Reporter’s tape exposes Bill O’Reilly’s big JFK fib


In which CNN picks up on a JFK Facts story.

63 comments

  1. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Sadly, CNN only published less that 5 minutes of a 30 minute program in their YouTube channel. That is what you can see above. The part where Jeff mentions JFK Facts ended up on the floor of the editing room.

    Fortunately, some folks worked on getting the full program for you, which is split in segments (by interviewee) below.

    Thanks again, Marie!!

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

    Jeff Morley (JFK Facts):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfMqxgIVMoQ

    Prof. Jay Rosen (Columbia University):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Ux5rdBu1c

    Senator Al Franken:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rJ7JZyLQjs

    Amanda Terkel:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCYR91BHb4Q

    Bonus
    Jon Stewart:

  2. Will says:

    The poor anchor butchered GDM’s name. Good work exposing the lie here. Mr. O’Reilly thought he was in the clear to insert himself into the historical record and provide further validation for his “authority” on the subject. Well… Not so fast my friend….. Epic JFK Fail!

    • Tom S. says:

      Ramon, if you want Will to present more details to you about his website, why not click on his name and submit your questions to him in the contact box in the bottom right corner of his webpage?

      (IOW, is there anyone submitting a comment lately to this discussion who actually has anything to present or reply to related to, “Reporter’s tape exposes Bill O’Reilly’s big JFK fib” ?)

  3. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Jeff, I’ve loved that picture of O’Liely since you used it a year or so ago. With the play icon right over his nose and his grin he looks like a circus clown with a ball on his nose. And he’s certainly part of a circus.
    Ramon, thanks for the breakdown. I’ll watch these tonight after work.

  4. J.D. says:

    I’m curious if anyone here has read O’Reilly’s JFK book. I flipped through it a few months ago at Target. It certainly reads briskly enough, and the writing is infused with enough of O’Reilly’s characteristic obnoxiousness that I can believe he wrote at least some of it. I didn’t come across any obvious errors while skimming. But there’s absolutely no evidence that either of the authors did any real work. No interviews, nothing from any archives, just a lot of borrowing from other books — most of which are still in print. And The New York Times not only reviewed this book, they actually gave it a mildly favorable review!

    On a lighter note: When I first read the Warren Report, I was a little incredulous that so much space was devoted to a history of the founding of the Secret Service, dating back to Civil War days. Good to know, but why in the world would you include that in such a report, unless you were simply trying to fill up space? Lo and behold, O’Reilly lists this section of the Report as one of his major sources of information. I’m glad somebody got some use out of it.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      JD, thank you for the laugh at a memory, not to disrespect the point of your post but.. It’s been a year or so since I told this story so previous reader please forgive my re-posting. “When I first read the Warren Report” (Omission). In my case the Associated Press 366 page version, found in a old house about to be torn down then given to me by my mother in law…
      When I got near the end and it said Jack Ruby had no connections to organized crime I threw the book at the wall. And it laid there two or three days.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I had read Seth Kantor’s “The Ruby Cover Up” (still available on amazon) and a few other magazine and newspaper articles by then. Which contradicted the esteemed conclusions of the Supreme Court Justice and his Presidential C,Omission. With a personal account.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      J.D.:

      Speaking of O’Reilly’s book…

      I had a proto-project, which never took off for lack of proper support. I mentioned it to Jeff, I tried to pitch it to the Democrats (where is Soros when you need him!!??) and to Politico. The objective was to determine in a scientific way that the voice in the recording was indeed O’Reilly’s, in a permanent web site.

      There are a several voice samples taken from the oral edition of BillO’s book by Audible.com:

      http://goo.gl/Cqrqdx

      Notice for instance “Jackie’s Sex” (under “Rated X”).

      I also acquired the domain “Killing-OReilly.com” as form of retaliation, since his objective (“Killing Kennedy”) is character assassination against the Kennedys.

      http://www.killing-oreilly.com/

      What I intended to implement was a shot across the bow to the Far Right, a warning, a way of telling them:

      • “Science and full disclosure are on MY side, buddy!”

      • “You are waaaay out of your league.”
      (The GOP being evolution and climate deniers)

      and

      • “We are watching you and your lies will be exposed”.

      Jeff was not very interested in pursuing something that can be seen by some as a personal vendetta. He close the blog’s window to the O’Reilly’s criticism and Marie Fonzi persuaded me to leave that rat (my words, not hers) alone. She encouraged me to channel my creative and technical skills, to pursue this other, RELATED project (as you know the cause closest to her heart is children’s education):

      https://www.amazon.com/Geography-Bee-Marie-Fonzi-ebook/dp/B00XEUWCMM/ref=sr_1_2#navbar

      Children’s Playground:
      http://goo.gl/6mzBc2

      It is some sort of Children’s Museum, where kids would learn that studying math & science (STEM) they can do fun stuff such as determining the famous person behind a voice.

    • RobH says:

      You could read O’Reilly’s book, but why would you want to?

      I believe the best strategy in dealing with WC apologists is to simply establish its dishonesty or how it lied regarding fundamental facts in the case. For example, its bogus claim that there was no credible testimony of shots coming anywhere but from behind. Or its acceptance of the single bullet theory despite its rejection by the Army ballistics witnesses. The Commission brazenly lied regarding Helen Markham’s “positive identification” of Oswald. But its worst offense occurred when Jack Ruby began to open up in Volume V, p. 191-198. Ruby asked to be taken back to Washington, the only place he felt safe to reveal all he knew. Earl Warren responded it couldn’t be done. Since the Commission had subpoena power, that was also a brazen lie. Ruby went on to say Oswald wasn’t guilty of assassinating JFK, but he (Ruby) was. He said an organization was involved and he named General Walker as one of its top leaders. Ruby paused and asked Warren if he understood what he was saying. And Warren had the audacity to say he didn’t. A thirteen year-old would have known what Ruby was saying. At that point, Ruby trailed off into irrelevant subjects and Warren never came back to ask further on his earlier explosive remarks. That moment was the death of the Commission. It’s credibility was shattered beyond repair.

      Put these facts before the apologists and make them squirm. There is no defense here. It’s pretty much check and mate. Because it clearly shows a cover-up, which in itself is a conspiracy to conceal the truth.

  5. Interesting issue here: if we are going to let Robert Tanenbaum off the hook as having a “false memory” of Phillips walking out of a hearing (as Jean Davison has suggested), will we let O’Reilly off the hook on the same grounds?

    While we are at it, how about Brian Williams? And Hillary’s coming under sniper fire in Bosnia?

    The view from psychology is that false memories are much more likely and possible than most people think. Indeed, Duncan Ford and Mark Zaid have suggested that even Jean Hill’s latter-day tales may have been sincere false memories, and not lies:

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

    • JSA says:

      It’s one thing to have false memories, which happen, and are supported by academics (like those who also accept evolution and global warming btw). But when your false memory gets called out, and is disproven, the responsible thing to do is admit that you are wrong. Eh, professor?

      Bill O’Reilly should have issued a statement admitting that he was wrong. The fact that he didn’t speaks volumes about his credibility.

      Finally, why are people so hell-bound about always being “right” about the JFK assassination. Is there something corrupt to defend, like the tobacco and oil lobbies have? Good historians work to find the truth, however inconvenient it might be to their pet theories or beliefs. A rational person doesn’t cling to weak theories that don’t hold up to scientific or historical review. Like clinging to global warming denial, which is ridiculous!

      • Bill O’Reilly should have issued a statement admitting that he was wrong.

        I agree. And so should Hillary about the “sniper fire” in Bosnia. And Tannenbaum about Phillips walking out.

        Finally, why are people so hell-bound about always being “right” about the JFK assassination. Is there something corrupt to defend, like the tobacco and oil lobbies have?

        Is there some something corrupt you buffs are defending, since you seem too hell-bound about always being “right?”

        And speaking of something corrupt, is there something corrupt about the global warming agenda you folks are intent on defending?

        Are you embarrassed, for example, that all the models of global warming in the 1990s radically overestimated warming?

        Is this embarrassing?

        • JSA says:

          Nope. No more than the Piltdown Man hoax, which didn’t convince me that evolution was not happening. It just revealed that critical thinking should always be part of the scientific method.

          “And speaking of something corrupt, is there something corrupt about the global warming agenda you folks are intent on defending?”

          What would that agenda be, John? Was it an “agenda” which convinced the Surgeon General to warn of the dangers of tobacco smoking in 1964?

          I think you are confusing politics (liberals “bad”, conservatives “good”) with people’s natural desire to find the truth, even if it happens to inconvenience those who have had a little too much “Koch-A-Cola” at the Heartland Institute’s punchbowl.

          http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june-record-world/
          Embarrassed? Why don’t you just admit when you are wrong?
          It won’t kill you.

          • Nope. No more than the Piltdown Man hoax, which didn’t convince me that evolution was not happening. It just revealed that critical thinking should always be part of the scientific method.

            There have been way more embarrassments with “global warming” than with evolution.

            How about this:

            PICKING up where a high-school chemistry class might end, “Nova,” the public-broadcasting science series, offers the nonmatriculating viewer an advanced course in worrying. The cause of the concern is all the carbon dioxide that’s being pumped into the industrialized and motorized air. The hourlong broadcast is called “The Climate Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect,” at 9 tonight on Channel 13.

            The conclusion, conveyed with great authority by several big-league climatologists from government and private research organizations, is terrible: by the year 2000, the atmosphere and weather will grow warmer by several degrees and life – animal, plant, human – will be threatened. The experts say that melting ice caps, flooded cities, droughts in the corn belt and famine in the third world could result if the earth’s mean temperature rises by a mere two or three degrees.

            From the New York Times, June 24, 1986.

            Then there is the question of why no global warming for the page 18 years:

            https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png

            Was it an “agenda” which convinced the Surgeon General to warn of the dangers of tobacco smoking in 1964?

            No, but what does that have to do with global warming?

          • JSA says:

            “Then there is the question of why no global warming for the page 18 years:

            https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-xAdiohdkcU4/VjpSKNYP9SI/AAAAAAACa8Q/639el4qIzpM/s720-Ic42/monckton1.png”
            ———————

            Debunked!
            http://phys.org/news/2016-03-revamped-satellite-global.html

            Ted Cruz tried that faith-based argument, but the satellite data shot that lame argument down faster than you can say: “Vote your conscience.”

            As for the tobacco argument, it has validity because the lines of attack that were made by the marketers of cancer sticks (trying to keep their pockets lined with profits) were also used by the fossil fuel lobbyists, who were also trying to deny the hard science so they could continue making money. It’s all about the money, professor.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/what_climate_denial_has_learnt_from_tobacco_denial.html

            https://climatesight.org/2009/08/17/a-well-documented-strategy/

            Do you actually READ the scientific links I send you, or are you just being intellectually lazy and skimming them, John? If you read the links you will have to admit that your argument about climate science is laughably out of date and holds no scientific merit.

            With your rigid head in the sand denial about climate change I have to wonder whether your mind is flexible and open enough to study the JFK assassination in an honest way. I don’t have a dog in this fight, and in fact my own father was part of the military system to install nuclear weapons overseas for this country. I have zero books or articles for sale. When I was an undergraduate I was more interested in “young muff” than “buff” things. But it was my intellectual curiosity and open mind that led me to question the JFK assassination, while still maintaining the idea that it still might have been Oswald acting alone. The problem with the lone nut line was, people kept appearing out of the woodwork who saw or participated in some way in a cover up, which (as I kept my mind and eyes open) led me to question the political review of the original Warren Commission.

        • Gary Aguilar, says:

          JSA:

          “But when your false memory gets called out, and is disproven, the responsible thing to do is admit that you are wrong. Eh, professor?”

          McA: “I agree.”

          What a riot!

          McA has yet to admit he was consistently wrong factually on so many issues in his book. http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Aguilar.html
          http://www.ctka.net/reviews/McAdams_Mantik.html

          That includes his claim I was deceitful in not including Clint Hill’s alleged statement to National Geographic in my compilation of witness descriptions of Kennedy’s skull wound. My compilation was prepared 10 years before Hill’s alleged National Geographic comments! Apparently McA believes I should have imagined what Hill may later say, if in fact McA’s right about what he told Natl. Geographic, which isn’t certain.

          Being a Warren loyalist, a government loyalist – whether O’Reilly or McAdams – means never having to say one was in error.

          But like O’Reilly, McA is pretty typical for a right-winger. He’ll support any kind of wacky nonsense dear to the hearts of rightists, particularly the hearts of the anti-warmist, oil and gas Koch brothers.

          The Kochs have funded second-rate scientists who pushed skepticism about the dangers of tobacco:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/tobacco-dark-money-norquist-koch-brothers

          The Kochs funded second-rate scientists [http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract] via the Heartland Institute and other outfits to “refute” Global warming. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VvCeIfkrLIUhttp://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/global-warming-skeptic.html#.VvCeIfkrLIU

          The Kochs funded Lone Nutterism: “Fred Koch then helped spearhead a national advertisement in the New York Times blaming Kennedy’s assassination on the communists – See more at:http://www.progressive.org/news/2014/07/187769/his-dad-charles-koch-was-bircher-new-documents#sthash.amKm2B28.dpuf“

          The Koch’s funded the Lone Nutter NOVA show McA was on that showcased Messrs. Lucien and Michael Haag, and Mr. Larry Sturdivan. These are guys who still refuse to admit that vastly better credentialed NAA authorities than Sturdivan or Ken Rahn, Ph.D., Drs. Randich and Grant, and vastly better statisticians, Professor Spiegelman et al, have demolished Vince Guinn’s claims about NAA and JFK. Though you’ll never hear it from McA, in recent “peer-reviewed” articles, Haag and Sturdivan have doubled down on embracing Guinn’s demolished NAA. https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Is_Vincent_Bugliosi_Right_that_Neutron_Activation_Analysis_Proves_Oswalds_Guilt.html

          When there’s a wacky right-wing position to defend, the Kochs are there, and McA’s right there with them, since he’s a “Heartland Institute expert.https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams

          Ya just can’t make this stuff up!

          Gary

          • The Kochs have funded second-rate scientists who pushed skepticism about the dangers of tobacco:http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/tobacco-dark-money-norquist-koch-brothers

            The article doesn’t say any such thing. It just talks about tobacco companies giving to conservative groups.

            The word “scientists” doesn’t even appear in the article.

            When there’s a wacky right-wing position to defend, the Kochs are there, and McA’s right there with them, since he’s a “Heartland Institute expert.https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams

            Thank you for admitting that this is all about politics for you.

            You are a leftist who hates conservatives, so you claim any opinion you dislike is some sort of conservative conspiracy.

            But haven’t you noticed that, where the JFK assassination is concerned, I’m on the same side as the liberal Mainstream Media?

            You crazy leftists are out on the fringe, although with some crazy righties like World Net Daily and Lou Rockwell.

          • J.D. says:

            Out of curiosity, Professor McAdams, if we’re all a bunch of “crazy leftists,” why do you waste your time arguing with us? If you’ve already solved the case and put every single mystery to rest, what more is there to discuss?

            Incidentally, most of the self-professed “leftists” I’ve talked to roll their eyes when someone brings up JFK. The vast majority of people who get their news from The Nation, Noam Chomsky, Counterpunch, Howard Zinn, Z Magazine, and other “left” sources think of JFK as just another “imperialist.”

          • Incidentally, most of the self-professed “leftists” I’ve talked to roll their eyes when someone brings up JFK. The vast majority of people who get their news from The Nation, Noam Chomsky, Counterpunch, Howard Zinn, Z Magazine, and other “left” sources think of JFK as just another “imperialist.”

            Don’t tell Gary this, or he’ll insist that the Kochs fund all of those folks too.

          • Gary Aguilar, says:

            One of the greater ironies of NOVA’s “scientific” exploration of the JFK case is that McAdams doesn’t agree with two of the other experts who were also on the show with him regarding a key point: where the fatal bullet hit JFK in the head.

            Mr. Larry Sturdivan and Dr. Peter Cummings say the bullet hit JFK low in the skull, not high, where the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission’s “experts” and the HSCA’s forensic panel said it hit.

            This goes back to when John Canal and Parkland neurosurgeon Robert Grossman decided that the autopsy surgeons were right after all, and that all the grand poobah experts were wrong: the bullet entered JFK’s skull low, in occipital bone, and not ~100mm higher in Parietal bone as per the grandees, and McA and Haag.

            Sturdivan goes with John Canal on low entry in his book, ‘JFK Myths.’ And on NOVA, Dr. Cummings points out that the fracture patterns on JFK’s X-rays are inconsistent with a high shot. It had to have been low, says Cummings: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/regionals/north/2013/11/21/years-later-beverly-forensic-pathologist-examines-evidence-jfk-assassination/p2uA8QQEAQN8Y2qaZMNCyJ/story.html AND https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpOj905HQOg

            Dr. Cummings doesn’t explain how that high trail of fragments ended up more than 100mm higher than the inshoot, a nettlesome fact given that tiny fragments don’t move much in tissue due to the explanation Sturdivan has repeatedly given: tiny frags have a high surface area to mass, and so a very high “drag coefficient” in tissue. (See the discussion we published in the Journal of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners, here: http://www.ctka.net/2016/tv-review-nova/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

            Another irony is that NOVA star Lucien Haag, who doesn’t know how to read X-rays, but who buys just about everything Larry Sturdivan says, despite the fact Sturdivan doesn’t know how to read X-rays either, apparently sides AGAINST fellow “NOVAn,” Sturdivan, and with the high-inshoot scenario.

            A 100mm difference in the inshoot of a bullet to the skull isn’t exactly a trivial matter. But it was too trivial for NOVA to address it, or even acknowledge that McA and Haag thought Sturdivan and Cummings were daft, and visa versa.

          • Dr. Cummings doesn’t explain how that high trail of fragments ended up more than 100mm higher than the inshoot,

            Oh! So the x-rays tell the story?

            Are you throwing your buddy Mantik under the bus?

            He thinks the x-rays are faked or tampered with.

          • Gary Aguilar, says:

            Quoting me, Heartland Institute “expert,” https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams, John McA writes:

            Dr. Cummings doesn’t explain how that high trail of fragments ended up more than 100mm higher than the inshoot,
            And answers:
            Oh! So the x-rays tell the story?
            Are you throwing your buddy Mantik under the bus?
            He thinks the x-rays are faked or tampered with.
            *************************************

            Sashay, Mr. Heartland Ins “expert!”

            Whether ignoring the vastly better expertise of climatologists convinced of global warming or discussing JFK, McA will resort to anything, including even invoking (as he did here) the unrelated, irrelevant opinion of David Mantik, to dodge addressing the undisputed fact that two of his NOVA costars, Dr. Peter Cummings and Mr. Larry Sturdivan, think the fatal bullet hit JFK low in JFK’s skull, in occipital bone, not high, in parietal bone, where Mr. Heartland “expert” thinks it hit.

            Dr. Cummings says the fracture pattern makes it clear that a shot hit low, and since Mantik accepts the fracture pattern as real (something Mr. Heartland predictably fails to mention), Mantik is of no use in McA’s transparent dodge. Some people might even consider this dishonest. ;~>

            McA’s NOVA costars, Luke and Mike Haag, and Larry Sturdivan, ALSO claim that Randich and Grant, Spiegelman, Tobin, Wexler et al are all wrong in debunking Vincent Guinn’s Neutron Activation Analysis conclusions regarding JFK.

            So here are two simple questions McA is never likely to answer:

            1.)Are your NOVA costars, Dr. Cummings and Larry Sturdivan, wrong that JFK was struck low in the head?

            2.)Are Luke Haag and Larry Sturdivan right that Vincent Guinn’s NAA work on JFK is correct and that Randich, Grant, Spiegelman, Tobin, Wexler et al are wrong?

            Mr. Heartland Institute “expert” is nothing if not slick in sashaying. My guess is that, if he answers at all, it’ll be with another bob and weave.

          • Sashay, Mr. Heartland Ins “expert!”

            Sashay to you, Gary.

            You failed to answer my question.

            You are touting he x-rays, but your buddy Mantik says there were faked, forged or tampered with.

            If you will stipulate he is wrong, we can discuss what they show.

            But if Mantik is right, it doesn’t matter what they show, does it?

          • Dr. Cummings doesn’t explain how that high trail of fragments ended up more than 100mm higher than the inshoot, a nettlesome fact given that tiny fragments don’t move much in tissue due to the explanation Sturdivan has repeatedly given: tiny frags have a high surface area to mass, and so a very high “drag coefficient” in tissue

            Just quoting this from one of Gary’s earlier messages, since in his later messages he seems to say the fragment trail isn’t the issue.

            Why did you bring it up, Gary?

            And use it to claim the “low entry” people are wrong?

            Do you think they are wrong, Gary?

            What do you think?

            You won’t seem to give an honest answer.

  6. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    For such an event like a key witness committing suicide, a “false memory” of being at the spot in the very precise moment is actually a blatant lie.

  7. Peter says:

    It probably raises the question of how much weight we should put into the accounts of people who were somehow connected to the events of Nov 22 when they come forward many years later.

    I read a 2013 article about Officer R C Nelson where he was apparently telling his story publically for the first time and it was completely at odds with the official version. Now this is reasonably important because there have always been questions over the accuracy of the DPD radio transcripts especially relating to JD
    Tippit. But Nelson was 76 years old so is it the fading memory of an old man or maybe over the years he just ended up embellishing his role in events in his own mind.

    Even Jack Tatum’s account of the Tippit shooting when he came forward over 14 years later and told of Oswald walking out into the street and shooting Tippit as he lay on the ground wasn’t supported by any of the other witnesses version of events. I also noticed the trajectory of the bullets that hit Tippit were the same or virtually the same. I’m no forensic pathologist and I’m not saying this is impossible but it would be interesting to know the likelihood of this being achieved when the position of the shooter and the victim change completely.

  8. Since O’Reilly’s JFK lie, he’s accumulated a fortune of around 80 million dollars, surpassing Dan Rather’s net worth of 70 million. I suppose the moral here is: ‘lie for your government & sell a false JFK story on the TV News & the rewards will keep piling up, in fact….Fox News might even let the liar work in the same building as their super gorgeous Megyn Kelly!’

  9. Tom S. says:

    Topic of discussion completely derailed. Readers read the article and receive quite a surprise when they read past the first few comments.
    There are two, wordy, pending comments debating global warming, but nothing even remotely related to the article topic.

    O’Reilly is a polarizing cablecast presence appearing nightly on an self described entertainment network. He fronts several recent commercially successful books. There is still an opportunity here for discussion relevant to the article topic and the theme of JFKfacts.org.

    • There are two, wordy, pending comments debating global warming,

      You let JSA bring up the topic. He used it to attack me, so of course I’ll debate it if he brings it up.

      Why did you let him bring it up?

      • Tom S. says:

        I have no way of predicting how far adrift a discussion will go, but I recognize it in the fullness of time. Tell you what, I will meet you half way….I duplicated the two wordy comments here,
        http://tomscully.net/ot/ ….and perhaps I waited too long to intervene in this discussion.

        • and perhaps I waited too long to intervene in this discussion.

          Probably so. But I’ve been guilty of the same thing at alt.assassination.jfk, so I understand how easily that can happen.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          The defrocked professor does go hunting on other sites does he not? Close to 30 years now on the internet of dissin’ Conspiracy Realists. You must have considerable support. Technical, researchers and more. Still. Even after Marquette has I would guess cut such off?

    • JSA says:

      If the topic of discussion can’t include explorations of areas that delve into background, or into why some people go on faith-based beliefs rather than reason-based (Warren Commission, Fossil Fuel Lobby, to name two examples of faith based lines of argument), what are we left with? We’re left with narrow technical disputes. I understand that debates or discussions can be led astray by too much “forest” and not enough “trees” — but if we are just limited to arguing over Oswald’s evidence (which was tampered with to the point that had he lived no court of reasonable peers serving on a jury would find him guilty), we get nowhere. Perhaps your shepherding role of commenters requires some blocking and redirecting, Tom, but if we have to straight jacket ourselves into just discussing minutia there’s no freedom to explore broader context.

      • Tom S. says:

        ….Perhaps your shepherding role of commenters requires some blocking and redirecting, Tom, but if we have to straight jacket ourselves into just discussing minutia there’s no freedom to explore broader context.

        ….I understand now that I should have stepped aside and watched this discussion be about global warming.
        Consider that JFKfacts.org is not my website and discussion here is permitted by the guy who presents the articles and that he selected me to approve comments according to the rules he presents. I made the effort for the global warming debate to continue here.:

        http://tomscully.net/ot/

        In hindsight, I should not have bothered….

        • JSA says:

          Oh brother. I probably went out of bounds, but I noticed that Professor McAdams had no problems doing the same. He even posted video clips to bulk up the forum database.

          I still think that it’s a reasonable argument to make that if someone cannot accept the science of global warming (without knee jerk Fox News responses which have no science behind them) these same people cannot be trusted to make reasonable arguments about a case like the JFK assassination, which has conflicting data and conflicting eyewitness accounts.

  10. Gary Aguilar, says:

    Mr. Heartland Institute “expert,” https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams McA, writes,

    “Sashay to you, Gary.

    “You failed to answer my question.

    “You are touting he x-rays, but your buddy Mantik says there were faked, forged or tampered with.

    “If you will stipulate he is wrong, we can discuss what they show.

    “But if Mantik is right, it doesn’t matter what they show, does it?”

    First off, I don’t know whether Mantik is right or wrong. But whether he is or isn’t is entirely irrelevant, since Mantik doesn’t dispute what’s at issue here, as if McA didn’t already know but was desperately flailing in order to find a way to bob and weave.

    McA is nothing if not slick in the art of sashay. But his dodge won’t work, since Dr. Mantik does NOT dispute that the X-rays are those of JFK, nor that the fracture pattern is authentic. Rather, Mantik argues that a “patch” was added to the lateral X-ray, one that does NOT change the fracture pattern. It’s the fracture pattern that’s of interest here.

    Sashay .John knows it and is absolutely desperate to keep the discussion on Mantik, and not on the clear fact that his Koch-funded, NOVA costars, Dr. Peter Cummings and Mr. Larry Sturdivan, are in agreement that McA is wrong that the bullet hit JFK high in the rear of the skull. They both say the fracture pattern, which Mantik does NOT deny or dispute (McA often needs to hear/read things 3 or more times, alas, to understand), proves a bullet went in low, not high. Watch the 90 second video for yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpOj905HQOg

    But as predicted, “Mr. Koch-funded-Heartland-Institute-expert” will NEVER address whether Dr. Cummings and Sturdivan are right the bullet entered low. Nor will he answer the question of whether Vincent Guinn was right about Neutron Activation Analysis, as claimed by McA’s NOVA costars Mr. Haag and Mr. Sturdivan, who have no expertise, no Ph.D., etc. Or whether E. Randich, Ph.D and P. Grant, Ph.D., both expert metallurgists at Lawrence Livermore Lab and true NAA authorities, and Professor Spiegelman, FBI Lab examiner Tobin, et al are correct in concluding that Guinn got the NAA in the Kennedy case wrong.

    Watch the never-promoted, asked-to-leave-by-his-employer-Marquette, associate Poly Sci prof, and Heartland Institute “expert,” wriggle and squirm and do just about anything but answer my two, simple questions:

    1.)Are your NOVA costars, Dr. Cummings and Larry Sturdivan, wrong that JFK was struck low in the head?

    2.)Are Luke Haag and Larry Sturdivan right that Vincent Guinn’s NAA work on JFK is correct and that Randich, Grant, Spiegelman, Tobin, Wexler et al are wrong?

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Dr. Aguilar, this is an FYI.

      Several of us are considering organizing a public petition to PBS, about that shameful program. See details here:

      http://jfkfacts.org/jfk-facts-podcast-28-pages-911-another-dallas-nightmare/#comment-887833

      More generally, I think that the remainder of 2016 and 2017 should be “The Year of the JFK Petitions”.

      In one of them the “defendants” would be Google, Facebook and Amazon (as in the owner of the Washington Post).

      “We The People demand (beg, whatever) the 3 of you, technological leaders, to be more proactive in the definite solution of the tragic death of our president”.

      We would be asking them to grow the courage shown by their fellow leader, Apple:

      https://www.google.com/#q=apple+will+not+sponsor+rnc+convention

      The base platform must be -for reasons that should be obvious- MoveOn.org.

      https://petitions.moveon.org/

      After all, the plan is to make PROGRESS in the investigation of the case, and to LIBERATE The Truth, not to CONSERVE the records locked up until 2039.

      • “In one of them the “defendants” would be Google, Facebook and Amazon (as in the owner of the Washington Post).” — RFH

        Ramon, it would make sense that Google, Facebook and Amazon are in a position to advance demands directed at our government to release documents not to mention their collective ability to pursue the investigation via technical applications; I’m curious to read the specifics of a petition.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        Hi Leslie:

        When I arrived to the US to get an education, the Rubik’s Cube was the rage. Like many other computer students I got hooked, wrote programs to simulate it and even ordered an esoteric book from “Conway’s Cambridge Cubists ” in England. Soon, I forgot all about it but computers continued running, trying to figure it out. Finally, 30 years later, all combinations of the cube are accounted for. The cube is finally solved, for good. They made a big announcement.

        How? Thanks to Google donating a small percentage of their awesome computer power.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimal_solutions_for_Rubik%27s_Cube

        As much as I liked that mathematical problem, I would rather see the JFK murder fully solved from a scientific point of view, using only what is available, right away. No need to beg for scraps of paper that may or may not contain anything really relevant (Martha Murphy says that it is a nice picture of the cold war, not so much a smoking gun).

        I am sure I am not alone in preferring those supercomputers running 24×7 solving the equations of a projectile devastating cerebral matter and presumably causing a violent back snap.

        Perhaps the most advanced people in the world doing simulations of ballistics and the brain are these folks:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fIar8Vdx7s (if you blink, you will miss it)

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2OUrnQ3mRU

        Alejandro Mota:
        https://www.linkedin.com/in/alejandro-mota-9891045

        His Boss:
        https://cfwebprod.sandia.gov/cfdocs/CompResearch/templates/insert/profile.cfm?snl_id=42361
        https://www.linkedin.com/in/hansenglen

        They work in the Sandia National Laboratories (yes, I am fully and painfully aware that the lab is part of the Military Industrial Complex).

        All they need is the assurance that working in the Kennedy case will not have negative repercussions in their careers. Whether their fear is real or imaginary is irrelevant.

        One of the pioneers in this field is our esteemed John Costella (originally from Down Under). This is publicly known, I am not revealing any confidentiality. We need Facebook, his employer, not only to allow him, but to ENCOURAGE him to continue his work.

        In closing: those companies are VERY smart, they don’t need me to give them an enumerated list of ways in which they can be more proactive.

        Thanks for asking that question.

        -Ramon

    • First off, I don’t know whether Mantik is right or wrong.

      Sashay(tm)!

      But whether he is or isn’t is entirely irrelevant, since Mantik doesn’t dispute what’s at issue here,

      You mean the fragment trail?

      Do you agree with the HSCA FPP that it leads back (more or less) to an entry in the cowlick?

      Give me an honest answer to that, and I’ll tell you what I think.

      Rather, Mantik argues that a “patch” was added to the lateral X-ray, one that does NOT change the fracture pattern.

      That’s a really dumb argument, since the HSCA published both lateral and AP x-rays with no “patch.”

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/xray/reading/orient.gif

      So where did Mantik get his crazy patch?

      Do you think Cummings and Sturdivan are wrong about the low entry?

      Give me an honest answer, and I’ll tell you what I think.

      There is no use having any exchange with you if you won’t honestly say what you think. Your failure to do so shows you want to have it any ol’ way that’s convenient.

      • Gary Aguilar, says:

        I wrote, inter alia, “…Mantik doesn’t dispute what’s at issue here, as if McA didn’t already know … Dr. Mantik does NOT dispute that the X-rays are those of JFK, nor that the fracture pattern is authentic. Rather, Mantik argues that a “patch” was added to the lateral X-ray, one that does NOT change the fracture pattern. It’s the fracture pattern that’s of interest here …(Sturdivan and Cummings) both say the fracture pattern, which Mantik does NOT deny or dispute (McA often needs to hear/read things 3 or more times, alas, to understand), proves a bullet went in low, not high. Watch the 90 second video for yourselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpOj905HQOg

        And McA writes:

        Quoting me, “But whether he is or isn’t is entirely irrelevant, since Mantik doesn’t dispute what’s at issue here,”

        And McA answers:

        “You mean the fragment trail?”

        Enough said, right?

        If I wrote your posts trying to make you look evasive and foolish, McA, I couldn’t do a better job than you do without my help.

    • pat speer says:

      FWIW,in prior discussions, John McAdams has repeatedly claimed Cummings and Sturdivan were incorrect regarding the location of the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head.

      FWIW, Mantik was wrong about the “white patch.” It was almost certainly the piece of bone observed in the right lateral autopsy photo. The whiteness reflects overlapping bone. This was something I realized on my own. But this probability was made more credible when Doug Horne published his report on his ARRB interview of Dr. Fitzpatrick, in which Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, made this same observation, long before I.

      http://www.patspeer.com/whereisthewing.jpg

      • Gary Aguilar, says:

        Pat,

        As usual, McA is flailing and comes up with one ruse after another to avoid answering whether, 1.)he thinks Sturdivan and Cummings and John Canal are right that a bullet hit JFK’s head low and, 2) whether he thinks Haag, Sturdivan and Guinn are right about NAA.

        But do you really understand Mantik’s work, Pat? Look at the lateral X-ray, the originals of which I’ve seen with my own eyes. The density over the posterior parietal area is very peculiar, bizarrely dense. The optical density measurements show that the bone in the area of the “patch” is denser than the density measured of the overlapping petrous bones, the densest bones in the body. Even if there were the overlap you speak of, that “trilayer” (overlapping parietal bones on the right and the parietal bone on the left) still wouldn’t even come close to the density of overlapping right and left petrous bones on an X-ray. Don’t take my word for it; ask a radiologist.

        Secondly, note how the low transverse fracture extends from the low rear of JFK’s skull superolaterally as a broad fracture, and then it simply disappears into the “patch.” https://www.google.com/search?q=JFK%27s+skull+X-rays&tbm=isch&imgil=v6oEM6Jw3JPEeM%253A%253BfD0Nj7IpmjpYoM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fmcadams.posc.mu.edu%25252Fxray%25252Fentrance%25252Fentrance.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=v6oEM6Jw3JPEeM%253A%252CfD0Nj7IpmjpYoM%252C_&usg=__ch9Rxopw0zUqA0m6yK4iurnVFD8%3D&biw=1304&bih=671&ved=0ahUKEwjWtPr07YzOAhVEyGMKHR2wC6cQyjcIKQ&ei=LBqVV9buEsSQjwOd4K64Cg#imgrc=4KTcibltO1i_GM%3A

        I’m not a radiologist, but I’ve examined myriad X-rays, including in cases of trauma, both as an admitting General Surgery resident in a major, university trauma center, and as oculoplastic specialist who’s practiced in both academic and private settings. I’ve never run across a fracture pattern like this, or seen a “patch” like this. Though I admit I’ve only see a few rifle bullet-caused skull fractures.

        There may be a non-tampering explanation for it, but I can’t say for sure, one way or another. Foolishly, and as part of his sashay, McA wants me to be a hypocrite and state an opinion I don’t have about Mantik.

        But it’s one that’s completely irrelevant because it’s the fracture pattern that’s at issue here, not (for now) the trail of tiny fragments at the top of JFK’s skull, or the score of the baseball game, the weather, etc. McA accepts the X-rays, fracture pattern and all. So the question is why he rejects Peter Cummings’ and Sturdivan’s and John Canal’s view the bullet entered low.

        As here, I never expect, nor do I get, an honest answer from McA; he always bobs and weaves. I exchange with him for the amusement of seeing him dance and dodge. Though he’s not as good at it as he thinks he is, it’s entertaining to watch.

        Best to you, Pat

        • As here, I never expect, nor do I get, an honest answer from McA; he always bobs and weaves.

          Irony alert!

          This is the Gary Aguilar who won’t say whether he believes the autopsy photos and x-rays are faked, forged or tampered with.

          And also the Aguilar who talks about the “fragment trail” in the lateral x-ray of the skull, but won’t say whether he accepts the HSCA conclusion that it shows an entry in the cowlick area.

          He just won’t answer honestly.

          And we know why. He only attacks. He’s not actually capable of defending a position.

          • Gary Aguilar, says:

            As the dodgy McA knows full well, I don’t know whether JFK’s autopsy photos and X-rays have been tampered with. I’ve said so many, many times.

            Nevertheless, he wants me to declare an opinion: yes they are or no, they’re not, as if it’s a fault to withhold judgment because of inadequate and/or incomplete information.

            As usual, McA is flailing and comes up with one ruse after another to avoid answering whether, 1.)he thinks Sturdivan and Cummings and John Canal are right that a bullet hit JFK’s head low and, 2) whether he thinks Haag, Sturdivan and Guinn are right about NAA.

          • Gary Aguilar, says:

            “And we know why. He only attacks. He’s not actually capable of defending a position.”

            Tsk. Tsk.

            I’ve often defended the thesis that anything published in the “peer-reviewed” med/scientific literature that’s pro-Warren Commission is junk science.

            I did it recently in the “peer-reviewed” “Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners Journal,” debunking your NOVA pal, Luke Haag’s “peer-reviewed” imbecilities and propounding counternarratives.
            http://ctka.net/2016/tv-review-nova/nova-cold-case-review.html

            And I did it in a C-Span-recorded lecture that’s available on-line, here: https://www.c-span.org/video/?321702-3/discussion-medical-evidence-kennedy-assassination

            I did it in the “peer-reviewed” journal “Neurosurgery,” to counter the junk science put forward by Robert Grossman et al, here: http://journals.lww.com/neurosurgery/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2005&issue=09000&article=00036&type=fulltext

            I’ve got $200.oo for you if you can find even one pro-Warren Commission article published in the peer-reviewed med/sci literature that isn’t junk science.

            Show us your stuff, Mr. Heartland Institute Expert.

          • As the dodgy McA knows full well, I don’t know whether JFK’s autopsy photos and X-rays have been tampered with. I’ve said so many, many times.

            In other words, you don’t know whether your article, which claims the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses testimony is radically at odds with the photos and x-rays, is junk or not?

            http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm

            whether, 1.)he thinks Sturdivan and Cummings and John Canal are right that a bullet hit JFK’s head low and,

            What do you think, Gary?

            Do you think the entry in the back of the skull was near the EOP, or in the cowlick area?

            If you’ll say, I’ll tell you what I think.

            But there is no use having a conversation with a slippery person who won’t take a position.

          • I’ve often defended the thesis that anything published in the “peer-reviewed” med/scientific literature that’s pro-Warren Commission is junk science.

            Which is just another way of saying you won’t take a position on JFK’s wounds, you just attack.

            You’re a medical person who should have an opinion. Why won’t you share it?

            1. Where do you think a bullet entered JFK’s skull?

            2. Do you think there was a blow out of occipital bone?

  11. RobH says:

    Slight qualification to my previous post. I’m somewhat rusty on which Bethesda witnesses saw what. Am fairly confident Jenkins and O’Connor observed Kennedy’s body removed from a shipping casket. Reibe and Stover I recall observed a body bag, but can’t say if they mentioned a shipping casket.

    Minor detail. The main point is that there’s credible testimony indicating JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda Medical Center before the official motorcade, which as a matter of record had the body. And also testimony indicating JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda inside a shipping casket, not the ceremonial one procured in Dallas.

    (Tom S. note: RobH is referring to a comment submitted just before this one. That comment does not appear because it exceeded 500 world limit by more than 225 words.)

  12. Gary Aguilar says:

    Oh, Mr. Koch-funded Heartland Institute expert https://www.heartland.org/john-mcadams, I’d be tempted to make you up if you didn’t already exist in Technicolor.
    I didn’t ask you the two questions* expecting you’d actually answer. I knew better than that. I already knew that you’d never answer, but rather promise to answer only on condition 1. When that was satisfied you’d agree, but only on condition 2, and so on ad infinitum.
    You’ve got as much courage as your coreligionist in the Church of J. Edgar Hoover and Earl Warren, Luke Haag, who brusquely refused my request to reprint publicly the junk science he published in the Journal of the Assoc. of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners. He’s apparently so ashamed of what he wrote that he’s petrified that anyone but his fellow AFTE members (who he can bamboozle) might read it. [Here’s just a taste: http://www.nediai.org/pdf_files/3of3-2014.pdf ]
    Same with you, Mr. Koch Brothers Expert.
    Re JFK’s head wound and the photos, I don’t think JFK’s head looked like the back of the head photo when he arrived at Parkland, or at Bethesda. Your site has a piece by John Canal who advances the reasonable thesis that the photos were taken late in JFK’s autopsy, when things were likely prettied up, as has been suggested by an FBI autopsy witness. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Canal2015.htm
    To that, I’d add that the prosectors and the photo techs all said some of the photos they took, or saw in ’63, were missing from the “official” set. It’s more than likely that some photos of JFK’s mortal skull wound were taken that have since disappeared.
    Where do I think JFK was struck in the head? Toward the right front at Zapruder 312, driving him back to the left, and perhaps later, near the EOP circa Z-327, driving the head forward. I made the case and shared some of the evidence in my AFTE Journal piece, available here, since, in contrast to Warren loyalists, I’ve got the courage to let the public see my work. http://www.ctka.net/2016/tv-review-nova/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf
    But I know you embrace “official” findings, photos, pro-Warren massaged testimony, etc. Some of the rest of us have realized what Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs (i.e., the head of Pentagon PR), Arthur Sylvester, told Morley Safer during the Vietnam War: “If You Believe the Government, ‘You’re Stupid’.” https://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/18/if-you-believe-the-goverment-youre-stupid/
    But you’re not stupid, Mr. Koch expert. As USA Today reported, your own university says you’re guilty of “reckless and irresponsible conduct.” That may be true, but it’s besides the point; you’re a “patriot,” you’ll believe whatever right-wing nonsense the Koch Brothers or the govt tells you to believe. http://www.sheboyganpress.com/story/news/education/2016/05/08/report-suggests-bullying-marquette-professor/84118774/
    Thanks for confirming my claim you’d never answer.

    [*As usual, McA is flailing and comes up with one ruse after another to avoid answering whether, 1.)he thinks Sturdivan and Cummings and John Canal are right that a bullet hit JFK’s head low and, 2) whether he thinks Haag, Sturdivan and Guinn are right about NAA.0]

    • So you believe Canal’s theory of a low hit is correct?

      When why are you bitching about the NOVA documentary, which embraced that position?

      • Gary Aguilar says:

        Sashay, McA!

        I didn’t ask you the two questions* expecting you’d actually answer. I knew better than that. I already knew that you’d never answer, but rather promise to answer only on condition 1. When that was satisfied you’d agree, but only on condition 2, and so on ad infinitum.

        [*As usual, McA is flailing and comes up with one ruse after another to avoid answering whether, 1.)he thinks Sturdivan and Cummings and John Canal are right that a bullet hit JFK’s head low and, 2) whether he thinks Haag, Sturdivan and Guinn are right about NAA.]

        • OK, I think the entry wound in the skull was in the cowlick area, and I’ve never put any stock in the NAA.

          You won’t endorse Mantik’s views, and I have no particular desire to agree with other LGTs on everything.

          But you didn’t answer my question. If you think the Canal theory of a low entrance wound is accurate, you think the NOVA documentary got that right, yes?

          • Gary Aguilar, says:

            Edited.
            So Vincent Guinn, Ph.D., Ken Rahn, Ph.D, Mr. Sturdivan and Messrs Michael and Luke Haag, Vince Bugliosi, JD, etc. are all wrong about NAA then? Have you explained that to your PBS, ‘Cold Case: JFK’ costars, Sturdivan and the Haags?

            According to the junk science you’ll find in a “scientific,” “peer reviewed,” anti-conspiracy article by Sturdivan and Rahn, NAA is THE “Rosetta Stone” in JFK case, a pillar upon which the “proof” of Oswald’s guilt firmly stands. [Larry Sturdivan & Kenneth Rahn, Neutron Activation and the Kennedy Assassination ­ Part II, Extended Benefits. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry, Vol. 262, No. 1 (2004) 215 – 222. and: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041025131255.htm%5D

            I know you don’t actually like to read much that’w ‘unpatriotic,’ but read the last couple of pages of my published piece in the Journal of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners and you should easily grasp my take on JFK’s head WOUNDS. Though given you’re a Koch-funded “Heartland Expert,” I think it’ll be hard for you to understand something your income, and perhaps lawyer bills, depend on your not understanding. http://www.ctka.net/2016/tv-review-nova/AguilarWechtAFTA2016.pdf

            And I’m still waiting for you to cite a single anti-conspiracy article publishe in the “peer-reviewed” med/sci literture that isn’t junk science. You can’t do it, can you? Of course you can’t, no one can. Such an article is like a unicorn: it only exists in the imagination of “patriotic” members of the Church of J. Edgar Hoover and Earl Warren.

          • Have you explained that to your PBS, ‘Cold Case: JFK’ costars, Sturdivan and the Haags?

            I don’t remember anything about the NAA in “Cold Case JFK.”

            Can you cite something?

            I think it’ll be hard for you to understand something your income, and perhaps lawyer bills, depend on your not understanding.

            More hatred from Aguilar. He just terribly hates everybody who disagree with him.

            Of course you can’t, no one can. Such an article is like a unicorn: it only exists in the imagination of “patriotic” members of the Church of J. Edgar Hoover and Earl Warren.

            More hatred. He’s just full of hatred.

          • but read the last couple of pages of my published piece in the Journal of Firearms and Toolmark Examiners and you should easily grasp my take on JFK’s head WOUNDS.

            Of course your buddy Wecht told the Rockefeller Commission there was not medical evidence of any shot from the Knoll.

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

            Has he changed his mind? Do you disagree with him?

  13. RobH says:

    Paul O’Connor told me he could not recall at any point during the autopsy where the doctors examined a bullet hole in the back of the head.

    That aspect, like so many others, was simply fabricated and Humes coerced into signing off on it.

  14. RobH says:

    Returning to the theme of this thread, hats off to Mr. Morley for revealing Bill O’Reilly for the liar he is. But this is indicative of a greater diemma. One which shows how the media has been utterly controlled with regard to Kennedy’s death. I’m sure, like myself, most researchers are sickened by the shallow, pro-Warren Commission pieces which pop up every November. After fifty years and all the breakthroughs which have been made, the press continues to sing the same worn out tune.

    Fletcher Prouty in his book, “The Secret Team”, provides some insight. The CIA has a stable of journalists at its beck and call, ready to spring into action when needed. There can be no otehr explanation for the stilted coerage we get. The case has, in theory, been blown wide open. But the press keeps the lid on by denying the facts and offering up specious arguments in favor of the Commission.

  15. Bob Prudhomme says:

    John McAdams said:

    “Do you think the entry in the back of the skull was near the EOP, or in the cowlick area?

    If you’ll say, I’ll tell you what I think.”

    I sincerely believe their was an entrance wound near the EOP, just as Humes claimed and despite what later panels “discovered” about a wound in the cowlick area.

    Humes was a professional and, despite whatever other bungling was attributed to him, I think it would be farfetched to believe he could not identify a bullet wound in a skull.

    What he neglected to mention was that he only found half of an entrance wound, and that the other half of the entrance wound was on a large fragment of skull bone that was blown off the back of JFK’s head by a second bullet that entered the front of JFK’s skull a fraction of a second after the first bullet entered the back of the skull.

    As Roy Kellerman stated to Arlen Specter,”Bang-bang…”

    • RobH says:

      I spoke with Paul O’Connor regarding the entry wound in the skull. He didn’t recall such a thing and was adamant about it. The FBI agents, SIbert and O’Neill, who were standing right behind O’Connor don’t mention it in their report either. Quoting from Humes, they wrote the bullet had fragmented upon exit.

      We must keep in mind Humes admitted to burning his draft notes.

      To take Humes pro-government remarks at face value without taking into account the control imposed over him during the autopsy, the changes to his report dictated by Admiral Galloway, along with the orders to silence, misrepresents the reality. I see Humes as a man trapped within the system who, under tremendous pressure, played a role he objected to. He went along with the subterfuge, but only so far.

      He is on record as having impeached the validity of the cowlick woiund. But that doesn’t mean we can place much faith in his assertion that he observed a wound at the EOP.

      Lifton contacted Humes by phone in 1966. Within a short time, line went dead. Upon callling back, a family member informed him that Humes had gone off to a meeting with some men.

      It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what happened at that meeting.

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