Did Crenshaw pick up a call from LBJ?
Gary Aguilar
>>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that
Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
John<<
No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to
back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to
McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr.
Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was
received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could
not have known about the call because he was not present during
Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details
and who made it are not clear.
"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was
an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr.
Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House
telephone calls to the operating room.
"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White
House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of
Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the
oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who
revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that
Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White
House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one
else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not
Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally
for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he
happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who
identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone
operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas
Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim,
Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar
event.
She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet,
that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he
bothered to check.
"There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice
who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the
operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate
anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two
percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with
another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually
corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both
Bartlett and Williams recalled?
Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of the
evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
Gary
gm...@jfk.org
answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed the caller
could not have been the new president.
No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call, whether on
LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such an
event.
Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day, or Bartlett's report,
nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call from
LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital collection,
copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National
Archives.
Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself as LBJ?
Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available
documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
If someone has new information about these questions I would very much like to
see it.
--
Gary Mack
Archivist
The Sixth Floor Museum
In article <6vuplk$f...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
gm...@jfk.org
John McAdams
>McA wrote, inter alia:
>
>>>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that
>Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
>
>What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
>
>John<<
>
>No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence to
>back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to
>McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
>
The NEW YORK TIMES interview with Williams is discussed on my site.
It's obvious that if it really had been LBJ, that Williams would have
remembered that, and not some vague "call from the White House."
>On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews, Dr.
>Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was
>received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could
>not have known about the call because he was not present during
>Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>
>"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the details
>and who made it are not clear.
>
>"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was
>an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr.
>Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House
>telephone calls to the operating room.
>
>"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the White
>House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status of
>Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the
>oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who
>revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>
>Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one
>else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not
>Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>
Where did the "no one else" statement come from?
>Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called personally
>for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he
>happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who
>identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
>
>Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone
>operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the Dallas
>Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim,
>Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar
>event.
>
>She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward yet,
>that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he
>bothered to check.
>
OIC. They are going to "come forward," are they?
Where are they?
>"There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice
>who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the
>operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
>
>I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd appreciate
>anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two
>percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with
>another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually
>corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
>
Lurkers might want to check:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
Crenshaw has credibility problems galore.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gary Aguilar
>
>A call was made to Parkland inquiring about Oswald. Crenshaw's book
says he
>answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed
the caller
>could not have been the new president.
>
>No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call,
whether on
>LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such
an
>event.
>
>Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day,
treated. Are there such things?
or Bartlett's report,
Bartlett wrote the Dallas Morning News herself. What? Was she
conspiring to tell a lie? Make a fool of herself?
>nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call
from
>LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital
collection,
>copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National
>Archives.
>
How would the absence of such a report prove no call came in?
>Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself
as LBJ?
>Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available
>documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
>
>If someone has new information about these questions I would very much
like to
>see it.
>
Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you
called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him? If it did not,
what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett
reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently
admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
>> Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White
>> House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one
>> else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not
>> Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>>
>> Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called
personally
>> for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he
>> happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who
>> identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
>>
>> Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone
>> operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the
Dallas
>> Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim,
>> Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar
>> event.
>>
>> She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward
yet,
>> that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he
>> bothered to check.
>>
>> "There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice
>> who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the
>> operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
>>
>> I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd
appreciate
>> anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two
>> percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with
>> another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually
>> corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
>>
Gary Aguilar
McAdams) writes:
>
>On 13 Oct 1998 05:49:40 GMT, gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) wrote:
>
>>McA wrote, inter alia:
>>
>>>>And Gary Mack has recently posted some information showing that
>>Crenshaw's story of the "call from LBJ" could not possibly be true.
>>
>>What does it take to convince Gary that witness is unreliable?
>>
>>John<<
>>
>>No one will ever know for sure, but Crenshaw has some good evidence
to
>>back him up - evidence, wouldn't you know it, that didn't make it to
>>McAdams' site. (Nor will it ever.)
>>
>
>The NEW YORK TIMES interview with Williams is discussed on my site.
>It's obvious that if it really had been LBJ, that Williams would have
>remembered that, and not some vague "call from the White House."
>
>
Dr.
>>Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was
>>received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could
>>not have known about the call because he was not present during
>>Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>>
>>"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the
details
>>and who made it are not clear.
>>
>>"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was
>>an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr.
>>Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House
>>telephone calls to the operating room.
>>
>>"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the
White
>>House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status
of
>>Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the
>>oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who
>>revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>>
>>Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that
>>Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White
>>House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one
>>else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not
>>Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>>
>
>
White House that BOTH chief operator, Phyllis Bartlett recalled, and
Williams recalled. If NOT Crenshaw, then who was it? Given the
notoriety Crenshaw's claim made, surely if someone other than Crenshaw
took the call, we'd have heard of it by now!
>>Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called
personally
>>for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he
>>happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who
>>identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
>>
>>Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone
>>operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the
Dallas
>>Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim,
>>Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar
>>event.
>>
>>She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward
yet,
>>that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he
>>bothered to check.
>>
>
>OIC. They are going to "come forward," are they?
>
>Where are they?
>
>
>
>>"There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice
>>who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the
>>operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
>>
>>I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd
appreciate
>>anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two
>>percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with
>>another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually
>>corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
>>
Gary
gm...@jfk.org
gar...@ix.netcom.com(Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> In <6vvupc$ul7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >
> >A call was made to Parkland inquiring about Oswald. Crenshaw's book
> says he
> >answered the phone and that the caller was LBJ. My research showed
> the caller
> >could not have been the new president.
> >
> >No one to my knowledge has come forward to say he made the call,
> whether on
> >LBJ's behalf or someone else's, or produced a document suggesting such
> an
> >event.
> >
> >Neither Crenshaw's report of his activities that day,
> Where are Crenshaw's contemporaneous accounts of the day Oswald was
> treated. Are there such things?
>
> or Bartlett's report,
>
> Bartlett wrote the Dallas Morning News herself. What? Was she
> conspiring to tell a lie? Make a fool of herself?
Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that
weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we
duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from Washington.
They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
>
> >nor the reports of others at the switchboard that day, mention a call
> from
> >LBJ or the White House. The reports are in our Parkland Hospital
> collection,
> >copies of which were recently furnished to the ARRB and the National
> >Archives.
> >
> How would the absence of such a report prove no call came in?
The president calls and no one cares or notices? I don't think so.
>
> >Did someone call on LBJ's behalf? Possibly. Did he identify himself
> as LBJ?
> >Possibly. Was it LBJ? Nope, at least not according to available
> >documentation and the lack of any contemporaneous confirmation.
> >
> >If someone has new information about these questions I would very much
> like to
> >see it.
> >
> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you
> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone in
Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
> If it did not,
> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett
> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently
> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ called. I
do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not
aware of a call from Washington, either.
> >> Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White
> >> House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one
> >> else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not
> >> Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
> >>
> >> Crenshaw, who JAMA falsely belittled for claiming LBJ called
> personally
> >> for him, said no such thing, of course. Rather, he said that he
> >> happened to be the one to pick up a ringing phone when a man who
> >> identified himself as LBJ, and who sounded like LBJ, called.
> >>
> >> Then there is the letter of Phyllis Bartlett, the "chief telephone
> >> operator" at Parkland. When news of amazing tale broke, and the
> Dallas
> >> Morning News' Lawrence Sutherland sneered at Crenshaw's LBJ claim,
> >> Bartlett wrote the DMN to chip in her memory of an amazingly similar
> >> event.
> >>
> >> She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward
> yet,
> >> that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he
> >> bothered to check.
> >>
> >> "There very definitely was a phone call from a man with a loud voice
> >> who identified himself as Lyndon Johnson, an he was connected to the
> >> operating room phone during Oswald's surgery."
> >>
> >> I've not seen the Gary Mack evidence McA points to, and I'd
> appreciate
> >> anyone's emailing it to me, but it is clear that these are two
> >> percipient witnesses. Bartlett's recollection jibes perfectly with
> >> another, very credible witness, Dr. Williams. These mutually
> >> corroborating stories hard to explain if not true.
> >>
> >> But if not Crenshaw, who *did* pick up the White House call both
> >> Bartlett and Williams recalled?
> >>
> >> Just a question: Does McA normally agree with Gary Mack's views of
> the
> >> evidence? I can honestly say I don't know.
> >>
> >> Gary
>
>
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>In <3623c74d....@news.primenet.com> jmca...@primenet.com (John
>McAdams) writes:
>>
>>
>>>On 5/26/92, the New York Times reported: "In the (JAMA) interviews,
>Dr.
>>>Charles Baxter, the emergency room chief, denied that such a call was
>>>received by any doctor. But the denial came from a surgeon who could
>>>not have known about the call because he was not present during
>>>Oswald's surgery, Dr. Crenshaw said.
>>>
>>>"Indeed, another doctor has confirmed such a call, although the
>details
>>>and who made it are not clear.
>>>
>>>"The doctor, Phillip E. Williams, now a brain surgeon in Dallas, was
>>>an intern pumping blood into Oswald's right let. In an interview, Dr.
>>>Williams said he had long remembered reports of two White House
>>>telephone calls to the operating room.
>>>
>>>"I vividly remember someone said, and I can't say who it was, the
>White
>>>House is calling and President Johnson wants to know what the status
>of
>>>Oswald is, Dr. Williams said, adding, "I heard the statement in the
>>>oparating room, and it was not Dr. Crenshaw's book or anyone else who
>>>revived my thoughts about this because I have said this for years."
>>>
>>>Williams admitted he did not know for certain it was Johnson, or that
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>Johnson wanted Oswald's confession. But it is clear that the "White
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>House" called, he was pumping blood into Oswald, and there is no one
>>>else who has come forward to claim to have taken that call. If not
>>>Crenshaw, who took that call Dr. Williams remembered?
>>>
>>
>>Where did the "no one else" statement come from?
>>
>"No one else" has come forward to admit to having taken the call the
>White House that BOTH chief operator, Phyllis Bartlett recalled, and
>Williams recalled. If NOT Crenshaw, then who was it?
You haven't caught on yet. *Nobody* took a call from LBJ. Not
Crenshaw, and not anybody else.
I don't doubt that somebody from the White House may have called, but
it wasn't LBJ.
>Given the
>notoriety Crenshaw's claim made, surely if someone other than Crenshaw
>took the call, we'd have heard of it by now!
>
Gary, there was no "call" -- at least not a call from LBJ himself.
>>>
>>>She wrote: " ... There are still people who have not come forward
>yet,
>>>that could have helped Mr. Sutherland get his facts strait had he
>>>bothered to check.
>>>
>>
>>OIC. They are going to "come forward," are they?
>>
>>Where are they?
>>
Gary, you didn't answer this. What about the "other witnesses" who
are going to "come forward?"
Lurkers might want to check the following page on Crenshaw:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
He's one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the head" witness.
Gary Aguilar
(John McAdams) writes:
>
Scoffingly, McA writes:
>He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the
head" witness.
>
>.John
>
O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of
neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
KEMP CLARK, MD:
Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an
undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland
described the
President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the
skull... Through the head
wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound
in the right
occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was
occurring... There was
considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and
cerebellar tissue were
extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
In a hand written note dated 11-22-63, Dr. Clark wrote, "a large 3
x 3 cm remnant of
cerebral tissue present....there was a smaller amount of
cerebellar tissue present
also....There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput
extending into the parietal
region....Much of the skull appeared gone at the brief
examination...." (Exhibit #392: WC
V17:9-10)
At a press conference 2&1/2 hours after the shooting Clark said,
"The head wound could
have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have
been a tangential wound,
as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue." ("At the White
House with Wayne
Hawks" news conference, 11/22/63, 3:16 PM, CST, Dallas, Texas)
This virtually
contemporaneous description is not entirely unequivocal. However,
if JFK's skull defect
were not rearward, it is impossible to imagine Clark would have
conjectured that the skull
defect was the possible exit site of the neck wound, for Malcolm
Perry, MD, who
participated with him in the press conference, and had performed a
tracheotomy on JFK,
had just claimed three times the neck wound was a wound of
entrance.
In a typed summary submitted to Rear Admiral Burkley on 11-23-63,
Clark described the
head wound as, "a large wound in the right occipito-parietal
region... Both cerebral and
cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Warren Report,
p.518, Warren
Commission Exhibit #392, Lifton, D. Best Evidence, p. 322)
Under oath and to the Warren Commission's Arlen Specter, Clark
described his findings
upon arrival to the emergency room, "I then examined the wound in
the back of the
President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right
posterior part, with cerebral
and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." (WC--V6:20)
Specter, either
inattentive to Dr. Clark's skull wound description or wishing to
move the wound more
anterior than the eyewitness, neurosurgery professor placed it,
later asked Clark, "Now,
you described the massive wound at the top of the of the
President's head, with brain
protruding..." (WC:6:25) Dr. Clark later located the skull wound
to Mr. Specter again,
"...in the right occipital region of the President's skull, from
which considerable blood loss
had occurred which stained the back of his head, neck and upper
shoulders."
(WC--V6:29)
In answer to a question from Specter about the survivability of
Kennedy's head wounding,
Clark said: "...the loss of cerebellar (sic) tissue wound probably
have been of minimal
consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the
right occipital and probably
part of the right parietal lobes wound have been of specific
importance..." (WC6:26) That
Clark, a neurosurgeon, specified that the occipital lobe of the
brain was missing cannot
suggest anything but a very posterior defect.
On 1/20/94 a steel salesman from Tennessee, David Naro,
interviewed Clark, MD. Naro
reported Clark said, "The lower right occipital region of the head
was blown out and I saw
cerebellum." This conveys the same message as the document he
prepared on 11/22/63
which read, "There was a large wound in the right occipitoparietal
region... Both cerebral
and cerebellar tissue was extruding from the wound."
AND CRENSHAW:
CHARLES CRENSHAW, MD: a resident physician at Parkland neither wrote
his
observations contemporaneously or was interviewed by the Warren
Commission. He, with
co-authors, Jess Hansen and Gary Shaw, recently published a book,
JFK: Conspiracy of
Silence, " (Crenshaw, CA, Hansen, J, Shaw, G. ( JFK: Conspiracy of
Silence, 1992, New
York, Signet). Crenshaw has claimed both in his book and in public
interviews that the
President's head wound was posterior on the right side. In JFK:
Conspiracy of Silence,
he wrote, "I walked to the President's head to get a closer look.
His entire right cerebral
hemisphere 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, and
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." ( JFK:
Conspiracy of Silence, p. 86)
The FBI interviewed Crenshaw July 22, 1992 and reported Crenshaw
apparently did not
like his own description of JFK's skull wound in JFK: Conspiracy
of Silence Of the skull
wound the FBI reported, "(Crenshaw said) The head wound was
located at the back of
the President's head and was the approximate size of Doctor
CRENSHAW's (sic) fist. It
extended from the approximate center of the skull in the back to
just behind the right ear,
utilizing a left to right orientation and from a position a couple
of inches above the right
ear to the approximate middle of the right ear utilizing a top to
bottom orientation." (FBI
file # 89A-DL-60165-99) The FBI also reported, "(Crenshaw's)
description which indicates
that the wound extended from the hairline back behind the ear and
to the back of the
head was 'poorly worded.' (sic) The correct description indicates
that the wound was
located entirely at the rear of the head behind the right ear."
(FBI file #
89A-DL-60615-100.) While Crenshaw has been roundly criticized for
having kept silent for
so long, his observations regarding the head wound are consistent
with the
contemporaneous observations of others, especially those of Kemp
Clark, MD, professor
of Neurosurgery, who pronounced Kennedy dead.
McAdams fails to mention that Crenshaw is but one of over 20 witnesses
at Parkland I cited. He also fails to mention how well Crenshaw's
description agrees with the overwhelming majority. Not too shabby for
an "unreliable" guy like Crenshaw, 'eh?
And McA fails to mention how eerily similar the "unreliable" Crenshaw
description is to the professor of neurosurgery's.
You can see ALL the witnesses statements about JFK's head wound, both
those at Parkland and Bethesda. Read them and try to figure out how McA
only comes up that there was only 1 witness who described a back of the
head skull defect.
JFK's head wound witnesses are at: http://home.cynet.net/jfk/ag6.htm
Gary
Gary Aguilar
>
>
>Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that
>weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we
>duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
>mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
Washington.
>They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
>
and Crenshaw?
>> >
>> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you
>> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
>
>Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone
in
>Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
And so "The White HOuse" called Parkland, and there are no
contemporaneous notes from the Parkland personnel who were asked by
Parkland to prepare such. And this gives us good reason to trust the
comprehensiveness and reliability of those notes?
>
>> If it did not,
>> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett
>> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently
>> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
>
>I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ
called. I
>do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not
>aware of a call from Washington, either.
>
Wasn't it Peters who wrote a letter that is published in Groden and
Livingstone's "High Treason" in which he put an arrow into the middle
of the defect McClelland drew at the lower, right-rear portion of a
skull to indicate the location of the skull defect? (Yes, it was.)
And wasn't it the same Peters who later, and without explanation,
suddenly changed his mind on where it was? (Yes, it was. He indicated a
much higher position on a skull directly to me during a presentation he
made on the JFK case in a San Francisco speech I attended. Quite
amusing, really.)
And have you asked him about why his version of JFK's skull wound has
wandered over the years?
And are we all not Posner acolytes, who embrace his dictum that one
should place greatest faith in a witness' earliest recollection? (We're
not?)
And so should we now believe EVERYTHING Peters says, especially when it
contradicts what he's said before? (_ _ _ _ - fill in blanks.)
Well it was Bill Hamley, I believe, who mentioned Peters. Perhaps he
(or whoever it was) will chime in.
Gary
Vern Pascal
conduct a group interview of the Parkland doctors (I heard that a total
of at least five depositions were taken in a group session by Jeremy
Gunn).
Does anyone know when these will be
released?-------------------------------Vern
TNSONGGUY
From what I've seen, most of these folks re-canted many years ago from their
original statements and observations. I don't believe it was a collective
re-consideration of their impressions. I firmly believe they were gotten to.
IF... depositions were taken that would reflect their original comments and
observations, expect their release sometime after the white-out dries.
Mark
gm...@jfk.org
gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> In <70606o$7s4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >
> >
> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that
> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we
> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
> Washington.
> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >
> and Crenshaw?
Crenshaw did not write a report covering 11/22, but he did write one for
11/24, which does not mention a telephone call from anyone. Bartlett
wrote a report covering her entire weekend and so did other switchboard
operators - none referred to a call from LBJ or from Washington. You'd
think someone there would have made a contemporaneous mention of such an
event, especially in light of the minor events they did write about.
>
> >> >
> >> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you
> >> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
> >
> >Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone
> in
> >Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
>
> And so "The White HOuse" called Parkland, and there are no
> contemporaneous notes from the Parkland personnel who were asked by
> Parkland to prepare such. And this gives us good reason to trust the
> comprehensiveness and reliability of those notes?
Reading Crenshaw's book, one gets a sense there was great urgency in the
caller's voice, so much so that a critical operation was interrupted so
someone in the room could take a call which became the pithy "How's he
doing?" In the real world, at least one of the two operators who handled
"the" call would most likely refer to it in her report of important things
she saw and did that day. But I guess one can also say "Hey, they forgot."
>
> >
> >> If it did not,
> >> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett
> >> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently
> >> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
> >
>
> >I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ
> called. I
> >do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not
> >aware of a call from Washington, either.
> >
>
> Wasn't it Peters who wrote a letter that is published in Groden and
> Livingstone's "High Treason" in which he put an arrow into the middle
> of the defect McClelland drew at the lower, right-rear portion of a
> skull to indicate the location of the skull defect? (Yes, it was.)
> And wasn't it the same Peters who later, and without explanation,
> suddenly changed his mind on where it was? (Yes, it was. He indicated a
> much higher position on a skull directly to me during a presentation he
> made on the JFK case in a San Francisco speech I attended. Quite
> amusing, really.)
> And have you asked him about why his version of JFK's skull wound has
> wandered over the years?
> And are we all not Posner acolytes, who embrace his dictum that one
> should place greatest faith in a witness' earliest recollection? (We're
> not?)
> And so should we now believe EVERYTHING Peters says, especially when it
> contradicts what he's said before? (_ _ _ _ - fill in blanks.)
>
> Well it was Bill Hamley, I believe, who mentioned Peters. Perhaps he
> (or whoever it was) will chime in.
Gary, calm down. I have no problem with Parkland-Bethesda discrepancy
discussions. It is a real problem. What possible relation does Peters'
account of Kennedy's wounds have to do with whether or not Crenshaw's
claim of a call from LBJ is factual?
All I pointed out was the TOTAL lack of contemporaneous corroboration for
the LBJ phone call story and impressive information that he could not have
made such a call.
At the very least, the doctor in the opeating room whom Crenshaw
supposedly told, Tom Shires, refused to publicly support his former
colleague's story. He declined comment to me and to others who tried. And
Shires was Crenshaw's mentor!
rickg...@my-dejanews.com
gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> In <70606o$7s4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >
> >
> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we
> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
> Washington.
> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >
> and Crenshaw?
>
Gary:
What's your point here? We would agree, would we not, that usually the
most persuasive evidence of whether something happened, or how it
happened, is contemporaneous (or at least near-in-time) documentation?
What documentation do we have supporting Crenshaw's claims? Are you
suggesting that there is a contemporaneous Crenshaw report mentioning
this, or that the corroborating Crenshaw report is now missing, or
something else?
I'm always skeptical -- and I'm sure you are too -- of important "facts"
which are claimed for the first time many years after an event, ESPECIALLY
when the person has spoken about the event a number of times and never
mentioned such "facts."
Why don't you have a problem with this LBJ story? With due respect, I
think it is inconceivable that such a "fact" wouldn't have been mentioned
almost from day one.
Rick
John McAdams
wrote:
>In <3626c068...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>(John McAdams) writes:
>>
>
>Scoffingly, McA writes:
>
>>He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the
>head" witness.
>>
>O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of
>neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
>
> KEMP CLARK, MD:
>
>Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an
> undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland
>described the
> President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the
>skull... Through the head
> wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound
>in the right
> occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was
>occurring... There was
> considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and
>cerebellar tissue were
> extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
>
[Gary's usual "back of the head" witnesses snipped.]
>
>And McA fails to mention how eerily similar the "unreliable" Crenshaw
>description is to the professor of neurosurgery's.
>
Let's examine that logic a bit.
You are claiming that Crenshaw is credible because he tells the same
"back of the head wound" story that all the buff books tell.
So you consider him to have been "corroborated" because the stuff he
says is the same story that all the conspiracy books tell, and that
all the buffs believe.
Can't you see? He *got* his stories from reading buff books, or from
talking to conspiracy-oriented "researchers."
This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean
Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't
happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could*
have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
How about explaining his story about the "small throat wound?" You
know, the one he "saw" that had to have been from a frontal shot.
But he didn't *enter* the ER until the trachestomy was underway, and
the original wound obliterated. So where did he get it, if he didn't
see it?
>You can see ALL the witnesses statements about JFK's head wound, both
>those at Parkland and Bethesda. Read them and try to figure out how McA
>only comes up that there was only 1 witness who described a back of the
>head skull defect.
>
This is hard to respond to since "back" could mean simply "posterior,"
and the wound was mostly posterior. Gary *interprets* all the
witnesses as saying the back of the head was blown out.
>JFK's head wound witnesses are at: http://home.cynet.net/jfk/ag6.htm
>
The Dealey Plaza head wound witnesses are at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpwound.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>In <3626c068...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
>(John McAdams) writes:
>>
>
>Scoffingly, McA writes:
>
>>He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the
>head" witness.
>>
>O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of
>neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
>
> KEMP CLARK, MD:
>
>Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an
> undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland
>described the
> President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the
>skull... Through the head
> wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound
>in the right
> occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was
>occurring... There was
> considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and
>cerebellar tissue were
> extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
>
[Gary's usual "back of the head" witnesses snipped.]
>
>And McA fails to mention how eerily similar the "unreliable" Crenshaw
>description is to the professor of neurosurgery's.
>
Let's examine that logic a bit.
You are claiming that Crenshaw is credible because he tells the same
"back of the head wound" story that all the buff books tell.
So you consider him to have been "corroborated" because the stuff he
says is the same story that all the conspiracy books tell, and that
all the buffs believe.
Can't you see? He *got* his stories from reading buff books, or from
talking to conspiracy-oriented "researchers."
This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean
Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't
happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could*
have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
How about explaining his story about the "small throat wound?" You
know, the one he "saw" that had to have been from a frontal shot.
But he didn't *enter* the ER until the trachestomy was underway, and
the original wound obliterated. So where did he get it, if he didn't
see it?
>You can see ALL the witnesses statements about JFK's head wound, both
>those at Parkland and Bethesda. Read them and try to figure out how McA
>only comes up that there was only 1 witness who described a back of the
>head skull defect.
>
This is hard to respond to since "back" could mean simply "posterior,"
and the wound was mostly posterior. Gary *interprets* all the
witnesses as saying the back of the head was blown out.
>JFK's head wound witnesses are at: http://home.cynet.net/jfk/ag6.htm
>
The Dealey Plaza head wound witnesses are at:
Gary Aguilar
>
>In article <706n64$j...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
>> In <70606o$7s4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities
that
>> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents
we
>> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
>> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
>> Washington.
>> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
>> >
>> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by
Bartlett
>> and Crenshaw?
>>
>
>Gary:
>
>What's your point here? We would agree, would we not, that usually
the
>most persuasive evidence of whether something happened, or how it
>happened, is contemporaneous (or at least near-in-time) documentation?
>What documentation do we have supporting Crenshaw's claims? Are you
>suggesting that there is a contemporaneous Crenshaw report mentioning
>this, or that the corroborating Crenshaw report is now missing, or
>something else?
>
No. They're claiming that there are contemporaneous reports, and yet it
is obvious from what else they posted that even those contemp reports
are far from complete or accurate. So it is reasonable to ask, if
Crenshaw's account is to be criticized for lacking Nov 63 mention of
LBJ's call, whether there ARE ANY contemp accounts from Crenshaw. Just
because, for example, neither Williams or Crenshaw or Bartlett prepared
a contemporaneous report doesn't mean that what they said later doesn't
count!
>I'm always skeptical -- and I'm sure you are too -- of important
"facts"
>which are claimed for the first time many years after an event,
ESPECIALLY
>when the person has spoken about the event a number of times and never
>mentioned such "facts."
>
No argument, but what evidence do we have for Williams' having publicly
commented on the JFK case in the past, or Crenshaw, or Bartlett?
McA, unlike you or me, happily cites Parkland MD's later accounts of
JFK' head wound, and discounts what they wrote on the day he was
killed, or what they testified to the WC.
>Why don't you have a problem with this LBJ story? With due respect, I
>think it is inconceivable that such a "fact" wouldn't have been
mentioned
>almost from day one.
>
>Rick
I don't entirely buy Crenshaw's full account of it. But one can't
dismiss out of hand the mutually corroborating accounts of three
independent observers, can one?
gary
>
pjb...@my-dejanews.com
jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
>
> Let's examine that logic a bit.
>
> You are claiming that Crenshaw is credible because he tells the same
> "back of the head wound" story that all the buff books tell.
>
> So you consider him to have been "corroborated" because the stuff he
> says is the same story that all the conspiracy books tell, and that
> all the buffs believe.
>
> Can't you see? He *got* his stories from reading buff books, or from
> talking to conspiracy-oriented "researchers."
>
> This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean
> Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't
> happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could*
> have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
>
Crenshaw's book would be less than 1/2 as thick if -only- the information
he knew personally was included. So much of it is, as you say, gleaned
from the literature.
Debra Conway
You know yourself, because I was standing there when you spoke with her at
the JFK Lancer Student's Symposium, that Mrs. Bartlett said she
specifically DID NOT include any government calls in or out in her report.
She was the supervisor of the PBX board and was privy to all the calls
made by White House aids, FBI agents and Secret Service Agents as she was
there the entire weekend. She is entirely professional about her vocation
and has never commented on what she may have overheard. (Did you know Mrs.
Barlett has had a book written about her life and an exhibit on her at a
Texas University? She has lived a fascinating life and is an extremely
credible witness.)
The ONLY reason she wrote the letter to the newspaper was in defense of
Dr.Crenshaw's claim. She stated the call came in from the White House and
she and the other operator sitting next to her immediately recognized
LBJ's voice. Being Texans, they were very familar with him.
As we know LBJ's mode of operation was to use the phone extensively, why
would it be out of character for him to call any hospital in his home
state and ask to speak with the surgeon? Especially Oswald's surgeon. It
is not. What you can question is Dr. Crenshaw's interpretation of the
call.
You heard her entire speech. So, to use her report as proof of a non-call
is not being honest.
Debra
gm...@jfk.org wrote:
>
> In article <706n64$j...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> > In <70606o$7s4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities that
> > >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents we
> > >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
> > >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
> > Washington.
> > >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> > >
> > Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by Bartlett
> > and Crenshaw?
>
> Crenshaw did not write a report covering 11/22, but he did write one for
> 11/24, which does not mention a telephone call from anyone. Bartlett
> wrote a report covering her entire weekend and so did other switchboard
> operators - none referred to a call from LBJ or from Washington. You'd
> think someone there would have made a contemporaneous mention of such an
> event, especially in light of the minor events they did write about.
>
> >
> > >> >
> > >> Well, here it is, again: neurosurgeon Philip Williams, MD. Have you
> > >> called him to see whether the NY Times misquoted him?
> > >
> > >Yes I did and he was quoted accurately. There WAS a call from someone
> > in
> > >Washington, but he never heard that it was LBJ.
> >
> > And so "The White HOuse" called Parkland, and there are no
> > contemporaneous notes from the Parkland personnel who were asked by
> > Parkland to prepare such. And this gives us good reason to trust the
> > comprehensiveness and reliability of those notes?
>
> Reading Crenshaw's book, one gets a sense there was great urgency in the
> caller's voice, so much so that a critical operation was interrupted so
> someone in the room could take a call which became the pithy "How's he
> doing?" In the real world, at least one of the two operators who handled
> "the" call would most likely refer to it in her report of important things
> she saw and did that day. But I guess one can also say "Hey, they forgot."
>
> >
> > >
> > >> If it did not,
> > >> what a coincidence it must be that Williams recalled what Bartlett
> > >> reported, independently! And I've an email that Peters apparently
> > >> admitted to some such thing himself. What? Another coincidence?
> > >
> >
> > >I also contacted Peters, who did not support the claim that LBJ
> > called. I
> > >do not have my notes in front of me, but my memory is that he was not
> > >aware of a call from Washington, either.
> > >
> >
David Martin
>
> In <7083i7$9bm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> rickg...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >
> >In article <706n64$j...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> > gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> >> In <70606o$7s4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Parkland asked its personnel to write reports of their activities
> that
> >> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents
> we
> >> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
> >> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
> >> Washington.
> >> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >> >
> >> Are there reports written on 11/22 in those files written by
> Bartlett
> >> and Crenshaw?
> >>
> >
Dr. Crenshaw is quite persuasive in his book as to why he dummied up about
the call at the time. He had just seen what was going on with the Kennedy
assassination, and compared to a president of the United States, who the
hell was he? I'm a pretty bold and outspoken person, but in those
circumstances I think I would have dummied up just like Crenshaw did.
Another thing vouching for the authenticity of Crenshaw's account is the
thoroughly dishonest review of his book given by the New York Times (which
I have squirreled away somewhere in my files). If the guy is not telling
the truth, why do they have to resort to outright lying in an attempt to
discredit him?
A related point:
Treachery's Fruits
I've seen several presidents come and go,
And Bill is the worst one yet,
But with those at the top now running the show,
He's as good as we're going to get.
DC Dave
--
DC Dave newsgroup: alt.thebird
column: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2932/index.html
poetry: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2932/poetry.html
John McAdams
>In article <3627d683....@news.primenet.com>,
> jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
>
>>
>> This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean
>> Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't
>> happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could*
>> have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
>>
>
>Crenshaw's book would be less than 1/2 as thick if -only- the information
>he knew personally was included. So much of it is, as you say, gleaned
>from the literature.
>
There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from
the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned from
the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the
DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with sickening
clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed in
Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
David Martin
>
> In <7083i7$9bm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> rickg...@my-dejanews.com writes:
>
> >
> >In article <706n64$j...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
> > gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar) wrote:
> >> In <70606o$7s4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> gm...@jfk.org writes:
> >> >
> >> >
> that
> >> >weekend, and they are here in our collection and in the documents
> we
> >> >duplicated for the ARRB. Neither Crenshaw, Bartlett or anyone else
> >> >mentioned that there was either a call from LBJ or a call from
> >> Washington.
> >> >They did mention getting more than a few crank calls, though.
> >> >
In this propensity, McA reminds me a lot of RFK and VFW cover-up artist,
Dan E. Moldea. Check out point #13 in "Dan Moldea's America" copied
below:
The United States of America in which I was born and raised was the
America of the civics textbooks. We were "the land of the free and the
home of the brave." We were safely protected against tyranny through
the ingenious system of checks and balances that our founding fathers
had built into our government. Our freedom was safeguarded further by
the Bill of Rights, in particular the First Amendment which guaranteed a
free and uncontrolled press. We were truly Lincoln's "last best hope of
earth."
Then, not too long after the Kennedy assassination it began to dawn on
me that something was amiss. A lot of things seemed to be going on
behind the scenes that we weren't being told about. In 1992 I voted for
Bill Clinton as a protest vote against what I perceived as this
pervasive corruption of our system. Imagine that, a vote for Clinton as
a vote against corruption!
It didn't take me long to recognize my error. I had been like the
Russian who backed the Bolsheviks out of protest over the oppression of
the Czars. The Waco massacre was the first obvious sign that things
were quickly getting a lot worse. The covered-up, hushed-up murder of
scandal researcher Paul Wilcher in his D.C. townhouse in June of 1993
was another sign. Then came the discovery in Fort Marcy Park of the
body of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster. The death
immediately aroused my curiosity because the press seemed curiously
incurious about such a curious choice of a site and the lack of anything
approaching a convincing explanation for why it was being called an
"apparent suicide" by the authorities. It also attracted my interest
because I remembered Vince as an intramural basketball opponent back at
Davidson College in the years surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
My interest has manifested itself in a number of poems and the long
essay, "America's Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent
Foster," now in five parts on my web site. What comes through very
clearly in that body of work is my realization that I am no longer
living in the country in which I thought I grew up. As my fellow Tar
Heel, Thomas Wolfe, said, "You can't go home again."
But wait. I recently read a book entitled "A Washington Tragedy, How
the Death of Vincent Foster Ignited a Political Firestorm," and I find
there a mythical recreation that very closely resembles the America of
my youthful fancy. It's not quite Mr. Rogers' neighborhood, but it
comes close. It's:
Dan Moldea's America
1. In Dan Moldea's America, deputy White House counsels don't come to
the job fresh from having handled the legal work for the person
reportedly responsible for bringing to America the largest criminal
enterprise in history, a person heavily involved in financing both
Republican and Democratic political campaigns, most recently the
campaign of America's president, the counsel's boss.
2. In Dan Moldea's America, the deputy White House counsel does not
engage in two days of meetings two days before his mysterious violent
death, meetings with the Deputy U.S. Attorney General and another person
heavily involved in political finance who also has invested in casinos
jointly with members of the Gambino family and the Meyer Lansky
organization.
3. In Dan Moldea's America, there have never been strong, attributed
allegations that the deputy White House counsel had contracted a
detective to spy on the future president at the behest of the future
first lady, that the detective and the future deputy White House counsel
had themselves been involved in the illegal drug business, and that the
detective correctly predicted his own subsequent murder upon hearing of
the death of the deputy White House counsel.
4. In Dan Moldea's America, presidents don't have close friends, family
members, and political backers who are or have been heavily involved in
the illegal drug business.
5. In Dan Moldea's America, presidents have never had subordinates who
have covered up murders related to the illegal drug business or people
apparently working on their behalf who have either threatened or
actually inflicted bodily harm upon inconvenient witnesses.
6. In Dan Moldea's America, autopsy doctors might make occasional
mistakes, but they are never simply flat-out corrupt fabricators of the
cause of death at the behest of corrupt higher-ups who are protecting
powerful people engaged in the illegal drug business.
7. In Dan Moldea's America, heaven forbid that government clandestine
and police organizations themselves might be involved in the illegal
drug business, and, of course, no serious allegations have ever been
made that they are.
8. In Dan Moldea's America, if there were any truth at all in things
hinted at in numbers 1-7, America's major news organizations would have
duly reported them, with appropriate emphasis.
9. In Dan Moldea's America, the word of a public official is always
worth more than that of a private citizen unless, perhaps, that private
citizen is employed by a major news organization.
10. In Dan Moldea's America, major news organizations are interested
only in pursuit of the truth. They never knowingly withhold important
information from the public and they would never, ever knowingly assist
public officials in covering up a crime.
11. In Dan Moldea's America, if a capital-area college student doing
undercover work for the Drug Enforcement Administration were to have
been ruled dead of a gunshot suicide by the authorities and a second
autopsy paid for by the parents showed convincingly that the young man
was beaten to death, the news would not be blacked out by The Washington
Post.
12. In Dan Moldea's America, the major news organs do not get ahead of
the official "investigators" in uncovering and revealing anonymously
sourced "evidence" that reinforces the official line.
13. In Dan Moldea's America, when witnesses, suspects, or investigators
change their story, the last story told is always to be believed
implicitly when it supports the official line.
14. In Dan Moldea's America, government agents would not harass and
intimidate a witness in an important case and if it were to happen, it
would not be ignored by the major news organs.
15. In Dan Moldea's America, official reports on important
investigations are always critically examined and duly reported upon by
major news organizations.
16. In Dan Moldea's America, major news organs do not falsely report
that investigating police did not talk to immediate family members on
the night of the mysterious violent death of a high level government
official and leave the record uncorrected for a year.
17. In Dan Moldea's America, major news organs do not black out the
news that a suicide note in a high-profile case has been determined to
be a forgery by reputable handwriting examiners.
18. In Dan Moldea's America, there is an adversarial relationship
between the government and the press.
19. In Dan Moldea's America, challenges to the official verdict in high
level cases come only from nebulously-defined "conspiracy theorists" or
well-financed political fanatics.
20. In Dan Moldea's America, certain reporters are granted selective
access to official "investigators" not because the reporters are stooges
who will parrot the obvious official line--or the less obvious
disinformation line-- but because they possess exceptional charm.
>
> >Why don't you have a problem with this LBJ story? With due respect, I
> >think it is inconceivable that such a "fact" wouldn't have been
> mentioned
> >almost from day one.
> >
> >Rick
>
> I don't entirely buy Crenshaw's full account of it. But one can't
> dismiss out of hand the mutually corroborating accounts of three
> independent observers, can one?
>
> gary
> >
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>Gary,
>
>You know yourself, because I was standing there when you spoke with her at
>the JFK Lancer Student's Symposium, that Mrs. Bartlett said she
>specifically DID NOT include any government calls in or out in her report.
>She was the supervisor of the PBX board and was privy to all the calls
>made by White House aids, FBI agents and Secret Service Agents as she was
>there the entire weekend. She is entirely professional about her vocation
>and has never commented on what she may have overheard. (Did you know Mrs.
>Barlett has had a book written about her life and an exhibit on her at a
>Texas University? She has lived a fascinating life and is an extremely
>credible witness.)
>
>The ONLY reason she wrote the letter to the newspaper was in defense of
>Dr.Crenshaw's claim. She stated the call came in from the White House and
>she and the other operator sitting next to her immediately recognized
>LBJ's voice. Being Texans, they were very familar with him.
>
>As we know LBJ's mode of operation was to use the phone extensively, why
>would it be out of character for him to call any hospital in his home
>state and ask to speak with the surgeon? Especially Oswald's surgeon. It
>is not. What you can question is Dr. Crenshaw's interpretation of the
>call.
>
>You heard her entire speech. So, to use her report as proof of a non-call
>is not being honest.
>
Deborah,
OK, you have a witness who said *nothing* of this explosive call from
LBJ until 30 years after the fact. And then she starts telling an
"interesting" story, and appearing before conspiracy conventions.
Why should Gary prefer her latter-day testimony to her early reports?
She sounds a lot like Jean Hill, Beverly Oliver, and Gordon Arnold.
Yep, I know Gary is not going to like putting Arnold in the group :-).
And Deborah, you need to address Crenshaw's statements in his book
that strain credibility. As when he claims to have seen a small wound
in Kennedy's throat that had to be an entrance wound.
It's the sort of thing that buffs eat up. Unfortunately, the
trachestomy had already been started when he entered, and he could not
have seen the unaltered wound!
Tony Pitman
> On 17 Oct 1998 15:09:13 -0500, pjb...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3627d683....@news.primenet.com>,
> > jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> This is just like the "changed parade route" that James Files, Jean
>
> >> Hill, and Madeline Brown report having "knowledge" of. It didn't
> >> happen, so they could have no "knowledge" of it. But they *could*
> >> have read it in conspiracy books, or picked it up talking to buffs.
>
> >>
> >
> >Crenshaw's book would be less than 1/2 as thick if -only- the
> information
> >he knew personally was included. So much of it is, as you say,
> gleaned
> >from the literature.
> >
>
> There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from
> the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned from
>
> the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
>
> Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the
> DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with sickening
> clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed in
> Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
Well maybe that's because there were both John. Maybe he saw both as di
many other Dallas citizens.
Didn't LBJ's girlfriend say that H.L. personally showed her the
handbill? Must have been prowd of his son's work.
Y'know, I've often wondered whether H.L. had a premonition of what his
son would look like in adulthood when he named him Bunker.
Tony
Tony Pitman
Bravo Debra. I knew there was more to this but the memory is foggy. Not
only that but what Dr Crenshaw said of the conversation is so typically
LBJ that the cap fits.
I do wonder why LBJ, if it is true, would think Oswald would be about to
confess since he was adamant earlier that he killed nobody.
I can only think that if LBJ was aware of the plot he would not have
known who the mechanics would be and may have thought that this man was
one of them and may cop the blame if he thought he was dying anyway.
With a little pressure of course.
When you think about it Ruby almost botched his job completely. One shot
in the gut with a hospital nearbye is often surviveable. If the police
had not completely botched the first aid he probably would have lived,
for a little while at least. I understand they tried CPR or some form of
resusitation which is fatal with stomach wounds.
Another plus for the DPD eh? They were trained in first aid in their job
weren't they? No wonder the mayor Cabell did not want Chief Curry in
the basement.
Tony
Tony Pitman
> On 16 Oct 1998 04:21:20 -0500, gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar)
> wrote:
>
> >In <3626c068...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>
> 6489mc...@vms.csd.mu.edu
> >(John McAdams) writes:
> >>
> >
> >Scoffingly, McA writes:
> >
> >>He's (Crenshaw is) one of the witnesses Gary uses as a "back of the
> >head" witness.
> >>
> >O.K. Lets compare what Crenshaw said to what the professor of
> >neurosurgery, Kemp Clark, MD said:
> >
> > KEMP CLARK, MD:
> >
> >Professor and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, in an
> > undated note apparently written contemporaneously at Parkland
> >described the
> > President's skull wound as, "...in the occipital region of the
> >skull... Through the head
> > wound, blood and brain were extruding... There was a large wound
>
> >in the right
> > occipitoparietal region, from which profuse bleeding was
> >occurring... There was
> > considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and
> >cerebellar tissue were
> > extruding from the wound." (WC--CE#392)
> >
>
> [Gary's usual "back of the head" witnesses snipped.]
>
Come on John. I notice you snipped the bit containing the FBI report
from the '90s saying how Dr Crenshaw's statement agreed with
"contemporanious reports of others especially neurosurgeon Dr Kemp
Clark's" in that they both said the wound was in the rear right of the
head. Occipital, temporal and parietal but all behind the ear and
horizontally not higher than two inches above the ear.
Are the FBI people conspiracy authors too now John?
Tony
Tony Pitman
> On 14 Oct 1998 00:14:34 -0500, gar...@ix.netcom.com (Gary Aguilar)
John,
Gary has shown two witnesses who coroborate Dr Crenshaw's statement that
the White House, at least called the ER.
Can you think of anyone else in the White House who would so concerned
with Oswald state of health? I can't. If it was someone other than LBJ
it would no doubt be on his behalf which ammounts to the same thing
really but I can't think of a reason why Dr Crenshaw would make up such
a story.
Can you OTOH prove that LBJ did not all the ER? Do you have even one
witness to back up your right to call the good doctor a liar?
Tony
David Martin
Not only does the report of Dr. Crenshaw have the ring of truth, but the
proposition that LBJ at least had prior knowledge of the assassination and
did not discourage it rings true as well. The very first order of
business for conspirators in what amounts to a coup d'etat is that the
person ascending to the throne be absolutely reliable. They knew they
could count on J. Edgar Hoover, but Bobby was a definite danger. That
made it all the more essential that they could count on Johnson. When
conspirators don't have all their ducks in a row like this you get what
happened to the head of the KCIA in Korea and his buddy, the chief of
staff of the army, when the former assassinated President Park Chung Hee
of Korea. --
Spunky Lucy
John McAdams wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> On 19 Oct 1998 03:46:35 -0500, Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from
> >> the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned from
> >>
> >> the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
> >>
> >> Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the
> >> DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with sickening
> >> clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed in
> >> Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
> >
> >Well maybe that's because there were both John. Maybe he saw both as di
> >many other Dallas citizens.
>
> You are not following this, Tony.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Crenshaw said he remembered seeing
> "with sickening clarity"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> an ad in the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. But when he went on to *describe* the
> ad, he
> actually described the handbill, not the ad.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> That makes it pretty clear his account was coming from some buff book,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> or "researcher" like Shaw, and not his own memory.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Translation: he lied about this.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Didn't LBJ's girlfriend say that H.L. personally showed her the
> >handbill? Must have been prowd of his son's work.
>
> You mean Madeline Brown?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You still just don't *get* it, Tony. These folks tell all kinds of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> stories that are "consistent" with what you have read in buff books
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> *because* they are getting the tales from buff books!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> And not from their own personal memories.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Didn't Madeline Brown use the "changed parade route" nonsense?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Lurkers may want to see:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> .John
> ^^^^^^^
It's the nighthorse.
Savior of lucy, folks.
John McAdams
>John McAdams wrote:
>
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from
>> the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned from
>>
>> the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
>>
>> Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the
>> DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with sickening
>> clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed in
>> Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
>
>Well maybe that's because there were both John. Maybe he saw both as di
>many other Dallas citizens.
You are not following this, Tony.
Crenshaw said he remembered seeing "with sickening clarity" an ad in
the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. But when he went on to *describe* the ad, he
actually described the handbill, not the ad.
That makes it pretty clear his account was coming from some buff book,
or "researcher" like Shaw, and not his own memory.
Translation: he lied about this.
>Didn't LBJ's girlfriend say that H.L. personally showed her the
>handbill? Must have been prowd of his son's work.
You mean Madeline Brown?
You still just don't *get* it, Tony. These folks tell all kinds of
stories that are "consistent" with what you have read in buff books
*because* they are getting the tales from buff books!
And not from their own personal memories.
Didn't Madeline Brown use the "changed parade route" nonsense?
Lurkers may want to see:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm
Tony Pitman
> On 19 Oct 1998 03:46:35 -0500, Tony Pitman <a...@southern.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >John McAdams wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> There is nothing wrong with writing a book with stuff "gleaned from
>
> >> the literature." The problem comes when one takes stuff "gleaned
> from
> >>
> >> the literature" and claims to have actually heard or seen it!
> >>
> >> Another example is the "black bordered ad" attacking Kennedy in the
>
> >> DALLAS MORNING NEWS. Crenshaw claims to remember it "with
> sickening
> >> clarity." But then he describes a *handbill* that was distributed
> in
> >> Dallas! Roger Bynum first noticed this. See:
> >
> >Well maybe that's because there were both John. Maybe he saw both as
> di
> >many other Dallas citizens.
>
> You are not following this, Tony.
>
> Crenshaw said he remembered seeing "with sickening clarity" an ad in
> the DALLAS MORNING NEWS. But when he went on to *describe* the ad, he
>
> actually described the handbill, not the ad.
Hells teeth John. You sure are a stickler for accuracy. Since you agree
that there were both an ad and a handbill don't you think it'e possible
that he saw both and just made a simple error in describing which one.
Are you as tough on your students as this?If so they'd be lucky to
graduate at all imo.
>
>
> That makes it pretty clear his account was coming from some buff book,
>
> or "researcher" like Shaw, and not his own memory.
>
> Translation: he lied about this.
>
> >Didn't LBJ's girlfriend say that H.L. personally showed her the
> >handbill? Must have been prowd of his son's work.
>
> You mean Madeline Brown?
>
> You still just don't *get* it, Tony. These folks tell all kinds of
> stories that are "consistent" with what you have read in buff books
> *because* they are getting the tales from buff books!
>
> And not from their own personal memories.
>
> Didn't Madeline Brown use the "changed parade route" nonsense?
> Lurkers may want to see:
> .John
I don't know about that. I simply wanted to point out that there were both
and I suppose that a lot of people saw them both. This is not any "buff
book tale". There really were an ad and a handbill. The handbill was the
work of Bunker Hunt and the ad finaced by a man whos name I forget but I
recall it may have been a Jewish name or German