\][//

    • Jean Davison says:

      Dr. Perry didn’t have to be coached to walk back his “entrance wound” comment. At the time he made it he had no idea there was a corresponding entrance wound on JFK’s back. Later Perry may well have put two and two together — one entrance, one exit, no bullet in between — and realized his mistake.

      Specter didn’t need the ER doctors’ opinions to come up with the SBT.

      “Of course the actual video of that interview has gone missing.”

      No, there never was a video of the Parkland doctors press conference. I found this informative post by the late Gary Mack that begins:

      “While the absence of any recordings of the 2:18pm Perry-Clark press conference is disappointing, there is information that explains why.

      First, …. there were NO live cameras in that room. Here’s why:”

      https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topicsearchin/alt.assassination.jfk/parkland$20AND$20news$20AND$20conference$20AND$20tv$20AND$20authorname$3A%22Gary$20Mack%22/alt.assassination.jfk/bRJ690ZcAUg

      • “there were NO live cameras in that room.”~Jean Davison

        If this article really tells the tale that is true, and that is a big if considering it comes from Gary Mack.

        Second point Dr Perry describes reporters with microphones pointed at him. Whether there were TV cameras or not, there are still tape recorders as standard gear for newsman of the day.

        If you wish to pretend that the transcript of this news conference is simply fraudulent, that is your own biased opinion to hold. I would find that as preposterous as much of what you produce on these pages.
        \\][//

  15. Paul Turner says:

    John, in an above post you said “The Maddox was really attacked”. Yes, but not any more seriously than,say, JFK’s PT 109. In fact, I’d say it was less serious of an attack than that. Yet LBJ felt that was enough for him to begin the policy of soldier escalation in Vietnam. (I’ll grant that the CIA had a lot to say in the matter. but LBJ, not the CIA, was the Commander in Chief.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      Paul,

      Well said. This “attack” was enough to draw LBJ into a “war” that would eventually claim 3 to 4 million lives, depending on what you read.

      Mr. McAdams, I notice you are, again, curiously silent on why a small skirmish would lead our “honest” leader to engage a country in a war with such devastating consequences?

      Oh, wait, I shall play along. It was the “domino theory.” No! They wanted to play dominoes and the North Vietnamese wanted to play checkers. No, wait. We wanted to play badminton, and they wanted marbles?

      Whatever you want to believe is fine, John. The TRUTH of the matter is was an excuse for American military suppliers—read Bechtel—to make ENORMOUS sums of money.

      Mr. McAdams, remind me, where is that policy making idea in the constitution?

    • You disagree with LBJ, fine.

      But don’t say the attack didn’t happen.

      And don’t say the government’s claim of an attack was a lie.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        I will say it was a LIE, because it WAS a LIE! I will also say a “skirmish” that may or may not have happened that caused us to go to WAR is a CRIME against democracy.

        YOU may stick your head in the sand as much as you want. I will NOT. You are being disingenuous, and you know it.

        The Vietnam War was fought as a lie by LIARS. If you choose to put your trust in LIARS, please feel free.

  16. theNewDanger says:

    Words from “The Art of War” seem appropriate for nearly every event/development in the past 500 years that has had an impact on individuals when it comes to what agenda rules (because what agenda rules is what collectivist -ocracy/-ism governments are about):

    “Now the reason the enlightened prince and the wise general conquer the enemy whenever they move and their achievements surpass those of ordinary men is foreknowledge.

    • enlightened prince = Warburg; FDR/Churchill; Ford/Dulles/LBJ/Hoover; Rockefeller/BIS; Saud Family;
    • wise general = US MIC;UN;NATO;BIS/City of London/Federal Reserve;friends of the TPP/TTIP/TISA/GATT/NAFTA;LBJ/Hoover/Permindex
    • “their achievements” = blind acceptance (MSM) of the wise general’s narrative (not the actual assassinations or causes for war themselves)
    • “ordinary men” = Louis McFadden; JFK; MLK; Smedley Butler; people who think; people against whatever collectivist “-ocracy” or “ism”-based farce is being used to inflation-enslave and sustainably “grow” or “develop” (i.e. take control over) individuals’ local lands

    I take leave of this diatribe with this interesting quote regarding the MSM/McAdams/”the unquestioning, willfully blind” from Network:

    “The world is a business, Mr. Beale. It has been since man crawled out of the slime. And our children will live, Mr. Beale, to see that… perfect world… in which there’s no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company, for whom all men will work to serve a common profit, in which all men will hold a share of stock. All necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused. And I have chosen you, Mr. Beale, to preach this evangel

    Howard Beale: Why me?

    Arthur Jensen: Because you’re on television, dummy.” .

    • theNewDanger says:

      Prior to that last quote was this important understanding that may have been satire for the film, but has been true since the OSS began injecting citizen saboteurs worldwide that the CIA recently brags about being a useful method for destabilization:

      Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it! Is that clear? You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU… WILL… ATONE! Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale? You get up on your little twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their councils of state, Karl Marx? They get out their linear programming charts, statistical decision theories, minimax solutions, and compute the price-cost probabilities of their transactions and investments, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, inexorably determined by the immutable bylaws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale.

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