What the Warren Commission couldn’t comprehend

Professor David Kaiser is the latest to respond to our 140-word Warren Commission Challenge as follows:

“Although primitive and incomplete in some respects, the medical and ballistics findings of the Warren Report have been confirmed by the subsequent HSCA analysis. Some critics continue to insist their findings could not be true, but none has been able to suggest a credible alternative scenario. The HSCA finding of a second shooter remains controversial. The Commission had little chance of identifying the broader conspiracy of which Oswald was a part, both because it assumed he acted from his own motives and because it knew little or nothing about CIA-Mob assassination plots against Castro, the counterintelligence activities in which Oswald was evidently taking part, or RFK’s war on organized crime. Uncovering the conspiracy would have required a mindset that was entirely lacking in 1963-4.”

Kaiser is author of “The Road to Dallas” (Harvard University Press, 2007)

45 comments

  1. Jonathan says:

    Kaiser writes:

    “Although primitive and incomplete in some respects, the medical and ballistics findings of the Warren Report have been confirmed by the subsequent HSCA analysis.”

    Baloney. The autopsy wasn’t primitive and incomplete. It wasn’t even an autopsy. It didn’t determine the cause of death, because Humes and Boswell didn’t dissect any bullet tracks. Furthermore, the HSCA did not confirm the Warren Commission medical and ballistics findings. The HSCA “MOVED” an entrance wound Humes described as being in (or near) the occiput FOUR INCHES HIGHER. Even Humes choked on this.

    Kaiser reveals a woefully inadequate knowledge of the facts of the assassination.

    • Photon says:

      Actually it was an autopsy and the cause of death was clearly stated. As no forensic pathologist who has reviewed the results and examined the medical evidence ( save Wecht) has gone on record disagreeing with the results it would appear that the autopsy was more than adequate for standard purposes, but not adequate enough to still speculation from the uninformed or the medically ignorant.
      Of course, if Jonathan can enlighten us on his Medical School and postgraduate training I could give his opinion more credence . However, I doubt that he has ever seen an autopsy, let alone participated in doing the procedure.

      • Lawrence Schnapf says:

        once again Photon is in the dark.there is widespread consensus that the autopsy was not done properly. it likely would not have been admissible in court due to the multiple deviation from protocol. and what is your medical training, Photon?

      • Bill Pierce says:

        Photon writes:
        “As no forensic pathologist who has reviewed the results and examined the medical evidence ( save Wecht) has gone on record disagreeing with the results . . . ”

        Photon is ABSOLUTELY WRONG! As Jonathan correctly stated, subsequent panels moved the prosectors’ alleged rear head wound four inches higher, to JFK’s well-groomed cowlick. WC fundies love to ignore this gigantic problem when they write about ‘inerrant’ hard evidence.

        Photon needs to admit his mistake. And while he’s at it, he needs to explain – in detail – why the autopsy doctors and the rest of the autopsy team were unable to locate, observe and describe the very precise cowlick wound as drawn by Ida Dox . . . when they had the skull in front of them for three hours.

        • All the doctors that Photon referred to said the higher cowlick location was in fact the entry point.

          The autopsy doctors messed up.

          Want to claim the autopsy photos and x-rays were faked? All those forensic pathologists were lying?

      • Jonathan says:

        Do you not agree Humes and Boswell dissected no bullet tracks?

        Do you not agree that without knowing exact bullet tracks, one cannot establish the damage done by each bullet entering JFK?

        Do you not agree that without knowing the damage done by each bullet, one cannot establish which bullet was the proximate cause of death?

        Perhaps, Photon, you’ll be so good as to give everyone here a pertinent lesson in forensic pathology.

        • Photon says:

          Ok, if you wish
          #1. They most certainly dissected the head shot path.
          How many cervical wounds in 1963 were dissected out when there was no radiographic evidence of a missile present?
          #2. The damage done by each bullet was self-evident. You forget that the mediastinum was examined and chest dissection was performed. In addition, x-rays will reveal damage to osseous structures; in addition, other aspects of cervical radiographs wil reveal changes only apparent to radiologists who can evaluate density changes associated with gas, hematoma, tissue destruction,etc. How do you think that they were able to diagnosis lung cancer in the early 1960s without doing a thoracotomy? Of course now with CT scan and other imaging technology gross dissection of bullet wounds is even less necessary. But even in the 1960s dissection of bullet tracts was usually more to recover legal evidence ( retained missiles or fragments) than to “establish damage”.
          #3. The proximate cause of death was evident even in the ER. Massive head trauma is one of the few times that even a layman can decide to stop CPR. JFK arrived at Parkland with no blood pressure, no identifiable heartbeat and agonal breathing at best. His pupils were fixed and dilated. It is ludicrous to believe that 2 board certified pathologists could not establish the the cause of death based on the information present. Of course the neck wound was probably fatal anyway based on the the radiographic findings and JFK’s spinal trauma reaction. More than likely he had phrenic nerve dysfunction and was incapable of effective respiration.
          How do you think that the “cause of death” is determined for each death certificate?

          • Jonathan says:

            Credentials, please. Educational degrees. Name and experience. Otherwise, how is one possibly to judge your opinion?

            Your board certified pathologists were anatomic not forensic pathologists. Neither Humes nor Boswell had autopsied for gunshot wounds prior to dealing with JFK’s body.

            You say they most certainly dissected the head shot path. Please provide the documentation so we all can see the record of this procedure.

            You assume without establishing that there was one shot to the head.

            You assume without establishing that the neck wound probably would have been fatal.

            You say the damage done by each bullet was self-evident. Please point everyone here to the documentation describing each bullet’s path and damage caused.

            I expect an apologist for the Bethesda autopsy to present here a better argument for the autopsy than you have presented.

          • Photon says:

            I tried to explain to you that the autosy procedure was sufficient to establish the characteristics of the head wound, including entrance and exit. I also explained how other techniques and the chest dissection that was done ,associated with radiographic findings would give adequate information about the nature of the neck wound . Obviously further dissection of the neck wound would have been beneficial from a completeness standpoint, but as no radiographiically opaque material was noted in the neck there is no evidence that further dissection would have altered the conclusion of one missile entering the upper back and exiting through the anterior neck.
            The conclusions based on the photos, x-rays and pathologist’s reports that were reached by world renowned forensic pathologists on 3 separate panels agreed with the Bethesda team’s conclusions-namely that JFK was struck in the head by only one bullet, going in a posterior to anterior direction. In addition, they agreed that JFK was struck by only one bullet entering at the superior aspect of the back, exiting the anterior aspect of the neck, fired from behind.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Jonathan, I trust that your persistence will not go unnoticed by others who follow this site. I too ask that photon give us a pertinent lesson in forensic pathology, and in the process will he or she share their requisite credentials to speak with such authority?

          Also in this exchange I would hope that we can delve deeper and challenge photon to roll back the clock to early afternoon, Dallas, November 22, 1963, and have photon explain precisely how Federal and State laws were applied to facilitate the removal of John Kennedy’s body, a crime victim, from the scene of the crime in Dallas County.

          Rolling back the clock is a very effective way of debunking any debate over the autopsy in Bethesda. If photon is backed into a corner and made to explain just how Kennedy’s body was removed “illegally” from Dallas we can be certain that his fallacious arguments related to that autopsy will be rendered a distraction at best and perhaps meaningless when investigating the assassination.

          Consider the momentum the cover up of the assassination gained as Kennedy’s body left Love Field; consider where we are now in this particular debate over a bogus autopsy vs. one that should have taken place at Parkland. I suggest that no one should indulge photon but rather challenge him to explain why the autopsy took place in Bethesda.

          And then I would ask photon if he or she has a grasp of Texas politics at the time related to national and international oil interests as they related to global power, who might have been poised in the vicinity of Bethesda to observe the events as they unfolded?

          • Jonathan says:

            leslie,

            I agree with the need to wind the clock back and your other points. I’m struck by how Kellerman in particular steamrolled Earl Rose, M.D., and by how the decision to get JFK’s body to Bethesda was basically made in the White House Situation Room, as the extant AF-1 tape reveals.

            The multiple-casket-entries at Bethesda, which Doug Horne describes in detail, open the door to multiple possibilities of pre-autopsy body alteration, as both Horne and Lifton have argued.

            Yes, let’s wind the clock back. And then do a second-by-second, if necessary, replay of the events as they are said to have been and as they now appear to be.

    • It didn’t determine the cause of death, because Humes and Boswell didn’t dissect any bullet tracks.

      I think the Zapruder film makes it clear what the cause of death was.

      • Jonathan says:

        Wrong. The purpose of an autopsy is to determine the cause of death. The autopsy physicians had what they needed to determine the cause of death, JFK’s remains, and failed to achieve the purpose of the autopsy.

        Anyone here, having observed JFK’s remains on the night of 11-22-63, could have written that he died from having been shot in the head and having part of his skull and brains blasted out. The autopsy doctors were supposed to provide a precise description of JFK’s wounds. They failed to do so, and in so failing, failed to conduct a proper autopsy.

        • Photon says:

          So you know more about autopsies and causes of death than board certified pathologists? You know more about the cause of death than Dr. Burkeley, who actually signed the death certificate and filled in cause of death? You are an attorney-would a physician complete a death certificate without knowing the cause of death?
          Drs. Coe,Davis,Loguvan,Petty,Rose,Spitz,Weston and Baden were not forensic pathologists? They weren’t qualified to make a diagnosis in this case?
          Drs. Carnes,Fisher,Hunter and Moritz were not forensic pathologists? Their judgements about the specifics of JFK’s wounds are incorrect and yours are?
          Those experts had done tens of thousands of autopsies-yet you seem to want to give more credence to the views of a radiation oncologist and an ophthalmologist , neither one who has any evidence of even being in an autopsy suite in decades.

          • Jonathan says:

            What’s your point, Photon? That someone who is not a forensic pathologist is not competent to weigh in on the autopsy? That everyone here should be an obedient sheep and not question what was or wasn’t done by Humes et al at the Bethesda Hospital on the night of 11-22-63?

            Sorry, Photon, you don’t get to play sheep herder.

        • But you said:

          It didn’t determine the cause of death, because Humes and Boswell didn’t dissect any bullet tracks.

          And now you are saying that that’s not the issue, but rather precisely describing the wounds.

          That’s different.

          • Jonathan says:

            Different? According to whom? One cannot precisely describe bullet wounds without dissecting the bullet tracks.

            If Humes and crew had done their job, dissected the bullet tracks, and precisely determined and described JFK’s wounds, a lot of conspiracy theorizing would be laid to rest.

            As matters stand: [a] It’s uncertain whether JFK had a collapsed lung. [b] The autopsy report and the HSCA disagree over the location of a rear skull entrance wound. [c] There are competing arguments over whether the throat wound was one of entrance or one of exit. None of this vagueness should exist. It exists because Humes and his physician crew didn’t do their jobs properly.

          • a] It’s uncertain whether JFK had a collapsed lung.

            Check the Forensic Pathological Panel of the HSCA. A collapsed lung would have shown on the autopsy x-ray. Since no such collapsed lung is seen, no bullet passed low enough to penetrate the lung.

            [b] The autopsy report and the HSCA disagree over the location of a rear skull entrance wound.

            That’s true, and it’s because the autopsists really screwed this up. The photos and x-rays show the wound in the cowlick area.

            [c] There are competing arguments over whether the throat wound was one of entrance or one of exit.

            The autopsists got this right, but conspiracists still don’t accept it. The slits in the shirt collar settle this.

            It exists because Humes and his physician crew didn’t do their jobs properly.

            No, it exists because conspiracists don’t want to accept the evidence. The HSCA FPP had the top talent in the country, and conspiracists won’t accept their conclusions.

          • Jonathan says:

            John,

            Please spare us your comment about HSCA’s FPP top talent. Your comment doesn’t wash.

            Readers here know the HSCA’s FPP top medical talent “moved” the rear entry skull wound upward because they couldn’t reconcile Humes’s low-entry with the high metallic debris trail shown in one of the lateral skull x-rays. That was dishonesty, to be charitable.

            Top talent Michael Baden recent said he couldn’t determine the nature of Ferguson, Missouri decedent Michael Brown’s gunshot wounds. Baden is a blowhard, who at the HSCA hearings didn’t realize he was pointing to an upside-down x-ray depiction supposedly of JFK’s skull.

            You can believe what you want. Please don’t belabor everyone here, however, with comments about HSCA’s FPP top talent.

          • Readers here know the HSCA’s FPP top medical talent “moved” the rear entry skull wound upward because they couldn’t reconcile Humes’s low-entry with the high metallic debris trail shown in one of the lateral skull x-rays. That was dishonesty, to be charitable.

            Nonsense. The evidence shows an upper entry. Aside from the x-rays, the back of the head photo shows an entry in the cowlick, and no entry near the EOP.

            Top talent Michael Baden recent said he couldn’t determine the nature of Ferguson, Missouri decedent Michael Brown’s gunshot wounds.

            I don’t follow you. What did he not determine?

            Baden is a blowhard, who at the HSCA hearings didn’t realize he was pointing to an upside-down x-ray depiction supposedly of JFK’s skull.

            That’s a conspiracist factoid.

            He oriented the photo (not x-ray) with the forehead upward. He then pointed to the forehead, and said it was the forehead.

            This buff factoid originated because the F8 photo is usually oriented the other way. But the way Baden oriented it is the way Stringer would have seen it in his viewfinder.

            I know you folks hate Baden, but there were eight other members of the FPP, all of whom (with the occasional exception of Wecht) agreed.

            What kind of talent do you folks have. Harry Livingston? Bob Groden?

          • Jonathan says:

            John,

            You’re a fan of Baden’s. I imagine you are especially fond of his testimony on cause of death to the HSCA:

            “President Kennedy died as a result of two gunshot wounds of the head, brain, back and neck areas of the body.”

            I could have said that. Any non
            -medically-trained person could have. The statement tells nothing, except for Baden’s use of the word “two.”

            Baden didn’t examine JFK’s body. He had no reasonable basis for saying Kennedy suffered TWO gunshot wounds. He ASSUMED the SBT was true and worked from that assumption. He hardly performed as a “top talent” physician-scientist who approached the autopsy-related materials with an open and curious mind. He said “two” because he was a government witness and bought into the Official Story, plain and simple.

          • Baden didn’t examine JFK’s body. He had no reasonable basis for saying Kennedy suffered TWO gunshot wounds.

            Other than the fact that the Forensic Pathology Panel had the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the autopsy report.

            And also the clothing.

            And those showed two gunshots hit JFK.

            He said “two” because he was a government witness and bought into the Official Story, plain and simple.

            I know you folks hate Baden, but do you equally consider all the other members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel lying scum?

            What about all the members of the Ramsay Clark Panel?

            What about all the forensic pathologists the Rockefeller Commission used?

            All lying scum?

            Baden didn’t examine JFK’s body.

            OK, then believe the autopsists. But of course, they believed that two bullets hit Kennedy from behind too.

            So they were also lying scum!

          • Photon says:

            I say again- what is your medical background or training that makes you qualified to impugn the medical judgement of a board-certified forensic pathologist who had 4 years of medical school, four years of residency,1 or more years of specialized forensic pathology training and literally decades of experience at the highest level?
            You have a right to your opinions.But logically – who is more qualified to evaluate Dr. Baden’s expertise: you or a board of similarly trained experts with in a field that requires intellectual ability at the highest level?

          • Pat Speer says:

            Let’s be clear. Baden was confused by the cropped version of the open cranium autopsy photo used in his testimony, so confused, in fact, that he ended up pointing to bone above the defect on a drawing of Kennedy’s profile, and claiming it matched up to bone he was supposed to say was below the defect on the forehead on the autopsy photo. In other words, his testimony indicated that the large defect was on the side of the head, and that the top of the head was intact, when he was supposed to have said the opposite. I proved this in a video that’s been viewed (by rough estimation) a hundred thousand times, and John McAdams remains the only person of whom I am aware to have studied the video and then try to argue that Baden got it right. He is so wrong and so alone on this issue, in fact, that one of most prominent LN’s on John’s newsgroup broke ranks and defended my video, and told John he was completely out to lunch on this issue. Here’s a link to the video:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec

            See for yourself.

          • Pat Speer says:

            Note to John McAdams: two members of the Rockefeller Commission panel, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Fred Hodges, suggested in their findings that the bullet entered the occipital bone, as described at autopsy. That the autopsy doctors were right on this issue has since been supported by the majority of doctors allowed to view the x-rays and photos, including a former member of your newsgroup, to whom you usually deferred, Chad Zimmerman, the HSCA’s wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, and most recently, Dr. Peter Cummings. So why is it that you continue to pretend that the evidence is clear a bullet entered the cowlick, and only the cowlick? What, do you think all these men were lying?

          • Let’s be clear. Baden was confused by the cropped version of the open cranium autopsy photo used in his testimony, so confused, in fact, that he ended up pointing to bone above the defect on a drawing of Kennedy’s profile,

            Pat, do you or do you not admit that:

            1. Baden orients the photo with the forehead upward?

            2. Baden points to the forehead and says “this is the front part of the head of the president?”

            You are quibbling about something entirely different.

            Why don’t you just admit that Baden did not mount the photo “upside down?”

            He knew perfectly well which part was the forehead.

          • That the autopsy doctors were right on this issue has since been supported by the majority of doctors allowed to view the x-rays and photos,

            No, an overwhelming majority of all the doctors who have looked at the materials have put the wound in the cowlick.

            You are endorsing John Canal’s theory.

            Even Wecht put the wound in the cowlick.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound1.gif

          • So why is it that you continue to pretend that the evidence is clear a bullet entered the cowlick, and only the cowlick? What, do you think all these men were lying?

            Do you think Wecht was lying?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound1.gif

            Do you think all the member of the HSCA FPP were lying?

            All the members of the Ramsay Clark Panel?

          • Pat Speer says:

            John, we don’t really know what the members of the Clark Panel and HSCA panel thought about the bullet entrance. We do know that the Clark panel was put together by the Justice Dept. and met in private, and that Morgan and Fisher made comments suggesting they thought the bullet entered the cowlick. The other two were silent on this issue, so perhaps they simply played along. Same with the HSCA FPP. Most of them refused to talk about what happened, so a number of them may have had their doubts. I can confirm that Wecht has long suspected there was an entrance by the EOP, and Canal, to his credit, contacted Joe Davis and convinced him the entrance was by the EOP.

            Still, why do you focus on the members of government panels, who met largely in secret, when you have elsewhere gone on record questioning the veracity of experts hired by the government to settle important questions?

            Why not focus on the statements of the experts with an interest in the case who’ve viewed the photos in the last 20 years or so?

            I mean, it seems way way more than a coincidence that not only the bulk of the CTs to view the materials over the last 20 years (e.g Mantik, Aguilar, and Robertson) suspect the wound was by the EOP and not by the cowlick, but the bulk of the of the LNs (Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and Cummings).

            I mean, die-hard CTs and die-hard LNs scarcely agree on anything, and here we have a growing consensus on which the two sides agree. So why fight it?

            So, yeah, I’m sorry to report this to you, but you were taken in by a hoax.

          • I mean, it seems way way more than a coincidence that not only the bulk of the CTs to view the materials over the last 20 years (e.g Mantik, Aguilar, and Robertson) suspect the wound was by the EOP and not by the cowlick, but the bulk of the of the LNs (Sturdivan, Zimmerman, and Cummings).

            It’s not a coincidence, it’s a self-selected bunch of people inclined to produce an “original” finding.

            All the LNs who buy Canal’s lower entrance wound notion insist that it’s consistent with Oswald as the lone shooter.

            Do you agree with them on that?

          • Pat Speer says:

            McAdams: (The medical and ballistic professionals allowed to view the original autopsy materials who in recent years have come to conclude the autopsy doctors were correct about the EOP entrance were)”a self-selected bunch of people inclined to produce an “original” finding.”

            This is really quite embarrassing, IMO. There is no connection whatsoever between CTs like Randy Robertson and David Mantik and LNs like Larry Sturdivan, Chad Zimmerman, and Peter Cummings. NO, the only “self-selected bunch of people inclined to produce a finding” of whom I am aware was the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.

            I mean, just think about it, John…

            Forensic Pathology: A Handbook for Pathologists
            (supported by the U.S. Department of Justice
            via Grant N1-71-118G under the Omnibus Crime
            Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968), published
            July, 1977.
            Edited by Russell S. Fisher, M.D. and Charles S.
            Petty, M.D.

            32 Articles written by
            Michael Baden, M.D. 1 ½
            John Burton, M.D. 1 ½
            Frank Cleveland, M.D. 2
            John Coe, M.D. 2
            William G. Eckert, M.D. ½ ½
            John F. Edland, M.D. 2
            Russell S. Fisher, M.D. 2
            Jerry T. Francisco, M.D. 1 ½
            Charles S. Hirsch, M.D. 2 ½ ½ ½
            George S. Loquvam, M.D. 2
            Leslie I. Lukash, M.D. 1 1/2
            Arthur J. McBay, PH.D 2
            Allan B. McNie, M.D. 2
            Charles S. Petty, M.D. 3 ½ ½ ½
            Charles J. Stahl M.D. 2
            (1 by the committee of American Pathologists)

            These were men hand-picked by Dr. Russell Fisher, the eminence grise behind the Clark Panel. Now look at the overlap with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, convened the very next month.

            Michael M. Baden, M.D., Chairman of the Panel, Chief Medical Examiner, New York City, N.Y.
            John I. Coe, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Hennepin County, Minn.
            Joseph H. Davis, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dade County, Miami,
            George S. Loquvam, M.D., Director, Institute of Forensic Sciences, Oakland, Calif.
            Charles S. Petty, M.D., Chief Medical Examiner, Dallas County, Dallas, Tex.
            Earl F. Rose, M.D., LL.B., Professor of Pathology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

            Werner V. Spitz, M.D., Medical Examiner, Detroit, Mich.
            Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D., Coroner, Allegheny County, Pittsburgh,
            James T. Weston, M.D., Chief Medical Investigator, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, N. Mexico

            Baden, Coe, Loquvam and Petty had just written a book for Fisher, the leader of the Clark Panel, and the man who moved Kennedy’s head wound to the cowlick. Spitz, of course had been Fisher’s assistant for many years, had co-written a book with Fisher, and had confirmed Fisher’s findings for the Rockefeller Commission. Weston had already confirmed Fisher’s findings for CBS in 1975. Rose had been the coroner in Dallas in 1963.

            This left Joe Davis and Cyril Wecht as the only two independent voices on the committee. Davis eventually came to conclude the autopsy doctors were correct. Wecht has bounced around but has always been open-minded about the EOP entrance.

            The cowlick entrance is up there with Piltdown man and Bigfoot, John. It’s toast.

      • In the Z film, I saw the shot that caused the explosion of JFK’s head. I just fail to see that shot as having come from the TSBD. So thr Z film makes clear to me that there were at least 2 shooters. That’s a conspiracy.

  2. L says:

    “Some critics continue to insist their findings could not be true, but none has been able to suggest a credible alternative scenario.”

    Ignoring credible alternative scenarios is not the same as there never having been any suggested.

    • That’s quite right, L. Along that same line, I question people who say, in so many words, that we should assume Oswald killed JFK because no evidence of a conspiracy has ever been shown. I’m realizing that there was a lot of evidence-tampering going on, obviously making it hard to find hard evidence. In addition, I can’t and will never, accept that Oswald was the lone killer, as he was never proven guilty in a court of law.

  3. JSA says:

    I’d like to add that the acoustics evidence runs contrary to what the WC found.
    I suggest that Mr. Kaiser read Donald Thomas’ book, “Hear No Evil” if he wants to get up to date on the acoustical evidence, which the Warren Commission didn’t address.

  4. Pat Speer says:

    I sat next to Kaiser at a Lancer Conference dinner, and tried to talk to him about the medical evidence. He had no interest. I suspect he still has no interest. Like so many of the academics and journalists I’ve spoken to over the years, he knows if he says the HSCA experts got it right, he’ll appear to be a serious researcher, rather than a crank.

    Academics and journalists just aren’t comfortable thinking, let alone saying, that a massive government investigation was a hoax, or built upon fraudulent evidence.

    • Alex S says:

      “Like so many of the academics and journalists I’ve spoken to over the years, he knows if he says the HSCA experts got it right, he’ll appear to be a serious researcher, rather than a crank. ”

      Bingo!

      Obviously Phil Shenon falls into this category too. Arguing for a “conspiracy behind Oswald” while deriding the “kooks on the Grassy Knoll” is a position which does not signify dignity and legitimacy but timidity (though it will allow for more access to the mainstream media). It’s a half-measure aimed not at historical truth but at compromise with the official narrative. But Shenon and Kaiser can no more have their cake and eat it too than could Blakey 35 years ago.

  5. Avinash says:

    Kaiser believes that the Mafia killed JFK.

  6. Paul M says:

    Kaiser, McAdams, and Photon all cling to the summary paragraphs of the Warren Commission. The supporting volumes of evidence do not uphold said summary. One does not need an advanced degree to recognize one-sided questioning of witnesses, and no true effort to examine all of the available evidence. The result was that no other conclusion could possibly be reached beyond Oswald as the lone gunman.

    As for the HSCA, they were just as confused by the obfuscated and selective evidence provided by the FBI, botched autopsy, and Dallas Police fiasco of incompetence.

    What rational person would accept the word of the FBI, CIA, and Congress? Even Blakey doesn’t back but the HSCA conclusions that support the Warren Report, and he directed it.

  7. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    There was an autopsy, may be the single one in U.S. modern history that wasn’t subjected to the standard procedure of tracking the he trajectory of the bullets through the body. Thus,Gerald Ford could easily “transfer” the back wound to the neck, Humes and Specter cooperated for covering up even why Humes had destroyed his first draft of the autopsy report, and the entire WC put aside the Harper Fragment. All these misrepresentations are conspiracy facts, because this cover up was designed to turn the Single Bullet fraud into a theory.

  8. Bob Prudhomme says:

    I believe that, in many instances, the Warren Commission was given excellent and accurate medical evidence. However, once it was decided to pursue the Single Bullet Theory, it became necessary to overlook much of this evidence, although this evidence is still present in testimonies given to the WC.

    The medical evidence that puts the lie to the SBT more so than any other evidence was given by Dr. Robert Roeder Shaw, the surgeon who repaired the damage to Connally’s chest caused, supposedly, by a bullet that struck Connally in the back after passing through JFK’s neck. It can be found at this site:

    http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm

  9. Ramon F Herrera says:

    After all has been said and done about the two medical teams, the following remarkable difference remains unexplained:

    (a) Parkland doctors, nurses and coffin personnel.

    Always available for interviews, articles, conferences, pictures, fan clubs, poster signings, twerking, etc. No fear here. If there was any, they defeated it.

    (b) Bethesda doctors.

    Reclusive. Publish ONE article, safely protected. Escape to discrete anonymity in Switzerland. Fear is distinct and undeniable.

  10. Jordan says:

    The Warren report is but one example of a finding designed to assuage scrutiny and pacify the public, exactly along the lines of the 9-11/NIST reporting.

    These are not the only examples of such intentionally misleading and agendized investigations…

  11. Neurotic Neuron says:

    This is a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Why is it then that the Government commission investigating the JFK assassination had their findings sealed for 75 years? What is being hidden from the taxpayers who financed the investigation? Why are you considered a “conspiracy crackpot” if you question their findings? The main suspect, the ONLY fellow with the means, motive and opportunity to greenlight the assassination AND cover it up – is the same guy who appointed the investigative commission; A commission that was allowed to examine ONLY evidence provided by J. Edgar Hoover: The new President’s next door neighbor, fellow blackmailer and power obsessed lawman who was facing mandatory retirement if Kennedy remained in office. Lyndon and Hoover were taped a few hours after the assassination decrying the need to “get something out to the public immediately in order to convince folks that Oswald was a lone nut”. Johnson phoned the Dallas DA the day after the assassination and demanded that he; “call off the investigation, you’ve got your man, don’t do any more investigating”. The day after that he called the operating room where Oswald lay dead and demanded that the surgeon facilitate a deathbed confession with the lurking FBI agent. Upon being told that Oswald had bled out and wouldn’t be doing any chatting with anyone – our new Commander in Chief roared and slammed down the phone. Johnson co-opted the CIA to do the hit. They were happy to comply after Kennedy had fired their slime-ball boss and threatened to eliminate the agency. By 1963 our CIA had become masters of regime change all over the globe. Weeks earlier they’d knocked off the Diem brothers in Viet Nam. Coup d’ etats on three continents fleshed out their resume. A domestic assassination was a piece of cake for these homicidal psychopaths. Plenty of sane, intelligent, people just don’t want to hear about the Kennedy assassination. They don’t want to believe that our government contained elements willing to run the Country like a “banana republic”. Our media is being influenced by a CIA that is even more powerful than it was in 1963. Hell, they just got away with spying on a Senate subcommittee – And our compliant media fed us stories about Honey Boo Boo to keep folks from examining the real issues our Country is facing. Screw it. As Yogi would say; If the American people don’t want to know, you can’t stop’em.”

  12. David Regan says:

    I believe the following quotes from the April 30, 1964 session transcript are very telling:

    pp. 19: Sen. Cooper – “I think where our investigation is weak is what happened to this man after he left the United States, went to Russia, came back — I think we ought to get it in the record what the State Department knows about him.”

    pp. 24: Allen Dulles – “But to print all the testimony you have taken — some of it has been terribly detailed. If historians later want to read it over and work on it, well and good, but I don’t think anybody would pay any attention to it to begin with.”

    Warren Commission – April 30, 1964 transcript: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0430/html/WcEx0430_0001a.htm

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.