Salerian's article: The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The evidence
Peter Fokes
evidence
Medical Hypotheses, Volume 71, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 597-599
<quote on>
Summary
This paper proves that President KennedyīŋŊs postmortem examination is a
sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon
several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine
and NewtonīŋŊs second law īŋŊan object acted upon by a constant force will
move with constant acceleration in the direction of the forceīŋŊ. We
review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and
demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.
<quote off>
See # 23
Anyone read this article by chance?
More on Salerian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alen_J._Salerian
Does he believe Bundy and Dulles were masterminds of the
assassination?
<quote on>
It is my hypothesis that Bundy, McNamara, Allen Dulles (the former
head of the Central Intelligence Agency), General Curtis LeMay (Air
Force chief of staff), Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and possibly
a few others engineered a coup d'īŋŊtat to wage war in Vietnam. It is
also my hypothesis that President Kennedy's death was just the
collateral damage of war and so was the disappearance of over a
thousand people after the assassination.
<quote off>
http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Peace-Award-for-Robert-M-by-Alen-Salerian-091111-893.html
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sandy McCroskey
> The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The
> evidence
>
> Medical Hypotheses, Volume 71, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 597-599
>
> <quote on>
>
> Summary
> sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon
> several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine
> move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”. We
> review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and
> demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.
>
> <quote off>
>
> See # 23
>
>
> Anyone read this article by chance?
>
> More on Salerian
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alen_J._Salerian
>
> Does he believe Bundy and Dulles were masterminds of the
> assassination?
>
> <quote on>
>
> It is my hypothesis that Bundy, McNamara, Allen Dulles (the former
> head of the Central Intelligence Agency), General Curtis LeMay (Air
> Force chief of staff), Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and possibly
> also my hypothesis that President Kennedy's death was just the
> collateral damage of war and so was the disappearance of over a
> thousand people after the assassination.
>
> <quote off>
>
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
A little background on the journal that published Salerian's paper.
http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/page/3/
«September 16, 2009
«Academic freedom isn't free
« Should scientists be allowed to publish anything, even when it is
wrong? And should there be journals willing to accept everything, as
long as it seems interesting enough? That is the core of a debate that
has blossomed since the journal Medical Hypotheses published two aids-
denialist papers. Medical Hypotheses is a deliberately non-peer
reviewed journal: the editor decides whether to publish not based on
whether papers are true but whether they are bold, potentially
interesting, or able to provoke useful discussion. HIV researchers
strongly objected to the two papers, making the publisher Elsevier
withdraw them. Now there are arguments for removing Medical Hypotheses
from PubMed, the index of medical literature. Ben Goldacre of Bad
Science and Bruce G Charlton, editor of Medical Hypotheses, debate the
affair on Goldacre's blog. Are there scientific papers that are so bad
that there should not be any journal outlet for them? »
/sandy
Peter Fokes
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> a few others engineered a coup d'�tat to wage war in Vietnam. It is
>> also my hypothesis that President Kennedy's death was just the
>> collateral damage of war and so was the disappearance of over a
>> thousand people after the assassination.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Peace-Award-for-Robert-M-by-Alen-S...
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>
>A little background on the journal that published Salerian's paper.
>http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/page/3/
But that does not answer my question. Has anyone read the paper?
He did work for the FBI.
A little background on Salerian:
Alen J. Salerian, M.D., is a psychiatrist who lives and works in the
Washington D.C. area. He is the medical director of the Washington
Center for Psychiatry, the founder of the International Center for
Evidence Based Teaching[citation needed], and the former head of the
FBI's Mobile Psychiatric Emergency response team.
PF
>
>�September 16, 2009
Sandy McCroskey
> >> also my hypothesis that President Kennedy's death was just the
> >> collateral damage of war and so was the disappearance of over a
> >> thousand people after the assassination.
>
> >> <quote off>
>
> >>http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Peace-Award-for-Robert-M-by-Alen-S...
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Peter Fokes,
> >> Toronto
>
> >A little background on the journal that published Salerian's paper.
> >http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/page/3/
>
> But that does not answer my question. Has anyone read the paper?
> He did work for the FBI.
>
Well, I can't tell you whether anybody has read his article.
His editor may have...
;-D
/sm
j leyden
> evidence
>
> Medical Hypotheses, Volume 71, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 597-599
>
> <quote on>
>
> Summary
> sham.
You CTs never give up, do you? The author of this article is not a
forensic pathologist but a psychiatrist with a medical degree from
Istanbul U. (great football team). and my faith is the latter has been
rather shaken by the Fort Hood shrink who went off his nut and mowed down
everyone in sight. Moreover Salerian thinks the JFK assn. was a huge plot
involving half of the Washington establishment including LBJ, McNamara,
Bundy, Lemay, etc. Does anyone think he's going to give a thumbs up to
the JFK autopsy even if he were qualified to evaluate it? And I love his
article that you posted where, after saying MacNamara helped kill JFK to
keep the Vietnam war going, he thinks Mac ought to receive some kind of
peace prize as one of the "greatest defenders of peace." Wonder who his
shrink is.. maybe Maj. Hasan who lived & worked in Washington, DC, for a
number of years also. As for the peace prize, why not. Obama got one.
JGL
claviger
More interesting information:
Alen Salerian's JFK Paintings - Arts Desk - Washington City Paper
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com / blogs / artsdesk / visual-arts /
2009 / 10 / 09 / alen-salerians-jfk-paintings / - 53k - similar
pagesOct 9, 2009 ... Several of Salerian's paintings depict a
spiritual connection between Kennedy ...
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Your url leads to the paper's home page.
Try here:
His paintings are quite interesting.
Salerian has a YouTube channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7OG4zbcoa8
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
>
Peter Fokes
According to the Wikipedia entry, Salerian "was the first psychiatrist
to interview FBI Agent Robert Hanssen after Hanssen was arrested for
espionage in 2001. Underlying ... [his] media appearances has been a
plea for more routine psychological care for both federal officials
with high-pressure jobs and any person who shows signs of mental
distress."
Such advice seems prescient in the light of Hasan's act. Too bad his
advice was not taken more seriously.
Regards
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Mitch Todd
>>> a few others engineered a coup d'�ｿｽtat to wage war in Vietnam. It is
>>> also my hypothesis that President Kennedy's death was just the
>>> collateral damage of war and so was the disappearance of over a
>>> thousand people after the assassination.
>>>
>>> <quote off>
>>>
>>> http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Peace-Award-for-Robert-M-by-Alen-S...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Peter Fokes,
>>> Toronto
>>
>>
>>A little background on the journal that published Salerian's paper.
>>http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/page/3/
>
>
> But that does not answer my question. Has anyone read the paper?
> He did work for the FBI.
>
>
> A little background on Salerian:
>
> Alen J. Salerian, M.D., is a psychiatrist who lives and works in the
> Washington D.C. area. He is the medical director of the Washington
> Center for Psychiatry, the founder of the International Center for
> Evidence Based Teaching[citation needed], and the former head of the
> FBI's Mobile Psychiatric Emergency response team.
He claims to have worked for the FBI. I searched and couldn't find
anything that connecting him to an FBI "Mobile Psychiatric Emergency
Response Team" that doesn't appear to be sourced directly to Salerian
himself. I was also unable to find anything at all relating to the
existence
of an "International Center for Evidence Based Teaching" (whatever
that would be).
Dr Salerian so far appears to be an obscure psychiatrist with some very
obscure qualifications, no?
>>�ｿｽSeptember 16, 2009
>>�ｿｽAcademic freedom isn't free
>>
>>�ｿｽ Should scientists be allowed to publish anything, even when it is
>>wrong? And should there be journals willing to accept everything, as
>>long as it seems interesting enough? That is the core of a debate that
>>has blossomed since the journal Medical Hypotheses published two aids-
>>denialist papers. Medical Hypotheses is a deliberately non-peer
>>reviewed journal: the editor decides whether to publish not based on
>>whether papers are true but whether they are bold, potentially
>>interesting, or able to provoke useful discussion. HIV researchers
>>strongly objected to the two papers, making the publisher Elsevier
>>withdraw them. Now there are arguments for removing Medical Hypotheses
>>from PubMed, the index of medical literature. Ben Goldacre of Bad
>>Science and Bruce G Charlton, editor of Medical Hypotheses, debate the
>>affair on Goldacre's blog. Are there scientific papers that are so bad
>>that there should not be any journal outlet for them? �ｿｽ
>>
>>/sandy
Coondog
> On Nov 18, 12:29 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The
> > evidence
>
> > Medical Hypotheses, Volume 71, Issue 4, October 2008, Pages 597-599
>
> > <quote on>
>
> > Summary
> > This paper proves that President Kennedy’s postmortem examination is a
> > sham.
>
> You CTs never give up, do you? The author of this article is not a
> forensic pathologist but a psychiatrist with a medical degree from
> Istanbul U. (great football team). and my faith is the latter has been
> rather shaken by the Fort Hood shrink who went off his nut and mowed down
> everyone in sight. Moreover Salerian thinks the JFK assn. was a huge plot
> involving half of the Washington establishment including LBJ, McNamara,
> Bundy, Lemay, etc. Does anyone think he's going to give a thumbs up to
> the JFK autopsy even if he were qualified to evaluate it? And I love his
> article that you posted where, after saying MacNamara helped kill JFK to
> peace prize as one of the "greatest defenders of peace." Wonder who his
> shrink is.. maybe Maj. Hasan who lived & worked in Washington, DC, for a
> number of years also. As for the peace prize, why not. Obama got one.
>
> JGL
You can’t blame one person for the tragedy in Vietnam but if you could
it would be the brilliant lying arrogant fool McNamara who was there
from the beginning. The shine came off the Nobel Peace Prize when
they give it to Kissinger and after giving it to Obama I don’t see
much meaning to it anymore.
But McNamara was a Kennedy fan before the assassination and a Camelot
shiner after the assassination so I just can’t see him being
involved. But then I can’t see LBJ involved either. I also don’t
think much of this “they killed him to keep the war going” since the
war was escalating very nicely since 1961 and especially since 1962.
Many would have us believe LBJ immediately (before Jack was cold)
escalated the war when in reality it rocked on at about the same speed
until spring of 1965. I guess that is why they won’t let me be a
CTer.
Now Curtis LeMay, I don’t know about that cat.
Bill Clarke
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>> a few others engineered a coup d'�tat to wage war in Vietnam. It is
>>>> also my hypothesis that President Kennedy's death was just the
>>>> collateral damage of war and so was the disappearance of over a
>>>> thousand people after the assassination.
>>>>
>>>> <quote off>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.opednews.com/articles/A-Peace-Award-for-Robert-M-by-Alen-S...
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Fokes,
>>>> Toronto
>>>
>>>
>>>A little background on the journal that published Salerian's paper.
>>>http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/page/3/
>>
>>
>> But that does not answer my question. Has anyone read the paper?
>> He did work for the FBI.
>>
>>
>> A little background on Salerian:
>>
>> Alen J. Salerian, M.D., is a psychiatrist who lives and works in the
>> Washington D.C. area. He is the medical director of the Washington
>> Center for Psychiatry, the founder of the International Center for
>> Evidence Based Teaching[citation needed], and the former head of the
>> FBI's Mobile Psychiatric Emergency response team.
>
>He claims to have worked for the FBI.
Does he> Did he work as a consultant or employee? Probably a
consultant.
> I searched and couldn't find
>anything that connecting him to an FBI "Mobile Psychiatric Emergency
>Response Team" that doesn't appear to be sourced directly to Salerian
>himself.
Here's an article Salerian wrote for The Washington Post:
<quote on>
From 1992 to 1997, in fact, I worked regularly with the FBI; I helped
develop and was medical director of the bureau's Mobile Psychiatric
Emergency Response Team. I trained many counselors and went out on
assignments myself, working with agents everywhere from U.S. embassy
compounds abroad to Waco, Tex. Not all the agents I have worked with
were undercover, but I have evaluated dozens of men and women with
secret missions and double lives.
<quote off>
See:
Another WP article notes Salerian was a successful psychiatrist with
some Senators as patients. Salerian was sued by ex-FBIer and
convicted spy Robert Hansen (whom Salerian interviewed while working
oin Hansen's defense) for disclosing information. Salerian lost the
case and was fined.
> I was also unable to find anything at all relating to the
>existence of an "International Center for Evidence Based Teaching" (whatever
>that would be).
Salerian founded that organization. I'm not sure how many members it
has ..... maybe only one! Does that sound familiar? (lol)
I believe he has a phone number at his office. You could call him if
you are interested. Obviously you are not implying he is lying. You
are just not having much Google success. Perhaps he would send your
some information. I asked if anyone had read his paper. So far I have
received a lot of specualtion about Salerian but no reply from anyone
who has read his paper.
I see he presented at a conference in March 2009:
American College of Forensic Psychiatry
27th Annual Symposium
March 19-22, 2009
San Diego � The Westgate Hotel
OSWALD DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY: THE EVIDENCE
Alen J. Salerian, M.D.
This presentation reviews the evidence against Oswald in the
assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Based upon
human anatomy, Newton�s 2nd law, ballistic evidence and witness
reports, the evidence suggests Oswald did not kill President Kennedy
and the Warren Report was scientifically invalid. This presentation
reviews the medical, legal, ballistic and forensic evidence to prove
Oswald�s innocence. Of particular significance to neuroscience and law
is the nature of the traumatic brain injuries that, with careful
anatomical and postmortem analysis, would reveal that Oswald was not
the killer. Also reviewed are witness reports and ballistic
analyses.�Alen J. Salerian, M.D. is the Medical Director of Washington
Center for Psychiatry and the former Chief Psychiatric Consultant to
the FBI.
http://www.forensicpsychiatry.cc/2009program.htm
You can order a CD of these entire proceedings! Call Debbie!
>
>Dr Salerian so far appears to be an obscure psychiatrist with some very
>obscure qualifications, no?
Well, not so obscure that some U.S. Senators apparently used his
services, and he was hired by a nasty spy's defence team (a hiring I'm
sure he now regrets immensely!)
Do you want more? Well, let me direct you to this tidbit. Salreian
testified at a trial in July 1987:
<quote on>
Police say that on Nov. 17, [John Kwarta]'s pickup truck was bumped
from the rear by a car. When Kwarta stopped to examine the damage,
Miller allegedly left his car and riddled Kwarta with bullets -- at
one point, returning to his car to get a second clip of ammunition.
Kwarta was shot 28 times with a 9mm semi- automatic pistol.
Dr. Alen Salerian testified yesterday in the second day of Miller's
trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court that upon first treating Miller
in June 1984, the defendant told Dr. Salerian he felt his parents, his
employer and the U.S. government were plotting to kill him.
The defense, however, has pleaded insanity in the case, describing
Miller as a paranoid schizophrenic who got the idea to kill Kwarta
from a "Star Trek" episode.
<quote off>
>
>>>�September 16, 2009
>>>�Academic freedom isn't free
>>>
>>>� Should scientists be allowed to publish anything, even when it is
>>>wrong?
God Bless America!
And should there be journals willing to accept everything, as
>>>long as it seems interesting enough? That is the core of a debate that
>>>has blossomed since the journal Medical Hypotheses published two aids-
>>>denialist papers. Medical Hypotheses is a deliberately non-peer
>>>reviewed journal: the editor decides whether to publish not based on
>>>whether papers are true but whether they are bold, potentially
>>>interesting, or able to provoke useful discussion. HIV researchers
>>>strongly objected to the two papers, making the publisher Elsevier
>>>withdraw them. Now there are arguments for removing Medical Hypotheses
>>>from PubMed, the index of medical literature. Ben Goldacre of Bad
>>>Science and Bruce G Charlton, editor of Medical Hypotheses, debate the
>>>affair on Goldacre's blog. Are there scientific papers that are so bad
>>>that there should not be any journal outlet for them? �
>>>
>>>/sandy
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
j leyden
> According to the Wikipedia entry, Salerian "was the first psychiatrist
> to interview FBI Agent Robert Hanssen after Hanssen was arrested for
> espionage in 2001.
That's right, Peter, Salerian was a psychiatrist and not a forensic
pathologist. If Hanssen had died mysteriously, I doubt Salerian would
have been called in to do the autopsy. The Ramsey Clark panel, which I
don't believe included any psychiatrists, reaffirmed the original autopsy
report. And the HSCA panel -- more pathologists -- also confirmed the
major findings.
JGL
Ray
That's right, Peter, Salerian was a psychiatrist and not a forensic
pathologist.
Ah yes, the good old ad hominem/authority fallacy.
Here is Salerian's thesis (and you do not need to be a pathologist to
know that he is telling the truth):
There are three gross errors incompatible with scientific
inquiries that invalidate the postmortem
examination of President Kennedy.
1. The reported brain weight of 1500 g is incompatible
with the evidence that almost one-third of
the president’s brain tissue had been lost
because of the violent force of the head injury
and the anatomical reality of an average brain
weight of 1500 g
2. A bullet traveling downward and entering the
president’s back 6 in. below the collar line, consistent
with Newton’s second law of motion
and human anatomy, cannot exit
through the throat.
3. There is written evidence signed by Commander
Humes that he destroyed part of the autopsy
records and personal notes inconsistent with
accepted ethical and judicious medical practice
The seriousness, multiplicity and diversity of
gross errors not only render the postmortem exam
worthless but suggest complicity
Of course Valerian's article greatly UNDERSTATES the case.
For an in-depth elaboration see Doug Horne's forthcoming work, which
will be available at Maryferrell.org
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, j leyden<JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's right, Peter, Salerian was a psychiatrist and not a forensic
> pathologist.
> JGL
>
> Ah yes, the good old ad hominem/authority fallacy.
>
> Here is Salerian's thesis (and you do not need to be a pathologist to
> know that he is telling the truth):
>
> There are three gross errors incompatible with scientific
> inquiries that invalidate the postmortem
> examination of President Kennedy.
>
> 1. The reported brain weight of 1500 g is incompatible
> with the evidence that almost one-third of
> because of the violent force of the head injury
> and the anatomical reality of an average brain
> weight of 1500 g
>
Many assumptions, no proven facts.
> 2. A bullet traveling downward and entering the
> president�s back 6 in. below the collar line, consistent
> with Newton�s second law of motion
> and human anatomy, cannot exit
> through the throat.
>
Not true.
> 3. There is written evidence signed by Commander
> Humes that he destroyed part of the autopsy
> records and personal notes inconsistent with
> accepted ethical and judicious medical practice
>
Yeah, so what? Business as usual for an incompetent doctor.
Ray
Many assumptions, no proven facts.
Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
THere are NO assumptions in Salerians short and sweet article,
And Dr. Salerian doesn't know even a FRACTION of what Doug Horne
will reveal about Dr. Humes.
Salerian never questioned Humes, but Doug Horne did.
It will be very interesting.
tomnln
"Ray" <j.raymon...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:094a86d3-b016-4056...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 1:11 am, Peter Fokes<boreal4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> According to the Wikipedia entry, Salerian "was the first psychiatrist
>> to interview FBI Agent Robert Hanssen after Hanssen was arrested for
>> espionage in 2001.
>
> That's right, Peter, Salerian was a psychiatrist and not a forensic
> pathologist. If Hanssen had died mysteriously, I doubt Salerian would
> have been called in to do the autopsy. The Ramsey Clark panel, which I
> don't believe included any psychiatrists, reaffirmed the original autopsy
Wrong. They did not reaffirm the original autopsy report.
> report. And the HSCA panel -- more pathologists -- also confirmed the
> major findings.
>
Wrong.
> JGL
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 19, 10:55 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Many assumptions, no proven facts.
> Yeah, so what? Business as usual for an incompetent doctor.
>
> Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
>
More false charges.
> THere are NO assumptions in Salerians short and sweet article,
>
> And Dr. Salerian doesn't know even a FRACTION of what Doug Horne
> will reveal about Dr. Humes.
>
Dr. Salerian doesn't know anything.
Doug Horne is a Liftonite.
Mitch Todd
>>>>A little background on the journal that published Salerian's paper.
>>>>http://www.practicalethicsnews.com/practicalethics/page/3/
>>>
>>> But that does not answer my question. Has anyone read the paper?
>>> He did work for the FBI.
>>>
>>> A little background on Salerian:
>>>
>>> Alen J. Salerian, M.D., is a psychiatrist who lives and works in the
>>> Washington D.C. area. He is the medical director of the Washington
>>> Center for Psychiatry, the founder of the International Center for
>>> Evidence Based Teaching[citation needed], and the former head of the
>>> FBI's Mobile Psychiatric Emergency response team.
>>
>>He claims to have worked for the FBI.
>
> Does he> Did he work as a consultant or employee? Probably a
> consultant.
Like I said, we don't really know one waty or the other at this point.
All we have are his own claims.
>> I searched and couldn't find
>>anything that connecting him to an FBI "Mobile Psychiatric Emergency
>>Response Team" that doesn't appear to be sourced directly to Salerian
>>himself.
>
> Here's an article Salerian wrote for The Washington Post:
>
> <quote on>
>
> From 1992 to 1997, in fact, I worked regularly with the FBI; I helped
> develop and was medical director of the bureau's Mobile Psychiatric
> Emergency Response Team. I trained many counselors and went out on
> assignments myself, working with agents everywhere from U.S. embassy
> compounds abroad to Waco, Tex. Not all the agents I have worked with
> were undercover, but I have evaluated dozens of men and women with
> secret missions and double lives.
>
> <quote off>
>
> See:
>
> http://tiny.cc/mTEAK
I point out that the only information we have regarding Salerian's expertise
comes from Salerian himself. And you rebut me with......another quote from
Salerian. ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> Another WP article notes Salerian was a successful psychiatrist with
> some Senators as patients. Salerian was sued by ex-FBIer and
> convicted spy Robert Hansen (whom Salerian interviewed while working
> oin Hansen's defense) for disclosing information. Salerian lost the
> case and was fined.
This is beginning to sound like Dr Salerian is prone to self promotion,
even to the point of breaching his professional ethical obligations. Are
you here to praise Dr Salerian, or bury him, Peter???
>> I was also unable to find anything at all relating to the
>>existence of an "International Center for Evidence Based Teaching"
>>(whatever
>>that would be).
>
> Salerian founded that organization. I'm not sure how many members it
> has ..... maybe only one! Does that sound familiar? (lol)
Maybe that's why he's so interested in the assassination ---he's found
himself a kindred spirit.
> I believe he has a phone number at his office. You could call him if
> you are interested. Obviously you are not implying he is lying.
I don't think he's lying, per se, but the more I search, the more
he seems to be a fluffy self-promoter whose qualifications are
something less than he'd have us beleive.
> You are just not having much Google success. Perhaps he would send your
> some information. I asked if anyone had read his paper. So far I have
> received a lot of specualtion about Salerian but no reply from anyone
> who has read his paper.
Which to me is a pretty good sign that his paper lacks
anything particularly noteworthy. BTW, I notice that the
synopsis of his paper refers to Newton's second law of
motion. I have found over the years that people who refer
to "Newton's Laws" tend to have a pretty tenuous grasp
of mechanics.
> I see he presented at a conference in March 2009:
>
> American College of Forensic Psychiatry
> 27th Annual Symposium
> March 19-22, 2009
> San Diego . The Westgate Hotel
>
> OSWALD DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY: THE EVIDENCE
>
> Alen J. Salerian, M.D.
>
> This presentation reviews the evidence against Oswald in the
> assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Based upon
> human anatomy, Newton's 2nd law, ballistic evidence and witness
> reports, the evidence suggests Oswald did not kill President Kennedy
> and the Warren Report was scientifically invalid. This presentation
> reviews the medical, legal, ballistic and forensic evidence to prove
> Oswald's innocence. Of particular significance to neuroscience and law
> is the nature of the traumatic brain injuries that, with careful
> anatomical and postmortem analysis, would reveal that Oswald was not
> the killer. Also reviewed are witness reports and ballistic
> analyses.-Alen J. Salerian, M.D. is the Medical Director of Washington
> Center for Psychiatry and the former Chief Psychiatric Consultant to
> the FBI.
>
> http://www.forensicpsychiatry.cc/2009program.htm
>
> You can order a CD of these entire proceedings! Call Debbie!
>
>>Dr Salerian so far appears to be an obscure psychiatrist with some very
>>obscure qualifications, no?
>
> Well, not so obscure that some U.S. Senators apparently used his
> services, and he was hired by a nasty spy's defence team (a hiring I'm
> sure he now regrets immensely!)
Maybe he got the Hansen job because no one else wanted it? And
how do we know that he had Senators for clients, or maybe more
importantly, why would we know he had senators as clients?
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>>>>>> a few others engineered a coup d'�ｿｽtat to wage war in Vietnam. It is
I don't go in for ad hominem.
If you are really interested, find out.
>
>> You are just not having much Google success. Perhaps he would send your
>> some information. I asked if anyone had read his paper. So far I have
>> received a lot of specualtion about Salerian but no reply from anyone
>> who has read his paper.
>
>Which to me is a pretty good sign that his paper lacks
>anything particularly noteworthy. BTW, I notice that the
>synopsis of his paper refers to Newton's second law of
>motion. I have found over the years that people who refer
>to "Newton's Laws" tend to have a pretty tenuous grasp
>of mechanics.
Of course, someone can say anything about anyone.
Not my style.
You will have to ask the WP reporter who wrote the story.
Don't they have standards? Don't they double check?
I'm sure they will not reveal their source though.
Might give it a name like Deep Gulch.
>> Do you want more? Well, let me direct you to this tidbit. Salreian
>> testified at a trial in July 1987:
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Police say that on Nov. 17, [John Kwarta]'s pickup truck was bumped
>> from the rear by a car. When Kwarta stopped to examine the damage,
>> Miller allegedly left his car and riddled Kwarta with bullets -- at
>> one point, returning to his car to get a second clip of ammunition.
>> Kwarta was shot 28 times with a 9mm semi- automatic pistol.
>>
>> Dr. Alen Salerian testified yesterday in the second day of Miller's
>> trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court that upon first treating Miller
>> in June 1984, the defendant told Dr. Salerian he felt his parents, his
>> employer and the U.S. government were plotting to kill him.
>>
>> The defense, however, has pleaded insanity in the case, describing
>> Miller as a paranoid schizophrenic who got the idea to kill Kwarta
>> from a "Star Trek" episode.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> http://tiny.cc/dmwdy
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>�ｿｽSeptember 16, 2009
>>>>>�ｿｽAcademic freedom isn't free
>>>>>
>>>>>�ｿｽ Should scientists be allowed to publish anything, even when it is
>>>>>wrong?
>>
>> God Bless America!
>>
>> And should there be journals willing to accept everything, as
>>>>>long as it seems interesting enough? That is the core of a debate that
>>>>>has blossomed since the journal Medical Hypotheses published two aids-
>>>>>denialist papers. Medical Hypotheses is a deliberately non-peer
>>>>>reviewed journal: the editor decides whether to publish not based on
>>>>>whether papers are true but whether they are bold, potentially
>>>>>interesting, or able to provoke useful discussion. HIV researchers
>>>>>strongly objected to the two papers, making the publisher Elsevier
>>>>>withdraw them. Now there are arguments for removing Medical Hypotheses
>>>>>from PubMed, the index of medical literature. Ben Goldacre of Bad
>>>>>Science and Bruce G Charlton, editor of Medical Hypotheses, debate the
>>>>>affair on Goldacre's blog. Are there scientific papers that are so bad
>>>>>that there should not be any journal outlet for them? �ｿｽ
>>>>>
>>>>>/sandy
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
>
Ray
Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
A new word enters the language: LIFTONITE
Does this word mean that Doug Horne is someone who cannot be trusted
to tell the truth
about what he discovered while serving as chief analyst for military
records of the ARRB?
j leyden
> On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> That's right, Peter, Salerian was a psychiatrist and not a forensic
> pathologist.
> JGL
>
> Ah yes, the good old ad hominem/authority fallacy.
Ah, calling a psychiatrist a psychiatrist and not a forensic pathologist
is an "ad hominem" attack. Ok, one doesn't look for reason when dealing
with CTs (oh, another ad hominem attack).
JGL
John McAdams
Let me add that appealing to authority is not a fallacy if the subject
is a technical one, and the authority is a bona fide technical expert.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Liftonite to a LN'r is Like Kryptonite is to Superman.
Just another Fatal Disease ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ray
> Let me add that appealing to authority is not a fallacy if the subject
> is a technical one, and the authority is a bona fide technical expert.
>
> .John
It is a fallacy when, as in this case, you and Mr. Lydon are relying on 1/
the Warren Report and 2/ the author of the (3 versions) of the autopsy of
JFK.
Just this very day Cyril Wecht reminded the COPA audience in Dallas that
Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) had NEVER PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED
AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM. (Ditto for Dr. Boswell).
What Valerian says, by contrast, is true and verifiable.
John McAdams
>On Nov 21, 12:03�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> Let me add that appealing to authority is not a fallacy if the subject
>> is a technical one, and the authority is a bona fide technical expert.
>>
>> .John
>
>It is a fallacy when, as in this case, you and Mr. Lydon are relying on 1/
>the Warren Report and 2/ the author of the (3 versions) of the autopsy of
>JFK.
>
What I'm relying on is the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which in
turn relied heavily on the autopsy photos and x-rays.
They are the best evidence.
>Just this very day Cyril Wecht reminded the COPA audience in Dallas that
>Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) had NEVER PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED
>AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM. (Ditto for Dr. Boswell).
>
So what? All that proves is that powerful and important people (the
Kennedys) can bypass normal judicial procedure.
Earl Rose should have done the autopsy.
Had he done so, his verdict would doubtless have been the same as the
HSCA FPP (on which he served).
>What Valerian says, by contrast, is true and verifiable.
No, it isn't.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Your structure is confusing. By putting that sentence last you make it
sound as if Valerian is correct by contrast to Wecht being incorrect. I
think you meant to put it directly after the first sentence to show that
the WC was incorrect.
Anyway, just because the WC lied and was incompetent does not mean that
any critic that comes along MUST be automatically correct. Such as Lifton.
Such as Valerian. I already pointed out that he knows nothing about the
case.
Anthony Marsh
It certainly is if the authority is an idiot and a liar.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ray
What I'm relying on is the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which in
> turn relied heavily on the autopsy photos and x-rays.
> They are the best evidence.
NO THEY ARE NOT the best evidence, John, and you know it.
Dr. Humes DID see the BEST EVIDENCE
but you cannot rely on Humes, can you?
You are relying the EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN.
BTW, isn't this HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel the same panel that
opined that JFK was driven backward
by a Jet Effect, a theory that had been COMPLETELY DISCREDITED (by the
US Army) by the time the panel's report was published?
Anthony Marsh
AH, poppycock. You know nothing about rhetoric. An ad hominem is a
PERSONAL attack having nothing to do with the arguments or the person's
qualifications. Pointing out that the person is not even qualified to
discuss a particular field is NOT an ad hominem.
No one called him a drunk or a drug user. You see no problem telling
conspiracy believers that they are not qualified to discuss something
while your janitor is qualified to discuss physics.
> JGL
John McAdams
>On Nov 21, 2:15�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>What I'm relying on is the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which in
>> turn relied heavily on the autopsy photos and x-rays.
>
>> They are the best evidence.
>
>NO THEY ARE NOT the best evidence, John, and you know it.
>
> Dr. Humes DID see the BEST EVIDENCE
>but you cannot rely on Humes, can you?
>
OK, so you agree with the autopsists, and believe that Kennedy was hit
by two shots from behind.
Thank you.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 20, 5:14 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
>> Doug Horne is a Liftonite.
>
> A new word enters the language: LIFTONITE
>
Well Newbie, we've been using it for 35 years.
Have you ever talked to David Lifton? Of course not. I have. Several
times. I have worked with him on some aspects of the case.
> Does this word mean that Doug Horne is someone who cannot be trusted
> to tell the truth
> about what he discovered while serving as chief analyst for military
> records of the ARRB?
>
Huh? Did anyone say anything about the truth? We are talking about his
OPINIONS, which are influenced by being a Liftonite.
>
>
>
Ray
> On 21 Nov 2009 23:29:46 -0500, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dr. Humes DID see the BEST EVIDENCE
> >but you cannot rely on Humes, can you?
> OK, so you agree with the autopsists, and believe that Kennedy was hit
> by two shots from behind.
> Thank you.
> .John
Ya really believe that?
Actually, I seem to recall saying that what Dr. Salerian says is true
and verifiable. Since you seem to have forgotten, let me remind you:
Dr. Salerian in Medical Hypotheses:
There are three gross errors incompatible with scientific
inquiries that invalidate the postmortem
examination of President Kennedy.
1. The reported brain weight of 1500 g is incompatible
with the evidence that almost one-third of
the president’s brain tissue had been lost
because of the violent force of the head injury
and the anatomical reality of an average brain
weight of 1500 g
2. A bullet traveling downward and entering the
president’s back 6 in. below the collar line, consistent
with Newton’s second law of motion
and human anatomy, cannot exit
through the throat.
3. There is written evidence signed by Commander
Humes that he destroyed part of the autopsy
records and personal notes inconsistent with
accepted ethical and judicious medical practice
The seriousness, multiplicity and diversity of
gross errors not only render the postmortem exam
worthless but suggest complicity
It is I who must thank YOU, John.
You have shown that you are unable to defend the autopsy doctors, and
your defense
of the HSCA forensic pathology panel seems to have SUDDENLY run out of
gas.
Ray
> On 11/21/2009 11:34 AM, Ray wrote:
> > A new word enters the language: LIFTONITE
> Have you ever talked to David Lifton? Of course not. I have. Several
> times. I have worked with him on some aspects of the case.
Well I too have spoken to David Lifton many times but -- unlike you
-- I have never used the term LIFTONITE
AS A PEJORATIVE TERM.
We are talking about his
> OPINIONS, which are influenced by being a Liftonite.
So you are not calling him a liar, you are just suggesting that Doug
Horne is incapable of
forming his own independent judgments?
Anthony Marsh
Heavily influenced by kooky theories.
Ray
Horne is incapable of
> > forming his own independent judgments?
> Heavily influenced by kooky theories.
Since we agree that he is honest, then there should be no problem with
Doug Horne examining the evidence from different points of view,
including Lifton's point of view.
After all, that is REQUIRED by the scientific approach.
You seem scared of what Doug Horne will say, even before you have read
his book.
Anthony Marsh
Why do I have to read his book to know what he is going to say?
Mitch Todd
>>>>>>> a few others engineered a coup d'?tat to wage war in Vietnam. It is
>>s>>>> I was also unable to find anything at all relating to the
>>>>existence of ann "International Center for Evidence Based Teaching"
>>>>(whatever
>>>>that would be).
>>>
>>> Salerian founded that organization. I'm not sure how many members it
>>> has ..... maybe only one! Does that sound familiar? (lol)
>>
>>Maybe that's why he's so interested in the assassination ---he's found
>>himself a kindred spirit.
>>
>>
>>> I believe he has a phone number at his office. You could call him if
>>> you are interested. Obviously you are not implying he is lying.
>>
>>I don't think he's lying, per se, but the more I search, the more
>>he seems to be a fluffy self-promoter whose qualifications are
>>something less than he'd have us beleive.
>
> I don't go in for ad hominem.
>
> If you are really interested, find out.
I think you miss my point. The synopsis of the article indicates a tired
reshash of subjects long passed by here on a.c.jfk. The only thing that
appears to make it interesting is Salerian's self- professed connection
with the FBI. If that isn't what it's cracked up to be, then there is
precious little reason --if any-- to waste any time with the paper.
>>> You are just not having much Google success. Perhaps he would send your
>>> some information. I asked if anyone had read his paper. So far I have
>>> received a lot of specualtion about Salerian but no reply from anyone
>>> who has read his paper.
>>
>>Which to me is a pretty good sign that his paper lacks
>>anything particularly noteworthy. BTW, I notice that the
>>synopsis of his paper refers to Newton's second law of
>>motion. I have found over the years that people who refer
>>to "Newton's Laws" tend to have a pretty tenuous grasp
>>of mechanics.
>
> Of course, someone can say anything about anyone.
>
> Not my style.
Peter, I've known enough physicists in my time. When they analyze
something like an impact, they refer to conservation of momentun,
conservation of angular momentum, and conservation of energy. Anyone who
refers to "Newton's Laws" in this context is very likely a pretender.
I'd doubt that Senators are inclined to admit that they've been seeing a
psychiatrist. That pretty much leaves only one other source for the
information. Guess who that is?
>>> Do you want more? Well, let me direct you to this tidbit. Salreian
>>> testified at a trial in July 1987:
>>>
>>> <quote on>
>>>
>>> Police say that on Nov. 17, [John Kwarta]'s pickup truck was bumped
>>> from the rear by a car. When Kwarta stopped to examine the damage,
>>> Miller allegedly left his car and riddled Kwarta with bullets -- at
>>> one point, returning to his car to get a second clip of ammunition.
>>> Kwarta was shot 28 times with a 9mm semi- automatic pistol.
>>>
>>> Dr. Alen Salerian testified yesterday in the second day of Miller's
>>> trial in Fairfax County Circuit Court that upon first treating Miller
>>> in June 1984, the defendant told Dr. Salerian he felt his parents, his
>>> employer and the U.S. government were plotting to kill him.
>>>
>>> The defense, however, has pleaded insanity in the case, describing
>>> Miller as a paranoid schizophrenic who got the idea to kill Kwarta
>>> from a "Star Trek" episode.
>>>
>>> <quote off>
>>>
>>> http://tiny.cc/dmwdy
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>?September 16, 2009
>>>>>>?Academic freedom isn't free
>>>>>>
>>>>>>? Should scientists be allowed to publish anything, even when it is
>>>>>>wrong?
>>>
>>> God Bless America!
>>>
>>> And should there be journals willing to accept everything, as
>>>>>>long as it seems interesting enough? That is the core of a debate that
>>>>>>has blossomed since the journal Medical Hypotheses published two aids-
>>>>>>denialist papers. Medical Hypotheses is a deliberately non-peer
>>>>>>reviewed journal: the editor decides whether to publish not based on
>>>>>>whether papers are true but whether they are bold, potentially
>>>>>>interesting, or able to provoke useful discussion. HIV researchers
>>>>>>strongly objected to the two papers, making the publisher Elsevier
>>>>>>withdraw them. Now there are arguments for removing Medical Hypotheses
>>>>>>from PubMed, the index of medical literature. Ben Goldacre of Bad
>>>>>>Science and Bruce G Charlton, editor of Medical Hypotheses, debate the
>>>>>>affair on Goldacre's blog. Are there scientific papers that are so bad
>>>>>>that there should not be any journal outlet for them? ?
Peter Fokes
I was not referring to your comment. In fact, I was replying to
someone else.
You are absolutely correct, JGL. Salerian is a psychiatrist and not a
forensic pathologist.
Nothing ad hominem about your remark.
You are forgiven for the misinterpretation though.
Threads can be confusing, and even more confusing if you approach them
with a predisposition to find a meaning you want to find.
Cheers,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
> On 21 Nov 2009 12:01:55 -0500, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 19, 8:47 pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, j leyden <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> That's right, Peter, Salerian was a psychiatrist and not a forensic
> >> pathologist.
> >> JGL
>
> >> Ah yes, the good old ad hominem/authority fallacy.
>
> >Ah, calling a psychiatrist a psychiatrist and not a forensic pathologist
> >is an "ad hominem" attack. Ok, one doesn't look for reason when dealing
> >with CTs (oh, another ad hominem attack).
>
> Let me add that appealing to authority is not a fallacy if the subject
> is a technical one, and the authority is a bona fide technical expert.
That is why you, JGL, yours truly and many others posting here always
(well sometimes, maybe infrequently, well whatever) qualify our
conclusions about the autopsy by admitting we are not experts or
authorities.
At least Salerian is an MD. I'm sure would have a stronger claim to
expertise on an autopsy than you, JGL, Tony, Robert Harris, etc., eh?
Well, we shall refrain from appealing to our authority in this matter!
At least I will!
>
> .John
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Peter Fokes
> On 21 Nov 2009 14:11:39 -0500, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Nov 21, 12:03 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> Let me add that appealing to authority is not a fallacy if the subject
> >> is a technical one, and the authority is a bona fide technical expert.
>
> >> .John
>
> >It is a fallacy when, as in this case, you and Mr. Lydon are relying on 1/
> >the Warren Report and 2/ the author of the (3 versions) of the autopsy of
> >JFK.
>
> What I'm relying on is the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, which in
> turn relied heavily on the autopsy photos and x-rays.
>
> They are the best evidence.
>
> >Just this very day Cyril Wecht reminded the COPA audience in Dallas that
> >Dr. Humes, who wrote the autopsy report(s) had NEVER PREVIOUSLY PERFORMED
> >AN AUTOPSY ON A GUNSHOT VICTIM. (Ditto for Dr. Boswell).
>
> So what? All that proves is that powerful and important people (the
> Kennedys) can bypass normal judicial procedure.
>
> Earl Rose should have done the autopsy.
Excellent point. He shoulda, coulda, woulda ... alas, was not to be!
>
> Had he done so, his verdict would doubtless have been the same as the
> HSCA FPP (on which he served).
Perhaps. In what capacity did he serve btw?
>
> >What Valerian says, by contrast, is true and verifiable.
How did Salerian become Valerian? Typo I guess.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> .John
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
claviger
I called the FBI public information office and asked about Salerian.
The agent on duty had never heard of him or these organizations. While
we were talking he looked him up on the Inet. As we talked he did say
it's possible Salerian may have done work that was either confidential
or for a certain department. He also said with 20,000 people working
for the FBI he could have done work as a private contractor where only
a few people were involved. The bottom line is he could not confirm
Salerian ever worked for the FBI.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
Why not call Salerian and ask for a reference instead?
>The agent on duty had never heard of him or these organizations.
Which means diddly squat, especially if his job was on contract and
dealing with agents (some undercover).
>While
>we were talking he looked him up on the Inet. As we talked he did say
>it's possible Salerian may have done work that was either confidential
>or for a certain department.
Indeed. It is possible. I rather suspect that is the case rather than
the fellow publicly lying in the Washington Post. Reporters also
usually confirm facts.
> He also said with 20,000 people working
>for the FBI he could have done work as a private contractor where only
>a few people were involved. The bottom line is he could not confirm
>Salerian ever worked for the FBI.
One down, 300 million to go!
:-)
Why not just call the fellow?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
Ray
The synopsis of the article indicates a tired
Yes, some people here would LIKE to pass by (tiptoe round)
the inconvenient truths presented in Salerian's article.
But the darn truth just won't go away.
claviger
> > I called the FBI public information office and asked about Salerian.
> Why not call Salerian and ask for a reference instead?
Not sure how it works in Canada but when someone presents a résumé
naming a past employer it is SOP to confirm that information with the
organization. In this case Salerian is using the FBI to enhance his
credibility.
> > The agent on duty had never heard of him or these organizations.
> Which means diddly squat, especially if his job was on contract and
> dealing with agents (some undercover).
Already mentioned.
> > While we were talking he looked him up on the Inet. As we talked he
> > did say it's possible Salerian may have done work that was either
> > confidential or for a certain department.
> Indeed. It is possible. I rather suspect that is the case rather than
> the fellow publicly lying in the Washington Post. Reporters also
> usually confirm facts.
I wonder how they would do that, since the public information office
was unaware of this guy?
> > He also said with 20,000 people working
> > for the FBI he could have done work as a private contractor where only
> > a few people were involved. The bottom line is he could not confirm
> > Salerian ever worked for the FBI.
> One down, 300 million to go!
Yep, but not all of them worked for the FBI. Much smaller subset. I'm
guessing the FBI knows which ones don't work there. I sure hope so!
> Why not just call the fellow?
The first step in the verification process is contact with past
employers listed on the résumé. Even if everything checks out in that
regard, it doesn't make this guy an expert on ballistics. I'm not sure
what point he's trying to make with Newton's Second Law of Physics.
The SBT would be a perfect example of that law.
Anthony Marsh
> Peter,
>
>>> I called the FBI public information office and asked about Salerian.
>> Why not call Salerian and ask for a reference instead?
> naming a past employer it is SOP to confirm that information with the
> organization. In this case Salerian is using the FBI to enhance his
> credibility.
>
>>> The agent on duty had never heard of him or these organizations.
>> Which means diddly squat, especially if his job was on contract and
>> dealing with agents (some undercover).
> Already mentioned.
>
>>> While we were talking he looked him up on the Inet. As we talked he
>>> did say it's possible Salerian may have done work that was either
>>> confidential or for a certain department.
>> Indeed. It is possible. I rather suspect that is the case rather than
>> the fellow publicly lying in the Washington Post. Reporters also
>> usually confirm facts.
> I wonder how they would do that, since the public information office
> was unaware of this guy?
>
As if they would know everything.
As if they would tell the truth.
>>> He also said with 20,000 people working
>>> for the FBI he could have done work as a private contractor where only
>>> a few people were involved. The bottom line is he could not confirm
>>> Salerian ever worked for the FBI.
>> One down, 300 million to go!
> Yep, but not all of them worked for the FBI. Much smaller subset. I'm
> guessing the FBI knows which ones don't work there. I sure hope so!
>
>> Why not just call the fellow?
> The first step in the verification process is contact with past
> employers listed on the r�sum�. Even if everything checks out in that
Richard
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:u117g51uevgsqn289...@4ax.com...\
[SNIP]
" It is my hypothesis that Bundy, McNamara, Allen Dulles (the former head
of the Central Intelligence Agency), General Curtis LeMay (Air Force chief
of staff), Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and possibly a few others
engineered a coup d'itat to wage war in Vietnam. It is also my hypothesis
that President Kennedy's death was just the collateral damage of war and
so was the disappearance of over a thousand people after the
assassination."
1. McNamara!!?? How do you come up with him as a conspirator? Even
granting that he wanted war, what ties him into Dallas, or any of the
others you name, all of whom had multiple reasons to hate/fear Kennedy,
not just Vietnam. Did McNamara?
2. If LBJ had anything to do with it, and I'm agnostic on the matter, it
probably had more to do with possible revelations about his criminal past,
Billie Sol and Bobby Baker than Vietnam. IMO. From John Simkin's forum:
QUOTE ON
There is evidence that John and Robert Kennedy were attempting to use
several emerging scandals (Bille Sol Estes, Bobby Baker, Fred Korth) to
remove LBJ from power.
For example, on 1st June, 1962, the Dallas News reported that President
John F. Kennedy had "taken a personal interest in the mysterious death of
Henry Marshall." As a result, the story said, Robert Kennedy "has ordered
the FBI to step up its investigation of the case."
Carl Curtis was a Republican member of the Senate Committee investigating
the Bobby Baker case. Two other Republican members, John Williams and Hugh
Scott, were asking some very difficult questions (see the LBJ tapes to
discover how he tried to blackmail these three men into silence). In his
autobiography, Forty Years Against the Tide, Curtis reveals that
throughout the inquiry, it was Robert Kennedy who was leaking information
about LBJ to John Williams.
QUOTE OFF
See http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2379&st=15 for
more.
3. Not to nitpick, but there were two Bundys you know, McGeorge and
William. (Actually three if you count shoe salesman Al!) Just keeping the
record straight. I assume you mean McG. BTW, too bad Al wasn't the Nat Sec
advisor back then; befuddled as he was, he would have been better than
McG! 8^)
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>Peter,
>
>> > I called the FBI public information office and asked about Salerian.
>> Why not call Salerian and ask for a reference instead?
>Not sure how it works in Canada but when someone presents a r�sum�
>naming a past employer it is SOP to confirm that information with the
>organization. In this case Salerian is using the FBI to enhance his
>credibility.
>
>> > The agent on duty had never heard of him or these organizations.
>> Which means diddly squat, especially if his job was on contract and
>> dealing with agents (some undercover).
>Already mentioned.
>
>> > While we were talking he looked him up on the Inet. As we talked he
>> > did say it's possible Salerian may have done work that was either
>> > confidential or for a certain department.
>> Indeed. It is possible. I rather suspect that is the case rather than
>> the fellow publicly lying in the Washington Post. Reporters also
>> usually confirm facts.
>I wonder how they would do that, since the public information office
>was unaware of this guy?
How long has he benn in his job?
This article was written quite awhile ago. Haven't got time now to
give you exact date, but could be a decade.
PF
>
>> > He also said with 20,000 people working
>> > for the FBI he could have done work as a private contractor where only
>> > a few people were involved. The bottom line is he could not confirm
>> > Salerian ever worked for the FBI.
>> One down, 300 million to go!
>Yep, but not all of them worked for the FBI. Much smaller subset. I'm
>guessing the FBI knows which ones don't work there. I sure hope so!
>
>> Why not just call the fellow?
>The first step in the verification process is contact with past
>employers listed on the r�sum�. Even if everything checks out in that
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>
>"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>news:u117g51uevgsqn289...@4ax.com...\
>
>[SNIP]
Please note I was quoting Salerian. The SNIP has removed my quote:
<quote>
>
>" It is my hypothesis that Bundy, McNamara, Allen Dulles (the former head
>of the Central Intelligence Agency), General Curtis LeMay (Air Force chief
>of staff), Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and possibly a few others
>engineered a coup d'itat to wage war in Vietnam. It is also my hypothesis
>that President Kennedy's death was just the collateral damage of war and
>so was the disappearance of over a thousand people after the
>assassination."
<quote off>
The above quote is from Salerian, not me.
I have no idea who wrote any of the following comments.
Probably some folks on the nuthouse.
PF
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11/20/2009 10:26 AM, Ray wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 10:55 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Many assumptions, no proven facts.
>> Yeah, so what? Business as usual for an incompetent doctor.
>>
>> Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
>>
>
>More false charges.
>
>> THere are NO assumptions in Salerians short and sweet article,
>>
>> And Dr. Salerian doesn't know even a FRACTION of what Doug Horne
>> will reveal about Dr. Humes.
>>
>
>Dr. Salerian doesn't know anything.
So you have read his article?
>Doug Horne is a Liftonite.
No. He disagrees with Lifton.
>
>> Salerian never questioned Humes, but Doug Horne did.
>>
>> It will be very interesting.
>>
>>
>
Yes, it will be.
Regards,
Peter Fokes
Coondog
> "Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
>
> news:u117g51uevgsqn289...@4ax.com...\
>
> [SNIP]
>
> " It is my hypothesis that Bundy, McNamara, Allen Dulles (the former head
> of the Central Intelligence Agency), General Curtis LeMay (Air Force chief
> of staff), Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, and possibly a few others
> that President Kennedy's death was just the collateral damage of war and
> so was the disappearance of over a thousand people after the
> assassination."
>
> 1. McNamara!!?? How do you come up with him as a conspirator? Even
> granting that he wanted war, what ties him into Dallas, or any of the
> others you name, all of whom had multiple reasons to hate/fear Kennedy,
>
> 2. If LBJ had anything to do with it, and I'm agnostic on the matter, it
> probably had more to do with possible revelations about his criminal past,
>
> QUOTE ON
>
> There is evidence that John and Robert Kennedy were attempting to use
> several emerging scandals (Bille Sol Estes, Bobby Baker, Fred Korth) to
> remove LBJ from power.
>
> For example, on 1st June, 1962, the Dallas News reported that President
> John F. Kennedy had "taken a personal interest in the mysterious death of
> Henry Marshall." As a result, the story said, Robert Kennedy "has ordered
> the FBI to step up its investigation of the case."
>
> Carl Curtis was a Republican member of the Senate Committee investigating
> the Bobby Baker case. Two other Republican members, John Williams and Hugh
> Scott, were asking some very difficult questions (see the LBJ tapes to
> discover how he tried to blackmail these three men into silence). In his
> autobiography, Forty Years Against the Tide, Curtis reveals that
> throughout the inquiry, it was Robert Kennedy who was leaking information
> about LBJ to John Williams.
>
> QUOTE OFF
>
> Seehttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2379&st=15for
> more.
>
> 3. Not to nitpick, but there were two Bundys you know, McGeorge and
> William. (Actually three if you count shoe salesman Al!) Just keeping the
> record straight. I assume you mean McG. BTW, too bad Al wasn't the Nat Sec
> advisor back then; befuddled as he was, he would have been better than
> McG! 8^)
Mac Bundy was the first to make a perfect score on his Harvard
entrance exam. Brother Bill screwed up and got a 97 or so. Brilliant
men all, how could they have been so wrong.
And for the record this LBJ did it and McNamara did it is so many
horse apples.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
> On 20 Nov 2009 17:14:51 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/20/2009 10:26 AM, Ray wrote:
>>> On Nov 19, 10:55 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Many assumptions, no proven facts.
>>> Yeah, so what? Business as usual for an incompetent doctor.
>>>
>>> Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
>>>
>>
>> More false charges.
>>
>>> THere are NO assumptions in Salerians short and sweet article,
>>>
>>> And Dr. Salerian doesn't know even a FRACTION of what Doug Horne
>>> will reveal about Dr. Humes.
>>>
>>
>> Dr. Salerian doesn't know anything.
>
> So you have read his article?
>
Enough.
>
>> Doug Horne is a Liftonite.
>
> No. He disagrees with Lifton.
>
Exactly how? You do realize, don't you, that it was Doug Horne who
personally included Lifton in the internal conferences at the ARRB
discussing the medical evidence?
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 11/28/2009 2:03 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>> On 20 Nov 2009 17:14:51 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/20/2009 10:26 AM, Ray wrote:
>>>> On Nov 19, 10:55 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Many assumptions, no proven facts.
>>>> Yeah, so what? Business as usual for an incompetent doctor.
>>>>
>>>> Mr. Marsh emerges to defend the Warren Report.
>>>>
>>>
>>> More false charges.
>>>
>>>> THere are NO assumptions in Salerians short and sweet article,
>>>>
>>>> And Dr. Salerian doesn't know even a FRACTION of what Doug Horne
>>>> will reveal about Dr. Humes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Salerian doesn't know anything.
>>
>> So you have read his article?
>>
>
>Enough.
>
>>
>>> Doug Horne is a Liftonite.
>>
>> No. He disagrees with Lifton.
>>
>
>Exactly how?
In a number of ways, Tony. You obviously haven't don't know the
details of Horne's theory.
For one, Horne does not believe JFK's body was altered before arriving
at Bethesda. Lifton does.
You do realize, don't you, that it was Doug Horne who
>personally included Lifton in the internal conferences at the ARRB
>discussing the medical evidence?
SO WHAT?
That tells us nothing about the differences between the two men's
theories.
AGAIN:
Douglas HORNE disagrees with LIFTON in primary and fundamental ways.
And you are not aware of the FACT. Do your homework, Tony.
>>>
>>>> Salerian never questioned Humes, but Doug Horne did.
>>>>
>>>> It will be very interesting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it will be.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes
>
PF