Per our recent post on “What did Washington political elite think of JFK’s death?”, this 1992 wire service story (found on the National Security Agency website) notes an oft-forogtten fact: As a vice presidential candidate Al Gore said he did not think one man, alone and unaided, killed JFK.
Once elected he abandoned his belief in this inconvenient truth.
Guys, enough with the low blows and personal pot shots. They make this whole exercise tiresome. Stick to the issues. The subject is fraught, clearly, with entrenched positions, held and defended with sometimes excessive zeal. Don’t let it get personal; rise above.
PLV, well said. I, for one, don’t do pot-shots. Points can me made, and strong ones at that, without being personal.
Hi Photon
The interview I refer to was conducted by Canadian broadcaster Brent Holland in 2009, you will be able to find it on Youtube and it is in 6 parts.
Mclelland is quite clear in the interview in that the autopsy photo with respect to the rear of JFK’s head does not match what he saw.
So you believe that someone’s memories of an event are more accurate 46 years after the event than 25 years after the event? McClelland contradicts what he stated on National Television in 1988. At the time of 2009 interview he was 82 years old.
The bottom line is that even in one witness you have conflicting interpretations of what he saw. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, retrospective medical studies published in respected medical journals have demonstrated that initial ER wound interpretations are correct only about 50% of the time and have little value in establishing actual bullet trajectories. Those are the facts-if you have an MD degree and access to medical records from some of the top hospitals in the country you could repeat the studies for yourself.
I believe Dr Robert Mclelland is a very convincing witness who has been very consistent with his testimony.
1988 NOVA interview. “Very consistent with his testimony.” In the words of another assassin: useless,useless.
what other assassin….Jack Wilkes Booth? Leon Czolgras(or whatever the spelling is).?
That is quite a tour d’force, Paul. Did you do your Psychiatry residency at the Menninger Clinic? Maybe you can diagnose retrospectively what DSM criteria he fulfilled.
He never gave up his life to kill Oswald; he thought that he was going to be a hero. For many people, including one member of the JFK SS detail he was. When news of Oswald’s death reached the crowd outside of the Capitol there was a cheer. The point is that Ruby had an easily defensible temporary insanity case. Unfortunately his attorney publicity hog Melvin Belli completely mismanaged the case and went for the home run instead of pleading down to a lesser charge. At any rate Jack was diagnosed with metastatic cancer before his appeal got under way ( no,nobody injected him with cancer-even now that is impossible). Only somebody completely ignorant of the case would make a statement that Ruby ” almost certainly didn’t like ” Kennedy. He idolized Kennedy, which you would have known if you had spent 15 minutes looking at the history of the Ruby story. You must have lead a very sheltered life if you believe that people are not affected by stories in the news,particularly crime stories. How many suicides followed l Lennon’s death, or Cobain’s suicide ? I know of at least one prominent American entertainer who had a nervous breakdown in response to RFK’s assassination. So your comment about how Ruby would not react to JFK’s death is not just irrational, it borders on arrogance. And frankly, I just don’t see we’re you have the educational background to merit that arrogance.
I’m smart enough to write in short paragraphs.
And no, I don’t know how many suicides were inspired by Kirk Cobain’s. But since you know, please tell all of us the precise number.
No guessing. And I want names and copies of the suicide notes and death cerificates.
Otherwise I’ll assume you are talking out of your hat.
So you must have known Ruby pretty well, judging by your comments. Did you exchange Christmas gifts?
On one hand, you say he went temporarily insane. On the other, you say he thought he would go free. But the assertion that he thought he would be a hero means he engaged in a rational mental process, which is the exact opposite of temporary insanity. And I mean that from a legal point of view as well as a common sense one.
Can you please come up with a single theory and stick with it?
Temporary insanity is a legal defense. Insanity is not a medical term nor a diagnosis.It was first used successfully in the case of an individual who later became a hero on the Civil War, it really has no bearing on whether somebody is mentally ill, only the individual’s state of mind at the time of a crime and implications for possible extenuating circumstances.
You are the one that claims that it was impossible for Ruby to have a reaction to JFK’s death sufficient to want to kill Oswald. That is absurd-but go ahead, tell us how you know. You make alot of claims, but to this point you haven’t supplied any evidence to support them. You claimed that Ruby was a Mafia operative, then you admit that you can’t prove it. So why make a claim that you “obviously” can’t prove? Probably because you don’t know much about the case and hope that nobody else does either.
“Yes, the SBT is possible” -you just destroyed your own argument : “there is not a million-in-one chance that the single-bullet theory is true.”
Better work on getting that GED.
see above 9:28 comment
I notice you never answer any of my points.
I don’t believe that JFK was killed by someone other than Oswald because of Crenshaw’s assertions, although they add an interesting layer to the many, many layers of intrigue about the assassination. So whether you are right about him — oh, and by the way what you assert are not “facts,” so please stop calling them that — is immaterial to me.
In order to believe Oswald acted alone, you have to believe the single-bullet theory 100%. Anyone with an IQ over 20 can tell that it is impossible.
In order to believe there was no conspiracy, you have to believe that Mafia operative Jack Ruby was uncontrollably despondent about the murder of a man he didn’t know and almost certainly didn’t like. Nobody with more common sense than a lamp post would buy that.
I could go on like that for hours, if I cared enough, but I don’t. But please explain how a bullet can remain pristine and change directions after going through multiple bodies. Or why all the evidence was lost and/or been kept secret. Why Ruby killed Oswald. Why Oswald was pro-Castro and working with anti-Castro forces at the same time. Why he wanted to kill JFK. Nobody has ever given an explanation of that that makes sense.
Until you do that, stop blathering about picky details that mean nothing in the big picture.
I have an IQ well over 100 and the education to prove it and the single bullet theory has been proven possible many times. To be blunt, where did the bullet that went through JFK’s cervical area go? It is not a “fact” that Crenshaw accompanied McClelland to the ER? What exactly is your experience in ballistics, physics or psychology that makes you an expert in what bullets can do or what motivates people to do spur of the moment activities? Jack Ruby a Mafia operative? Prove it. He wasn’t, no matter how many self-described organized crime experts claim he was. Frankly I don’t know what points you ask. Unlike you I put out facts- if you can’t refute them with clear,documented evidence it just shows the weakness of your position.
You really don’t know much about the assassination,do you? What is your definition of “facts”. Do you believe in the concept?
You have an IQ over 100? Methinks you doth protest too much.
Seriously, get a grip. Obviously my point about IQ was rhetorical. You have memorized a long string of talking points, hurrah for you.
But there is nothing funnier than reading your comment that the single-bullet theory has been “proven possible” many times.
PROVEN possible? Or is it proven POSSIBLE?
Oh, the irony.
Oh, the doublespeak.
Let me pause to catch my breath after I stop laughing ……
There now. Whew.
Sure, it’s possible that martians built Stonehenge, but that doesn’t make it LIKELY.
Yes the SBT is POSSIBLE, but there are many, many more explanations for the wounds of JFK and Gov. Connolly that are MORE LIKELY.
I don’t claim any expertise, and as I said I’m not invested in this in any way other than curiosity. As far as I know, you have no expertise either, just some random troll that pops up in every thread on the Internet.
Nothing discussed on this site is a evidence. It’s not a courtoom, and your third-hand citations of what someone somewhere says is not a fact in any strict sense.
You don’t come across as serious when you ask me to prove Ruby was in the mafia, which obviously I can’t do, and at the same time refuse to believe any of the experts who asserted as much 40-50 years ago. By those standards, nothing you say amounts to anything either unless you personally were involved.
Bottom line is that you choose to believe what you want. And that is fine as far as I’m concerned, but I’m tired of reading you popping up on this good site like an ignorant gnat leaving a trail of insults.
name one
Let me emphasize about Ruby — he gave up his life to kill Oswald. He committed a murder that the whole world saw in the presence of police. Lots of people get murdered and it is a shame. But the sadness people feel when seeing stories about crime in the news doesn’t cause them to ruin their own lives.
We will never know precisely why Ruby did what he did. But logic and the history of human behavior say it wasn’t for the pulicly stated reasons.
No way Oswald gets convicted for Tippit? With eight eyewitnesses, multiple line-up matches and a 9th witness that the cops didn’t need because he was visiting his mistress? With the ballistic matches? With his attempt to shoot a detective in the theater- you do know that he pulled the trigger but the hammer feel on the cop’s hand, don’t you?
The photos are suspect? By who? Marina admitted to taking them! Jonathan, making up things will never advance your position. I came back to this site after seeing it basically dry up over the last several weeks. But geez, some of you guys simply will not accept that there is no evidence for anybody being involved in the JFK assassination except for Oswald. None . There isn’t anybody else. After nearly 50 years. There is not a single shred of real evidence that any conspiracy buff can point to identifying anybody else pulling the trigger.
I can’t prove that gremlins don’t exist, but that is not proof that they do exist. But for a CT buff that would be proof that they exist. Logic and reason seem to be foreign concepts to the CT community-as your statements about the Tippit shooting indicate.
You point to eyewitnesses in the Tippit shooting. Okay, how about all of the eyewitnesses who saw and/or heard shots from the grassy knoll and behind the picket fence? Suddenly eyewitnesses are unreliable? Your bias is showing, Photon.
Furthermore, regarding the alleged shooter, Oswald: Besides a palm print on the rifle, and some very shaky evidence, not all of it even admissible in court, you claim to have proof that he alone shot the President, or even that he fired any shots? I find that to be one of your weakest arguments, and laughable that you stick to those when you know (if you’re being honest with yourself) that there’s really no good proof that Oswald did or did not fire those shots at the motorcade.
Within 30 minutes of the assassination all 3 networks were reporting that the shots were fired from the TSBD.
The only employee of the TSBD that left the building was Oswald-before anybody in the building even knew JFK was shot.
Name one credible witness who saw somebody shooting from the grassy knoll.
Witnesses to Shots from the Grassy Knoll
Here is a list, in alphabetical order by surname, and no doubt incomplete, of those witnesses to President Kennedy’s assassination who claimed that one or more shots came from the general direction of the grassy knoll:
1. Victoria Adams
2. Danny Garcia Arce
3. Virgie Baker (née Rackley)
4. Jane Berry
5. Charles Brehm
6. Ochus Campbell
7. Faye Chism
8. John Chism
9. Harold Elkins
10. Ronald Fischer
11. Buell Wesley Frazier
12. Dorothy Garner
13. Jean Hill
14. S. M. Holland
15. Ed Johnson
16. Dolores Kounas
17. Paul Landis
18. Billy Lovelady
19. Austin Miller
20. A.J. Millican
21. Luke Mooney
22. Thomas Murphy
23. Jean Newman
24. William Newman
25. Kenneth O’Donnell and David Powers
26. Roberta Parker
27. Frank Reilly
28. Arnold Rowland
29. Edgar Smith
30. Joe Marshall Smith
31. Forrest Sorrels
32. James Tague
33. Roy Truly
34. Harry Weatherford
35. Seymour Weitzman
36. Otis Williams
37. Mary Woodward
38. Abraham Zapruder
Not one of your “witnesses” saw anybody shooting from the grassy knoll. Let’s use a little common sense .Abraham Zapruder spent his entire time during the assassination filming JFK. So how could it have been physically possible for him to even see a grassy knoll shooter unless the shooter was resting the gun on his shoulder?
Where exactly is it written that Powers and O’Donnell saw somebody shooting from the grassy knoll? Where is it stated that Truly said that he saw somebody shooting from the grassy knoll? Billy Lovelady was in the entrance to the TSBD depository and couldn’t even see the grassy knoll “sniper’s nest” if you want to call it that. Like so many conspiracy buffs you would rather lie than put up evidence that is valid and can be confirmed. So James Tague claimed to see a shooter on the grassy knoll? Do you have any idea that Tague didn’t even know that he had been wounded until somebody else told him that he had blood on his cheek? How many of your witnesses were even in Dealy Plaza at the time of the shooting? JSA do you know any of the facts associated with this case aside from baloney you have picked up from conspiracy websites or Classic Comics versions of the assassination?
As I recall the original comments were about how great a witness Dr. Crenshaw was. After I conclusively proved that his claim to see the unaltered neck wound of JFK was physically impossible, how do the CT faithful respond? By changing the subject, by putting out ridiculous claims ( a million to one odds against the single bullet theory-as if the author of that statement ever took a course in statistics) , by putting out outright lies claiming that people with no connection to this case could actually give credible evidence.
#31 Forrest Sorrels. Testimony taken in Washington,D.C. @ 0945 on May 7, 1964.
Q: Do you have any reason to believe that the shots could not have come from the Book Depository Building?
A: No sir.
Q : Would shots fired from the Book Depository Building have been consistent with your hearing of the shots?
A: Yes,they would have.
JSA , I am calling you out as a liar for claiming that Forrest Sorrels was a witness claiming shots came from the grassy knoll..
As a credible student of the assassination you have been impeached.
#5:Charles Brehm. In 1963 during an FBI interview and also on Showtime “Trial of Lee Oswald ” program Brehm stated that he thought the shots came from the TSBD or nearby Dal-Tex building.
Another grassy knoll lie.
#35 Seymour Weitzman. 1964 Dallas deposition. Ran to the fence “because somebody said the shots came from there”. At no time did he ever state that he felt that the shots came from that direction and stated that nobody was there only second after the shooting. Another grassy knoll witness lie.
#37 Mary Woodward :According to FBI interview initial perception was that shots came from above and behind, but with echoes in the area could not be certain where they came from. Never saw a shooter. Another grassy knoll witness lie.
P hoton, You didn’t PROVE anything.
A ll you did was smear the people who contradicted the WC.
U nconvincing.
L isten to what Ken O’Donnell said to Tip O’Neil:
“I told the FBI what I had heard [two shots from behind the grassy knoll fence], but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.” - Man of the House, by Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr., p. 178. O’Donnell was riding in the Secret Service follow-up car with Dave Powers, who was present and told O’Neill he had the same recollection.
#25:Kenneth O’Donnnell Interview @ 1205 May 18,1964:
In response to a question where the shots came from-” My reaction in part is reconstruction-is that they came from the right rear.” This is followed by repeated statements that the accompaning agents looked in the direction of the presumed source-again the right rear. the Altgens photo confirms this.
Testimony given under penalty of perjury.
Another grassy knoll witness lie.
Nobody SAW Oswald fire from the TSBD. You cannot prove that anyone saw him shoot. People heard shots fired from that direction, AND people heard shots fired from the front of the motorcade. They said so, or tried to, until the FBI pressured many of them to change their stories. As for Ken O’Donnell, he also told Tip O’Neil (if you were to read Tip’s book which contains more of that dialog), that he changed his story because the FBI and the Warren Commission told him that he couldn’t have heard or seen any shots fired from the front. Not wanting to stir up trouble with the Kennedy family, whom he felt or thought would be distressed by dissent (again, this is what Ken told Tip and not MY conjecture), O’Donnell said he agreed to testify to the WC that the shots came from the TSBD. Tip said “you lied to the Warren Commission? I wouldn’t have done that in a million years!”
O’Donnell responded by saying that he didn’t want to stir up controversy and decided to say what the FBI wanted him to say.
So even if he was under threat of perjury, he was going along with the winners, those who held the power, after the assassination put Lyndon in power, secured J. Edgar Hoover’s tenure, and locked in the CIA’s tenure without being harassed ever again by the Kennedys. I’d say Kenny saw where the winds were blowing and decided it was better to go along than fight them.
You know, May, I DO read, and I am not invested in any status quo. If our government does great things, which it has done, that’s wonderful. Sometimes things aren’t what the Dick and Jane 1960 high school civics class says they are. It’s a complex world. Sometimes things aren’t always Leave it To Beaver squeaky clean. J. Edgar was kind of queer. The public didn’t know that for a long time. But eventually the truth about Hoover: his homosexuality, his obsessive control freak behavior, his abuse of power, became known. The point is, we learned more about Hoover only after a long time, after new facts emerged, forcing us to change our interpretation of someone who was once idealized as “the nation’s Number One G-Man.”
Arguing with you is like arguing with someone who naively assumes that everything is like a TV sitcom plot, with no hidden secrets, everything as straight forward and up front as the dogs you like to have lapping at your feet.
Wake up. History is often re-discovered as new facts and information emerge.
My friend, I know more secrets than you would believe.
I also know that if somebody contradicts sworn testimony his veracity is open to question.
Do you have any idea how Mr. O’Donnell died and what his major health problem was? Was that health problem apparent at the time of the O ‘Neil conversation?
Oh, we’re “friends” now are we?
Well, yes I know that Kenny O’Donnell suffered from the “Irishman’s disease” as my snobby WASP grandmother liked to call it. So, you’re INFERRING HERE (never a good idea btw) that because someone drinks, their statements have no validity? Seriously?
That’s the best you can come up with?
Coupled with the fact that he gave previously contradictory testimony I would say that his veracity is open to question. Of course Tip had his own issues – such as being dead drunk in front of the “1789” and making a scene waiting for his car.
“Not one of your “witnesses” saw anybody shooting from the grassy knoll.”~Photon
And not a single witness saw Oswald firing from the depository window.
\\][//
Zero, but not for the reason you think, Photon. The FBI and WC reported that the witnesses were not credible. That was Hoover’s plan.
There’s plenty of evidence of a conspiracy. There is virtually no evidence that Oswald did it. Your assertions are not fact.
You imagine, for example, that Dr. Crenshaw was not in a position to see JFK’s wounds. Why would i believe your imagination instead of a guy who was there? Who are you ? We’re you there?
You credulously believe fairy tales like the single-bullet theory, and have no serious explanation for why a mafia operative would be despondent about a murder, or why a political assassin looking for attention would claim to be a patsy.
There is nothing wrong with having a contrary opinion, but you just come here and spout nonsense. You think people are stupid. We know that. No need to keep saying it.
Crenshaw ran to the ER with his attending McClelland. In his book he claimed to see “a small opening about the diameter of a pencil” in JFK’s neck.
McClelland testified ” the neck wound when I first arrived was … converted to a tracheostomy…”
Perry stated that Mcclland came into the room “shortly after entering the neck…”
Both McClland and Perry confirm that it was impossible for Crenshaw to have seen what he described.
Dr McClelland also testified to a large gaping wound in the rear of JFK’s head, which he describes as a wound of exit.
He said it then, and he maintains that position today.
And yet he agrees that the autopsy photos accurately show the wound as he remembered it.
What percentage of viewers who see the autopsy photos describe the head wound as being in the back of the head?
Did you even read my statement concerning published data about ER wound interpretation? Apparently not.
George Simmons, document your claim. I will mine: PBS-NOVA ‘Who shot President Kennedy’-1988.
McClelland: ” I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they are shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly.”
Keeping mind what has previously been stated about ER wound interpretation, and even assuming the radio interview took place, are claiming that McClelland’s memory of a 18 minute event would be more accurate 43 years after the event than 25 years after the event? if so, I could understand your ability to ignore the obvious and accept the improbable.
Paul? Now what else about Crenshaw?
More on JFK’s wounds:
Dr. McClelland
Dr. McClelland had the best view of the head wound. He said “I could very closely examine the head wound and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.
It had been shattered apparently by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior half and this sprung open the bones in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself, and see that probably a third or so, at least of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”I have seen interviews with every Parkland physician and they all agreed with Dr. McClelland.
Dr. Crenshaw
Dr. Crenshaw wrote in his book “Conspiracy of Silence”; ”I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. The right occipital parietal portion of his brain appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater-an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.”
Dr. Malcolm Perry
Dr. Malcolm Perry, the surgeon who cut the tracheotomy through the throat wound and had a longer and better look at it than anyone else, told reporters at a press conference held less than 2 hours after Kennedy died that the president was shot in the throat from in front.
Dr. Robert Canada
Dr. Robert Canada, the commanding officer of the medical hospital at Bethesda, observed a “very large 3 to 5 cm wound in the right rear of the president’s head, in the lower right occipital region below the external occipital protuberance and 3.5 cm to the right of the midline of the skull.”
Dr. Canada went on to describe it as “clearly an exit wound”, because the occipital bone was “avulsed” (exploded) outward. Other witnesses to the autopsy expressed similar views.
Secret Service Agents Agree
Secret Service agents William Greer and Roy Kellerman both recalled a large wound in the back of the head. FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O’Neill observed a gaping hole in the back of the head.
Medical Technicians Also Agree
Medical technicians James Jenkins, Paul O’Connor, Jan Gail Rudnicki, and Jerroll Custer also confirmed the existence of an exit wound in the rear of the head.
Evidence Found Later
Late in the afternoon of November 23, 1963, William Harper, a college student, was taking photographs in Dealey Plaza when he discovered a large fragment of bone lying in the median between Elm and Main Streets about 30 feet behind and to the left of JFK’s location at the instant of the fatal head shot.
Harper took the fragment to his uncle, Dr. Jack Harper who turned it over to the chief pathologist at Dallas’s Methodist Hospital. Three Doctors examined the bone fragment and positively identified it as occipital bone. (from the lower back of the skull).
X-Ray Evidence
X-Rays of JFK’s skull reveal a snow flake pattern of bullet fragments which are more consistent with an exploding or hollow point bullet instead of military ammunition that Oswald allegedly used. The X-Rays have also shown evidence of having been faked to hide a large exit wound in the rear of the head. [comment from Dr. John Meyer, retired radiologist: I’m a retired radiologist and I have been reading xrays for almost 50 years. IMO,at least one bullet must have entered the skull from the frontal area ( posterior right frontal high to medium convexity ) since a large skull fragment is displaced BACKWARD and UPWARD and metal fragments are near the entrance site where they are likely to be deposited from a projectile at the point where its velocity is greatest. There may have been a second headwound also due to the very complex fracture pattern, but at least one originated from the front. The posterior “blow-out ” exit wound is consistent with this frontal injury.]
Dr Mclelland gave a radio interview in 2009 in which he describes the moment he first saw the autopsy photos.
He states quite clearly in that interview that the photos of the rear of Kennedys head was not what he saw at Parkland, because the aoutospy photos show a small wound, where he states he saw a large gaping hole.
For one thing, I’m not a researcher, so I can’t debate petty details.
Second, all you are doing is the same brain-dead trick that people like Gerald Posner do. You have no first-hand knowledge about Crenshaw, so you say someone else says he is wrong. And you pick on some detail that you say is wrong. But the big picture fact is that he was there and he says that JFK had wounds consistent with a shooting from the front.
You CHOOSE not to believe what you want to believe. That doesn’t impress me at all.
What’s more, you don’t answer my points. There is not a million-in-one chance that the single-bullet theory is true. There is not a billion-in-one chance that Ruby shot Oswald because he was sad. There is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald had a motive or the skill to kill Kennedy. If there was, it would have been released years ago. Instead, the entire investigation has been mired in purposeful obstruction and secrecy.
You have the right to believe whatever you want. But your superior and mocking attitude just masks how little you know and the weakness of your position.
If Crenshaw came to the ER with McClelland, who said that he arrived after the tracheostomy , how could Crenshaw have seen the small pencil-sized wound he claimed to see?
If Perry said that McClelland arrived after he had entered the neck, how could Crenshaw have seen a pencil-sized wound that he claimed to see?
If it is conclusively proven that someone claims to see something that is physically impossible, why continue to use that person to advance your argument?
But Photon, what you skim over is the other locations that witnesses saw and described shooting action. Let’s say you’re right-that LHO “pulled the trigger” for a shot or two at JFK. Evidence implying the possibility of other shooters was destroyed. Why would someone destroy evidence-to protect a conspiracy, perhaps? The WC was tough on witnesses who said they saw smoke from trees at the grassy knoll. Why didn’t the WC show just as much respect and appreciation for those witnesses as they did for those who said shots came from the TSBD only? This thing ain’t over, Photon.
Remember, Photon, John E. Hoover(FBI)conceded that the weapon that was fired to kill Tippitt wasn’t proved to belong to LHO. Not a 100%guarantee of it.
Mr Photon, as you are likely aware all of the supposed forensic evidence you are hanging your hat on would for sure be thrown out of any real trial. I mean really, the pristine single bullet found on someone’s stretcher in Parkland with no real chain of custody that can be verified would be the first of many…..
The rifle was Oswald’s-ordered with a form in his handwriting using as an alias the name he went by in Minsk.
He was photographed holding the rifle- a photograph his wife admitted taking (hunter of fascists handwritten in Russian on the back).
He was seen by at least 2 witnesses shooting the same rifle at a range outside Dallas-rapidly and accurately.
The amount of rust on the weapon had no effect on its firing or accuracy-as was proved after the assassination.
Lee Oswald was in the TSBD at the time of the assassination no matter what Jesse Curry said.
Eyewitnesses placed Oswald on the Sixth Floor within 45 minutes of the assassination.
Even if #399 was not admitted as evidence in a court of law it would not have been necessary to convict Oswald-as Dallas police reported on Nov. 23.
The Tipitt shooting was an open and shut case, with 8 eyewitnesses and at least one round taken from the officer’s body a match to the pistol Oswald used in an attempt to kill a detective in the Texas Theater.
Harold Brennan identified Oswald as the Shooter in the window-and was able to give a description to Dallas Police of him before anybody even knew that Lee Oswald had left the building.
No one knows, no one can establish, who (if anyone) picked up “the rifle” from REA.
The order form is suspect; Oswald’s handwriting was forged in some instances (e.g., the “Hunt” letter). The money order allegedly sent to Klein’s for the rifle never cleared the federal reserve banking system. Big question mark there.
The backyard photos are highly suspect. They were allegedly found in the Paine garage on November 23, after the garage was thoroughly searched by police on November 22. The “killer of fascists” photo is the high-quality DeMorenschildt item; the writing “killer of fascists” belonged to neither Lee nor Marina.
The Imperial Reflex camera allegedly used to take the photos also was found in the Paine garage, by Michael Paine, after Oswald was dead.
As for the Tippit shooting, you and I have been reading different histories, photon. No way, based on what I’ve read pretty carefully, Oswald gets convicted for killing Tippit.
What kills me, photon, is that you’re a bright person. Why do you cling to a pack of lies? What satisfaction is there in that?
So Tom, are you saying that nothing in the 24 volumes of evidence of the Warren Report would be legally admissible? Are you claiming to be more knowledgable about the Law than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court? Where did you get your law degree that makes you an expert in what is legally admissible and what is not? Of course you realize that legal standards for evidence in 1964 were different from today, don’t you?
Where in the Warren Commission Report is anything said about whether the alleged evidence would have been admissible in court?
Photon writes:
” all forensic evidence from the last 49 years points to Lee Oswald as the sole assasin and absolutely none contradicts that statement.”
I guess I missed the trial where all this evidence was admitted.
I do remember, though, reading about the rust-barreled Carcano that couldn’t be traced convincingly to Oswald (that’s two separate problems). I also remember reading Jesse Curry’s statement about not being able to place Oswald in the sixth floor sniper’s nest with the Carcano.
LN-ers have it easy. They’ve got a designated perp. CT-ers don’t. The big problem with Oswald as designated perp is that while he’s been tried and convicted in the press, there’s no way a prosecutor could overcome reasoable doubt based on what’s known today (and what was known to some of the Warren Commissioners and staff attorneys).
Al Gore strikes me as being not passionate in his quest for truth (facts, if one prefers).
Here’s the rub: Because CT are disregarded by the MSM, each generation must do its own research from scratch.
That gives folks like photon an advantage over CT-ers. Photon draws upon a continuous thread of government-supported propositions. To refute photon, I must re-fresh myself and become expert in the Warren Report, the Rockefeller Panel, the Hart-Schweiker investigation, the HSCA, and the ARRB. I am at a disadvantage. There is no standard anti-Warren government supported theory.
Photon challenges most of us here. I say, let’s figure out how to rise to the challenge.
Most of what Photon is arguing is mainstream. I agree with him when he is skeptical about UFOs, or 9/11 Bush conspiracy theories, which I think are bunk. But with the JFK assassination, which is clearly not in that realm, he falls flat on his face. His arguments can easily be refuted by anyone who isn’t academically lazy, who is sophisticated at how they look at intelligence (like John Newman) and who doesn’t swallow what the government tries to ream down people’s throats without question. There’s precedent for the JFK assassination. All you have to do is look at older American (or any other nation’s history). Take the Sand Creek massacre, where US Cavalry rode into an Indian village and killed most of the women and children, and the government lied about it for years. Finally the truth came out, years later. Or take the settlement of early America by various European colonists. We have a more sophisticated understanding today of the role that various groups, the English, the Dutch, the Spanish, the French and others had in settling and claiming North America. And thanks to research done in the last 50 years, we now have proof that Norse came to Canada as early as 1000 AD, things that once were considered “wild theory” in the past by mainstream historians.
It’s good to be skeptical, but it’s also good to have an open mind. People like Photon don’t have an open mind, they just want to shut down the debate. But they can’t shut down the debate if all they can bring to the argument is tired old disproven theories, however “popular” they may be. Remember, Charles Darwin’s ideas at first weren’t “popular” and they sure were outside the mainstream of the mid-19th century. But over time, the bulk of Darwin’s “outlandish” theories which got yelled down by the uninformed held up to scrutiny. I think the same thing will happen with the JFK case when we consider that Oswald most likely didn’t act alone if he even fired any shot that day at the President.
Interesting.Actually the truth about Sand Creek was common knowledge within months of the massacre.
Forty years ago the history of European settlement was well taught-New sweden,Nieuw Amsterdam,etc.-apparently not in your school district.
the Viking sagas were well known for years-long before the Newfoundland discovery. But the point of your statement is obvious-throw in everything but the kitchen sink to obscure the fact that all forensic evidence from the last 49 years points to Lee Oswald as the sole assasin and absolutely none contradicts that statement.
No, the point of my argument was to show how ideas that are considered to be “common knowledge” in history often turn out to have a different explanation. But you won’t acknowledge that because you’re guns are drawn and you won’t compromise your belief system, which is solidified and fixed.
If Doctor Charles Crenshaw came forward and stated that he saw an entrance wound at Kennedy’s throat, and an entrance wound in his right temple, with the back of his head blown off, you and McAdams would automatically state that this doctor was either lying or confused, because what he said that he saw contradicted your cherished Lone Nut, single bullet belief. Just as Biblical fundamentalists would not budge on Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, as it became more and more factually based, with fossils and biology to back it up. They had their cherished belief in the Bible as literal truth, just as you seem to have with that of the Warren Commission. You’re not going to budge. Even if someone could actually show you new evidence to contradict your belief system, you’re too heavily invested in the official Warren Commission version.
Just because in a court of law someone decides that someone is guilty or innocent doesn’t always make it so. I’m not saying our judicial system is all bad, or that we should dismantle it. But if you recall, O. J. Simpson seemed to get a pretty easy shake by buying the best lawyers. Sometimes cases should be reopened. The JFK case qualifies, in my opinion.
But Crenshaw admitted to being not actively involved managing JFK’s care. What do you think a surgical resident’s role would be be during resusitative attempts on the President? That’s right-in the background.
At any rate,myself and others have documented retrospective studies published in reputable medical journals that have conclusively proved that ER physician interpretations of wounds has at best about 50% accuracy. Therefore, it is rediculous to keep harping at what one doctor in the backround thought he saw, particularly 3 or 4 decades after the event.
It wasn’t just Dr. Crenshaw though. Others saw similar wounds, but were put under pressure to keep quiet about it (Dr. Baxter admitted this in an on-tape interview years later) or their careers would be over. It was political pressure to shut up. Finally, after many years, the silence was broken. Contrast some of the statements below, for example, Dr. Perry initially said that the President was struck in the front temple, and pointed to that area on his head at the first press conference. He later changed his story, because of political pressure, the same political pressure I might add that Lyndon Johnson used on Warren and Senator Russell to get them to serve on the Commission. Are you telling me that all of the doctors wouldn’t remember what they saw in one of the most momentous events of their entire CAREERS? I don’t think so!
Charles Carrico, Resident Surgeon:
According to Gerald Posner, Dr Carrico said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 8th, 1992: “We saw a large hole on the right side of his head. I don’t believe we saw any occipital bone. It was not there. It was parietal bone.”
But what did Dr. Carrico report originally?
The Parkland doctors attempted “…to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted.”
“I believe there was shredded and macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of skull.”
“This [wound] was a 5cm by 17cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area.”
“[There was]…a fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound.”
Adolph Giesecke, Staff Anesthesiologist:
According to Gerald Posner, Dr. Giesecke said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 5th, 1992: “I was wrong in my Warren Commission testimony… I never got that good a look at it [the head]…[and] the occipital and parietal region are so close together it is possible to mistake one for the other.”
But what did Dr. Giesecke report originally?
“It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.”
As an anesthetist, Dr. Giesecke worked at the “head” of the table, so his “left” would also be JFK’s “left.” It is difficult, therefore, to explain Giesecke’s confusion as to which side the head wound was on. Still, his closeness to the wound lends credibility to his description: substitute “right” for Giesecke’s left and read his comment again.
Marion Jenkins
(Professor And Chairman Of Anaesthesiology):
According to Gerald Posner, Dr Jenkins said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 3rd, 1992:
“…[T]here could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital.”
But what did Dr. Jenkins say in his earlier reports and in his Warren Commission testimony?
“There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)…even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound.”
“I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound….”
Contrary to his alleged Posner interview, Dr. Jenkins both wrote and said “occipital.”
Charles Baxter
(Professor Of Surgery; Director Of Emergency Room)
According to Gerald Posner, Dr. Baxter said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 12th, 1992: “I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.”
But what did Dr. Baxter originally report?
“The right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.”
Paul Peters
(Assistant Professor Of Urology):
According to Gerald Posner, Dr. Peters said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 10th, 1992: “[The cerebellum] is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to….”
But what did Dr. Peters report to David Lifton, a number of years before the alleged Posner interview?
“I could see the occipital lobes clearly…. I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed almost on the foramen magnum.”
This statement is especially revealing, since Peters apparently had an excellent view of the head wound; given his description, the bulk of the cerebellum must have been missing.
And what did Dr. Peters report to Harrison Livingston when he asked the doctor whether the hole was “…above his right ear or behind his right ear?” Peters answered: “It was both. It really went behind and also a bit forward of the ear.”
Malcolm Perry
(Assistant Professor Of Surgery):
According to Gerald Posner, Dr. Perry said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 12th, 1992: “I never even saw the back of his head. The wound was on the right side, not the back.” And again, according to Posner, Perry said to him in a second interview Posner says he conducted on April 2nd, 1992: “I did not see any cerebellum.”
But Doctor Perry told the House Select Committee on Assassinations: “…the parietal occipital head wound was largely evulsive and there was visible brain tissue…and some cerebellum.”
Despite the alleged statements reportedly made to Gerald Posner, the doctors indeed identified JFK’s head wound to be both occipital and cerebellar. According to Dr. Robert McClelland, “The cause of death…[was] massive head injuries with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and massive blood loss.”
The Parkland doctor most qualified to report on a head wound and who apparently had an excellent view of JFK’s head injuries was Dr. Kemp Clark, Associate Professor and Chairman of Neurosurgery: What did Dr. Clark report? “There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region.” “Both cerebral and cerebellar tissues were extruding from the wound.”
If the Parkland doctors made the statements attributed to them by Gerald Posner, then they have significantly altered their initial reports and testimony. Why would medical professionals so alter their testimony as to put their credibility into question, unless they had capitulated to intense pressures?
Pretty dense. I made a comment that medical journals have published studies that show that ER doctors make correct wound interpretations only at the rate of a coin toss. With multiple and conflicting physicians reports you have unwittingly confirmed what has been common medical knowledge, ie. that ER wound interpretations are often inaccurate. It is folly to continue to use as evidence the Nov. 22 doctor’s initial and rushed wound observations. That is why laws require an autopsy in event of a murder or unexplained death. What is your next argument- that Lee Oswald was captured at a church?
Dense, but not obtuse…
Your case for the autopsy is also standing on shaky ground, fella.
Can you please explain all of the autopsy witness discrepancies?
Go here to see what I’m talking about:
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/ARRB_Medical_Testimony
The autopsy looks more like a kangaroo proceeding than a qualified autopsy. This falls in line with the Dallas doctors being told to change their stories of what they saw, and later to not say anything more about the trauma room events because their testimony contradicted the Warren Commission’s POLITICAL FAIRY TALE.
Yes, Robert you have found the truth.Conspiracy theories have as much validity as UFO stories.
The single-bullet theory, and the idea that Ruby killed Oswald because he was sad, have as much validity as belief in UFOs.
There, anybody can play that silly game, photon. Where exactly does that get us?
Photon, when you make a comment like THAT, it makes you appear nervous-as if you think some of the conspiracy theories do fit in the conspiracy puzzle. I think they do, by the way.
Very interesting that both Clinton and Gore agreed that all files relating to the JFK assassination be made public.
For history buffs, Gore’s father, Al Gore Sr., was in the running for the Veep nomination at the 1956 Democratic National Convention. One of his challengers? JFK.
I think because Al Gore pretty much quit what he calls in his most recent book a “political addiction” he is now free to speak his mind and not worry about saying things that might hurt the insider (money-lobby) connections to politicians, who are mostly bought and owned by the largest moneyed organizations today. So for example, unlike Senator Chuck Schumer (D. NY), Gore can flatly state that Wall Street is rigged unfairly and the banks don’t have to pay for their bubble mistakes. Or he can speak freely about how carbon emissions are threatening the life of the planet, in a way that those career politicians cannot, because they are owned by oil companies and coal companies. So I’m not at all surprised that he can say that he thinks JFK was killed by others in a conspiracy and not just by one lone gunman. He doesn’t have intelligence and defense contracts to worry about, or donors in those areas, who would stifle his outspokenness, if he were still a career politician beholden to them. And unlike Bill Clinton, he didn’t become “good friends” with the Bushes, so he doesn’t have to worry about saying things about oil or CIA or Texas that would tick them off.
There’s a freedom that comes from getting out of politics that is refreshing. Al Gore has found that out. The rest of us need to work however to get back the representative democracy that we deserve, the kind that our ancestors fought so hard for—was it in vain, for a few corporations? We need to bring the power back to the people again. Then we can begin to hear more of the truth from our elected officials. We could start with serious campaign finance reform—with teeth. Second, get ‘Citizens United’ overturned. Those would be a good start.
Bill Clinton told Webb Hubbell to find out Who Killed John Kennedy
Webb Hubbell:
“Of my many regrets at that moment, I remember thinking that I hadn’t accomplished something the President had asked me to do when I [he means Clinton] was first elected. “Webb,” he had said, “if I put you at Justice, I want you to find two answers for me. One, Who killed JFK? And two, Are there UFO’s?” He was dead serious. I had looked into both, but wasn’t satisfied with the answers I was getting.”
[Webb Hubbell, “Friends in High Places,” p. 282]