Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Dr. Robert McClelland worked on JFK: "It was not just a single shooter."

84 views
Skip to first unread message

News

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 8:10:26 AM1/30/12
to
This article alone should debunk the lone crazy-hazy-brained nuts who blab
their ignorant talk on here saying LHO as the only one with a gun on Nov.
22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza.

The late Dr. Malcolm Perry also said JFK's neck-throat wound looked like an
entry wound--that had to be from the front of course, and that destroys the
WCR and the LN-idiots on this ng all by itself.

So does eyewitness Ed Hoffman's repeated recountings of seeing a rifle on
top of the picket fence with a man firing it at JFK that day.


--

"Chris Beattie/Staff Photo - Dr. Robert McClelland recounts to the Rotary
Club of McKinney what happened Nov. 22, 1963 in the Parkland Memorial
Hospital operating room where former President John F. Kennedy took his
final breaths. McClelland, who spoke to the Rotarians the past two Fridays,
was on the surgical team that operated on Kennedy and his alleged assassin,
Lee Harvey Oswald."

http://www.scntx.com/articles/2012/01/28/news_update/7891.txt#share

"Surgeon recounts JFK operation"

By Chris Beattie, cbea...@acnpapers.com
Published: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:27 PM CST


Almost 39 [49] years later, mystery still surrounds the assassination of
former President John F. Kennedy.

Was Lee Harvey Oswald the real shooter? If so, was he the only one? There is
someone who knows the truth about what happened on that November day in
Dallas -- at least part of it.

"It was not just a single shooter," said Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the
surgeons who operated on Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital. "It wasn't
just some crazy young man who wasn't connected to anything."

Such a conclusion, shared by millions across America, came to McClelland
long before Friday, when he recapped his experience to the Rotary Club of
McKinney. Though he admittedly "kept a distance from all of it,"
McClelland's personal connection to the event was hard for anyone else to
ignore.

Just moments after Kennedy slunk to his left, sending horror through
thousands of spectators, he was fighting for every breath inside a Parkland
operating room, his head inches away from McClelland.

"He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown out,"
McClelland said. "We worked on him for only eight or 10 minutes, from the
time they made the incision to the time he lost all of his cardiac activity.

"There was no chance of saving him."

But memories of the futile operation, and the surrounding chaos, were never
lost. McClelland spoke to Rotarians the past two Fridays about his
recollections. His story dropped jaws and drew curious silence.

He reignited the wonder of any listeners who'd pushed the conspiracy
theories away, out of mind. That's what McClelland said he tried to do, but
the mysterious pieces always found him.

Some pieces seemingly fell from the gun -- or guns -- of Kennedy's killer.

"My supposition, and that of a lot of people, is that the first shot
probably was fired from the sixth floor of the [Texas School Book
Depository]...whether by Oswald or someone else, I don't know," McClelland
told Rotarians. "The next shot apparently came from behind the picket fence
by the grassy knoll -- all kinds of things indicate that is indeed what
happened."

One glaring indicator, to which McClelland was uniquely close, was Kennedy's
neck wound. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the chief surgeon for Kennedy and Oswald, cut
an incision into Kennedy's neck to explore the wound.

Perry told reporters minutes later that it looked like an entrance wound --
meaning the shot had come from somewhere other than the sixth floor of the
Depository. Referencing a recently published book about the assassination,
McClelland said Secret Service agents allegedly accosted Perry after his
statement and told him never to say it again.

"After the assassination, if you ever mentioned anything about it to Dr.
Perry, he would tell you, 'I don't want to talk about it,' and he would
really get angry if you pressed him about it," McClelland said. "We always
wondered why that was."

Perry took his reluctance to the grave, dying from lung cancer two years ago
in Tyler. McClelland, the only surviving member of the historic surgical
team, stayed clear of the chaos as long as he could. He and Perry were two
of four doctors who tried to save the president Nov. 22, 1963.

"People always ask if he was dead, and he wasn't," McClelland said. "He was
making attempts to breath. But we didn't stand around and ask questions, we
just started acting."

The team, which also included Drs. Charles J. Carrico and Charles Baxter,
afterward sat, dazed, in a nearby nurse's station. Secret Service agents
gave them note pads and asked each to write his impressions of the
president's wounds.

Their notes later became evidence in the Warren Commission's investigation
of the assassination. Perry eventually changed his initial story and said
the bullet hole near Kennedy's Adam's apple was an exit wound.

But the Warren Commission's report has since been directly refuted by
numerous eyewitness accounts, one of whom McClelland met a few years ago in
Dallas.

Ed Hoffman, who is deaf, had his daughter tell McClelland what he saw near
the grassy knoll, behind the picket fence, when Kennedy went down.

Hoffman, 27 at the time, had left work around the time of the president's
arrival in Dallas to get a toothache inspected at the dentist. The
presidential motorcade forced Hoffman to pull off on the edge of Stemmons
Freeway, about 700 feet away from the knoll, Hoffman told McClelland.

He said he saw one suited man pull out a rifle, place it on top of the fence
and fire at Kennedy, then toss the gun to another man dressed in work
clothes. That man dissembled the gun, put it in his tool bag and disappeared
into the crowd, Hoffman said.

Moments later, Hoffman saw a policeman question the suited man, then walk
into the crowd with him following a short glimpse of the man's
identification.

Two high school history teachers came to Dallas several years ago to study
Hoffman's story, and wrote, "From Behind the Picket Fence," a book that
McClelland said is "very well-detailed in establishing what Mr. Hoffman
saw."

Just as in Perry's case, though, Hoffman was quickly shut out, McClelland
said. Hoffman told his father and his uncle -- a Dallas police officer at
the time -- days after the shooting, and both told him he better keep his
mouth shut.

After recounting his conversation with Hoffman and his daughter, the
Rotarians focused on his every word, McClelland summarized other prominent
theories surrounding Kennedy's death. He answered questions about the "magic
bullet" and the assassination's potential connection to Kennedy's
involvement in the Cold War.

Dr. Jerry Sims, the Rotarian who invited McClelland to speak in McKinney,
was a young intern at Parkland on that day. He recalled how the First Lady
asked him outside the operating room if she could smoke a cigarette -- a
habit that few knew she had, Sims said.

McClelland, who still spends time in hospitals teaching young doctors,
packed up his notes to standing applause. One by one, Rotarians came to him
with more questions.

He was the closest most of them would ever come to knowing what happened the
day JFK was killed.

But, even for McClelland, the mystery remains.

"It was the most memorable thing of my life," he said. "Yet, we may never
know the exact truth."

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 8:14:19 AM1/30/12
to

I don't know why everybody seems to be so surprised by McClelland's
conspiracy-slanted remarks. He's been on record for years as believing
in a "Mob did it" conspiracy.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/robert-mcclelland.html

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 8:39:01 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 8:10 am, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
> This article alone should debunk the lone crazy-hazy-brained nuts who blab
> their ignorant talk on here saying LHO as the only one with a gun on Nov.
> 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza.
>
> The late Dr. Malcolm Perry also said JFK's neck-throat wound looked like an
> entry wound--that had to be from the front of course, and that destroys the
> WCR and the LN-idiots on this ng all by itself.
>
> So does eyewitness Ed Hoffman's repeated recountings of seeing a rifle on
> top of the picket fence with a man firing it at JFK that day.
>
> --
>
> "Chris Beattie/Staff Photo - Dr. Robert McClelland recounts to the Rotary
> Club of McKinney what happened Nov. 22, 1963 in the Parkland Memorial
> Hospital operating room where former President John F. Kennedy took his
> final breaths. McClelland, who spoke to the Rotarians the past two Fridays,
> was on the surgical team that operated on Kennedy and his alleged assassin,
> Lee Harvey Oswald."
>
> http://www.scntx.com/articles/2012/01/28/news_update/7891.txt#share
>
> "Surgeon recounts JFK operation"
>
> By Chris Beattie, cbeat...@acnpapers.com
News,
That's an excellent article, and shows to the few here who think the
JFK assassination is dying out for lack of interest, that it isn't
dying out at all. McClelland "reignited" the people listening to him
speak, and he will no doubt speak some more, since there is an
interest across the nation. He is quite advanced in age and I'm
guessing that he feels less care about saying what is in many people's
mind, since he may be nearer to his passing.

Thanks for bringing it to us...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 8:42:08 AM1/30/12
to
Well David, you might mark that he was opposed to your viewpoint,
but others may not have noticed that. If I were in your shoes I would
be too embarassed to come here and make my lirttle digs. It isn't
really helping anything and had an air of sour grapes to it.

Chris

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 8:58:55 AM1/30/12
to

>>> "David...if I were in your shoes, I would be too embarrassed to come here and make my little digs." <<<

If you were in my shoes, you wouldn't be retarded. So you should be
begging me to trade footwear with you.


>>> "It isn't really helping anything and had an air of sour grapes to it." <<<

You don't even know how stupid Dr. McClelland's pulled-scalp theory
is. And that's because you actually seem to think that McClelland and
the autopsy photos/X-rays agree with one another, which, of course, is
impossible.

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 9:37:55 AM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 8:58 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David...if I were in your shoes, I would be too embarrassed to come here and make my little digs." <<<
>
> If you were in my shoes, you wouldn't be retarded. So you should be
> begging me to trade footwear with you.
>
OOO! That arrow got me right in the funny bone! David, ad hominem
doesn't suit you. It demeans you.

> >>> "It isn't really helping anything and had an air of sour grapes to it." <<<
>
> You don't even know how stupid Dr. McClelland's pulled-scalp theory
> is. And that's because you actually seem to think that McClelland and
> the autopsy photos/X-rays agree with one another, which, of course, is
> impossible.

Poor David has forgotten that Dr. Boswell (from the autopsy), was
present when the scalp was pullled forward, and has stated that was
what happened. But let's help refresh him. Here's Boswell's
testimony on that subject:

"Q. Just so I'm clear—and we'll be looking at the photographs in a few
minutes, and you can maybe clarify it there. But at least with some of
the photographs, is it your testimony that the scalp was pulled in a
way different from how it was when you first saw it in order to better
illustrate either wound of entry or exit?
A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you
have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case,
the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the
wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."

From: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/arrb_period/Boswell_dep_afternoon.html

It gets more difficult to try and hold and prove wacky theories
when the evidence keeps piling up...:)


Chris





David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 9:44:48 AM1/30/12
to

DR. BOSWELL SAID:

>>> "Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid." <<<


DVP SAYS:

So?

Those remarks by Boswell are somehow supposed to trump the two photos
below, which prove that there was no big hole in the BOH? Try again.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0061b.htm

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPuIiynTRkI/AAAAAAAAHwI/zzbCDTLLYlg/s1600/JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 9:47:04 AM1/30/12
to

>>> "David, ad hominem doesn't suit you. It demeans you." <<<

But you forgot the most important thing -- it's so darn much fun.

bigdog

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 1:02:10 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 9:47 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, ad hominem doesn't suit you. It demeans you." <<<
>
> But you forgot the most important thing -- it's so darn much fun.

That's why I do it. :)

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 6:05:17 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 9:44 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> DR. BOSWELL SAID:
>
> >>> "Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid." <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> So?
>
> Those remarks by Boswell are somehow supposed to trump the two photos
> below, which prove that there was no big hole in the BOH? Try again.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA...
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TPuIiynTRkI/AAAAAAAAHwI/zzbCDTL...

Lordee, Lordee! David, are you blind? Are you having strange
headaches? First, Boswell was on th autopsy team and you have
expressed great belief in that function in this case. He was part of
making the autopsy something that you seem to have a high regard for.
The man tells you clearly that the wound was uncovered by pulling the
flap backward, and then the wound is hidden by pulling the scalp
forward. In the autopsy photo (one of those that Boswell is talking
about), you've had it pointed out to you for days now that the scalp
flap was pulled forward (just as Boswell says) and that hides the
wound!!

Are you ignoring what he says because it's too much to take?
Because you don't want to believe what he is saying? Or because if
you ignore it maybe it will go away and you can go back to Wonderland
and pretend to be Mr. Big the supreme LNTer?

Aah! Fly away Clarisse, fly, fly, fly.

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 6:06:07 PM1/30/12
to
On Jan 30, 9:47 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, ad hominem doesn't suit you. It demeans you." <<<
>
> But you forgot the most important thing -- it's so darn much fun.

LOL! If you get fun out of demeaning yourself, don't let me stop
you...oh never mind, you won't...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 6:07:35 PM1/30/12
to
At last! I wondered when the last of the little LNT troop would
came out of hiding...:)

By all means, join the demeaning process...:)

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 6:12:54 PM1/30/12
to
You guys make such inviting targets.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 9:50:06 PM1/30/12
to

>>> "The man [Dr. J. Thornton Boswell] tells you clearly that the wound was uncovered by pulling the flap backward, and then the wound is hidden by pulling the scalp forward." <<<

Dr. Boswell wasn't talking about pulling the scalp forward to cover a
hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head, you goof. He was obviously talking
about the possibility of pulling the scalp forward to cover the ONE
AND ONLY large exit wound in JFK's head, which was (of course) located
just where all of the autopsy doctors said it was located -- above the
right ear of JFK (i.e., the right-frontal-top "chiefly parietal"
portion of JFK's cranium).

Notice in that quote how Boswell twice says the word
"wound" (singular). Now, given the fact that the autopsy report
clearly indicates that the large singular "wound" of exit was
"chiefly" in the "parietal" (right-front) region of the head, why in
the world would anyone think Boswell was talking about a big hole in
the BACK of Kennedy's head when he said this?:

"The scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to
obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."

Chris, you REALLY think the "wound" (singular) that Boswell was
talking about there was a "wound" in the right-rear-occipital area of
Kennedy's head (even though we find this description of the large head
wound in the autopsy report)?:

"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."

Yes, the autopsy report does say the wound extended "somewhat into the
occipital" area of the head. But that language is very vague and non-
specific. But it's quite clear from that same paragraph in the autopsy
report that the wound would certainly NOT be considered to be a hole
in the far-right-REAR of Kennedy's skull. Not even close.

And also take note of the fact that that same paragraph of the autopsy
report says that there is an "absence of scalp" in the area of the
large "chiefly parietal" wound. Which I think is, indeed, significant
language there, because it pretty much eliminates the "McClelland
Theory", which is a theory that has INTACT scalp (in the very same
right-rear area of JFK's head!) being pulled up over a big hole in the
right-rear of the head.

But how would that scenario be remotely possible, given the language I
just quoted from the official autopsy report, which clearly indicates
that in the area of the big hole in JFK's head there was "an actual
absence of scalp", which most certainly indicates a condition that is
not seen at all in the scalp at the back of Kennedy's head.

Plus: Boswell, AFAIK, has NEVER once ever explicitly said that the big
hole in JFK's head was located anywhere on the head other than where
it is said to be in the November 1963 autopsy report -- which is
"chiefly parietal" (which is NOT in the right-rear of the head).

You can play around with Boswell's later ARRB statements all you want
to (which are statements that are quite ambiguous and unclear in many
respects, IMO), but Dr. Boswell never came out and said to ANYONE that
President Kennedy had a big hole in the right-rear of his head.

If Boswell ever did make such a crystal-clear statement about there
being a big hole in the BACK of the President's head (instead of being
chiefly located in the right-frontal part of the head), it would mean
that he would have been admitting, in essence, that the autopsy report
he signed on 11/24/63 was a total fraud and a lie with respect to the
location of JFK's large head wound. And Dr. Boswell, as far as I am
aware, has always stood by the integrity and the basic truth that
resides in that autopsy report.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 10:53:09 PM1/30/12
to

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 11:31:16 PM1/30/12
to

Let me re-emphasize and expand upon a specific excerpt from the
autopsy report:

The report says that the large wound that was present in the head of
President Kennedy had an "absence of scalp and bone". So, a certain
amount of BOTH scalp AND bone were absent (i.e., missing, gone, blown
away, not there) in the region of JFK's head where the large wound was
located.

Therefore, given the fact that we know there was an "absence of scalp
and bone" in the area where the large head wound was located, can
anyone tell me how in the world that type of description can possibly
apply to the RIGHT-REAR portion of JFK's head (as seen in the autopsy
photo and X-ray shown below)?

Answer -- It's impossible. Because ALL of the scalp and bone at the
right-rear of President Kennedy's head is STILL THERE, present and
accounted for, in these two autopsy pictures:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fX_2E4JJqm8/TydroufoXDI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/eP8JFXE25uw/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photo-And-Xray-Composite.jpg

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 3:43:57 AM1/31/12
to
Dr. McClelland was 18 inches away and looked directly into the headwound
with I believe a flashlight . Don't make a total jackass of yourself
like Pat Speer, and Marsh and say he was wrong...Laz

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 3:51:57 AM1/31/12
to

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 7:48:49 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 30, 6:44 pm, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "mainframetech" <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:342b5b30-33a9-4030...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
> > But, even for McClelland, the mystery remains.
>
> > "It was the most memorable thing of my life," he said. "Yet, we may never
> > know the exact truth."
>
> News,
>   That's an excellent article, and shows to the few here who think the
> JFK assassination is dying out for lack of interest, that it isn't
> dying out at all.  McClelland "reignited" the people listening to him
> speak, and he will no doubt speak some more, since there is an
> interest across the nation.  He is quite advanced in age and I'm
> guessing that he feels less care about saying what is in many people's
> mind, since he may be nearer to his passing.
>
>   Thanks for bringing it to us...:)
>
> Chris
>
> ===
>
> Chris, it was my pleasure.  I love the way you got those two clowns (DVP and
> bigdog) to come out and explicitly say how much 'fun' it is to only attack
> without actually debating the points.
> Shows everyone exactly what they are made of--LN's in both the JFK case, and
> in real life outside the case.
>
> D. VonPee: "But you forgot the most important thing -- it's so darn much
> fun."
>
> littledumbpuppydoggie: "That's why I do it. :) "  and, "You guys make such
> inviting targets."
>
> News:  So do you guys!  ROTFL!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Always a pleasure bringing sanity to the great unwashed...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 9:40:46 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 30, 9:50 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "The man [Dr. J. Thornton Boswell] tells you clearly that the wound was uncovered by pulling the flap backward, and then the wound is hidden by pulling the scalp forward." <<<
>
> Dr. Boswell wasn't talking about pulling the scalp forward to cover a
> hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head, you goof. He was obviously talking
> about the possibility of pulling the scalp forward to cover the ONE
> AND ONLY large exit wound in JFK's head, which was (of course) located
> just where all of the autopsy doctors said it was located -- above the
> right ear of JFK (i.e., the right-frontal-top "chiefly parietal"
> portion of JFK's cranium).
>
If you are going to try to slip away saying it was only a
"possibility" see below and all will become clear for you. And we'll
have a definition of 'parietal' which is actually top and back of the
skull, not the "right-frontal-top", goof.

> Notice in that quote how Boswell twice says the word
> "wound" (singular). Now, given the fact that the autopsy report
> clearly indicates that the large singular "wound" of exit was
> "chiefly" in the "parietal" (right-front) region of the head, why in
> the world would anyone think Boswell was talking about a big hole in
> the BACK of Kennedy's head when he said this?:
>
Whoa! As much as you would like us to think you have doctor's
credentials, you are wrong again. The parietal region is the top and
rear section of the skull from about the midpoint (at the ears) and
going back to behind the curve of the skull. See illustration here:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/parietal_bone.html

>       "The scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to
> obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid."
>
> Chris, you REALLY think the "wound" (singular) that Boswell was
> talking about there was a "wound" in the right-rear-occipital area of
> Kennedy's head (even though we find this description of the large head
> wound in the autopsy report)?:
>
>       "There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
> right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
> the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
> absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
> approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
>
This is the only wound (yes, singular) in the head. What else would
they be describing? Humes and Boswell differ on the size, and Boswell
has it at 17 cm. The temporal and occipital regions are the back and
side of the skull. It is painfully obvious what he is describing.
And what he is describing is reflected in the X-ray of the
reconstruction of the skull pieces you so lovingly link to constantly.

> Yes, the autopsy report does say the wound extended "somewhat into the
> occipital" area of the head. But that language is very vague and non-
> specific. But it's quite clear from that same paragraph in the autopsy
> report that the wound would certainly NOT be considered to be a hole
> in the far-right-REAR of Kennedy's skull. Not even close.
>
Well the occipital is in the far-lower-rear of the skull (going
backward it's the last before the neck), so some small (or large) part
of the back of the skull was affected, and some small part (or large)
of the temporal, which is the lowest side part of the skull where the
ear is located (see link above for diagram).

> And also take note of the fact that that same paragraph of the autopsy
> report says that there is an "absence of scalp" in the area of the
> large "chiefly parietal" wound. Which I think is, indeed, significant
> language there, because it pretty much eliminates the "McClelland
> Theory", which is a theory that has INTACT scalp (in the very same
> right-rear area of JFK's head!) being pulled up over a big hole in the
> right-rear of the head.
>
Indeed there was an absence of scalp when they pulled it back and
described what they saw under it. Nothing from McClelland is
eliminated and the proof of that is Boswell's statement below.

> But how would that scenario be remotely possible, given the language I
> just quoted from the official autopsy report, which clearly indicates
> that in the area of the big hole in JFK's head there was "an actual
> absence of scalp", which most certainly indicates a condition that is
> not seen at all in the scalp at the back of Kennedy's head.
>
See below...it will all become clear from autopsy testimony.

> Plus: Boswell, AFAIK, has NEVER once ever explicitly said that the big
> hole in JFK's head was located anywhere on the head other than where
> it is said to be in the November 1963 autopsy report -- which is
> "chiefly parietal" (which is NOT in the right-rear of the head).
>
"Chiefly" means not entirely. As previously stated the wound
included the occipital and temporal (to some degree) which are both
below the the occipital region.

> You can play around with Boswell's later ARRB statements all you want
> to (which are statements that are quite ambiguous and unclear in many
> respects, IMO), but Dr. Boswell never came out and said to ANYONE that
> President Kennedy had a big hole in the right-rear of his head.
>
He sure did, and the testimony proof is below, explained simply for
you. Were you trying to invalidate the statements made by Boswell
because they don't agree with you? Note that we've already had Humes
saying right-rear above, now you want the autopsy personnel to fight
with each other?

> If Boswell ever did make such a crystal-clear statement about there
> being a big hole in the BACK of the President's head (instead of being
> chiefly located in the right-frontal part of the head), it would mean
> that he would have been admitting, in essence, that the autopsy report
> he signed on 11/24/63 was a total fraud and a lie with respect to the
> location of JFK's large head wound. And Dr. Boswell, as far as I am
> aware, has always stood by the integrity and the basic truth that
> resides in that autopsy report.

Well David, you might have a dilemma there. Now you've got the
wound being "right-frontal" (hope springs eternal, but I don't
remember that statement from tne autopsy personnel. I remember your
quote referring to temporal and occipital too. And remember that
parietal means top and rear, not frontal). Here's Boswell's statement
but just an answer before the one you were trying to say was was only
speaking of a "possibility". This has been shown to you before, but
you handily erased it and forgot it right away, it appears. Get
ready, here it is:

"A. Well, photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp was
pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And then
the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and more or
less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the brain."

Not only did Boswell directly state that the scalp "was pulled
forward" to demonstrate the wound, but he also states "the scalp was
reflected" [pulled the opposite way] to show the MAGNITUDE [my caps]
of the wound" and then he also says something that is important to us
and our current discussion. He says "to remove the brain". The hole
that was really there that he says was covered or exposed by pulling
or reflecting the flap was so large they removed the brain through
it.

Now before you jump and think to yourself "I'm saved, he didn't say
he actually removed the brain through the hole" relax and sit back.
I'll play that part now. Here's the testimony, both Q and A:

Q. Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in order to
remove the brain?
A. No.
Q. Was it necessary to saw any of the bones in the cranium?
A. No.
Q. Who was it who removed the brain?
A. I think Jim Humes did, but I can't be sure of that.
Q. Do you recall whether there were any difficulties in conjunction
with removal of the brain?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall whether it was particularly easy to remove the brain?
A. I think it was a routine procedure. In Dallas, they had said that
the cerebellum was the part of the brain that was injured and exuding.
But they were wrong because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort
of compartment, and in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to
cut the dura around, and then you—that's the only hard part about
getting the brain out. And the manner in which we were doing it, both
the cerebral hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was
really very simple to take out.

So we now have it all out there clear as a bell. The hole was so
large that they didn't have to "make any incisions in the scalp", or
"saw any of the bones" of the skull, and they had no "difficulties in
conjunction with removal of the brain". This is a doctor who had his
hands on the head and looked down at the head from only inches away
(like McClelland and others in the Parkland crew). They got the brain
out through the hole that was big enough to do it 'without
difficulty'. One can't conceive how you are going to try to escape
that information, but I suspect you will throw Boswell under the same
bus you threw McClelland because he won't agree with you. Without
actually discussing the specifics we have here, you will retreat to
the old X-ray and say that all the damege and splits and cracks in the
skull aren't really breaks, but just cracks. How you know that is a
wonderment, since they could be pushed together and you'd never know
it from the X-ray.

You have testimony from autopsy staff and their drawings (a standard
part of autopsies) and pictures at the time of autopsy and X-rays and
you will cling (by a tiny and imaginary thread) to what's left of your
sanity and say, there was only a tiny hole in th skull and every
medically trained person is wrong or crazy, and the photos lie, and
only you know the truth. It's hard to be alone in the world, isn't
it?

It will take guts, but you could try to discuss the exact ands
specific items above, and we could get into the details and perhaps
learn something. Give me a ring, I'm around...:)

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 10:11:53 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 30, 11:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Let me re-emphasize and expand upon a specific excerpt from the
> autopsy report:
>
> The report says that the large wound that was present in the head of
> President Kennedy had an "absence of scalp and bone". So, a certain
> amount of BOTH scalp AND bone were absent (i.e., missing, gone, blown
> away, not there) in the region of JFK's head where the large wound was
> located.
>
Nice try, but it ain't so. All autopsy testimony made it clear that
the scalp was all there. If Humes spoke of an absence of scalp, it
was because he was looking down at the huge wound and there was no
scalp on the surface of it (for the most part). However, as per
Boswell, the scalp was there, just pulled down and showing the one and
only wound.

> Therefore, given the fact that we know there was an "absence of scalp
> and bone" in the area where the large head wound was located, can
> anyone tell me how in the world that type of description can possibly
> apply to the RIGHT-REAR portion of JFK's head (as seen in the autopsy
> photo and X-ray shown below)?
>
We don't know there was an absence of scalp from the body. We know
only that Humes was describing the huge wound (13 cm or 17 cm) and
didn't see any scalp over it. If you check above, you'll see that the
testimony actually says parietal with some incringement on the
temporal and occipital (side and back). And if you think about it,
scalp or not, what would that have to do with 'right-rear'? Scalp is
everywhere on the head normally! I promise. Now if we look at the
autopsy photos and the one and only X-ray you have shown in the past,
and the BE2 photo matches perfectly with the skull damage in the X-
ray, and it also shows brain matter coming out of what HAS to be a
large hole (described by both Parkland and Bethesda personnel).
Remember also, that Humes stated that a piece of skull was missing
from the head and was found in the casket, so a piece was missing for
a while. Yet the X-ray shows most (maybe all) pieces present, so they
HAD TO have been reassembled. All this fits and we have shown it to
you before. You're trying to wriggle off the hook, and we've been
there and done that already.

> Answer -- It's impossible. Because ALL of the scalp and bone at the
> right-rear of President Kennedy's head is STILL THERE, present and
> accounted for, in these two autopsy pictures:
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fX_2E4JJqm8/TydroufoXDI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/eP8JFXE...

It's possible. I remember the pictures very well. I even described
for you the exact area where the Parkland people saw the large hole in
the head, and the scalp flap described by McClelland and Boswell. We
agree that all pieces of the skull are present. That all has been
explained to you clearly. Boswell explained the flap covering or
exposing the wound. Why do you pretend that you didn't hear any of
it? Why not admit that you heard it and then try to debate it?
Instead you just go off and complain again that medical people and I
won't believe your take on the case.

Over and over, all the medical personnel, the government agents and
the technicians saw the same thing as to the large hole in the right
rear, and you and a couple of misguided hangers-on say that they are
all wrong! Amazing the hubris!

For those following alongf, here are the statements and drawings of
the Parkland and Bethesda medical personnel :

http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm

Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 10:18:52 AM1/31/12
to
On Jan 31, 3:51 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> McClelland was undoubtedly wrong...and this proves it:
>
> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fX_2E4JJqm8/TydroufoXDI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/eP8JFXE...

David, David, David. We've all seen those pictures. Are you upping
the site counter?

So you're dumping on McClelland again, even though every medical
person from Parkland and Bethesda has stated and drawn the truth for
you. Why aren't you dumping on all of them, since they agree with
McClelland?

If you're going to promote your wacky theories, fine, but be aware
that attacks on decent medical personnel that may not be able to
defend themselves are not nice.

Chris
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Ben Holmes

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 9:12:16 PM2/2/12
to
In article <LPOdnfcoF7CbY7TS...@earthlink.com>, News says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:71941a07-6880-4a5c...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> That is a fake [and/or doctored] JFK autopsy photo.
> It isn't him as he doesn't have the hole in the back of his head.


As, of course, the Autopsy report makes quite clear.

And the very same kooks who think that these are legitimate photos are also the
very same ones who lie about them being "authenticated", and refuse to admit
that they cannot possibly believe the autopsy report.

The autopsy report clearly places the large BOH wound where the photo doesn't
show it.


> The right rear (occipital) was blown away as Dr. McClelland (and maybe
>Dr. Perry) remembered so vividly, so there should have been a big hole in
>the rear of his head, not in the front. The fatal head wound hit him in the
>RIGHT FRONT [per the Z-film at frame #313], blowing out the rear of his head
>with that piece of skull that Jackie memorably tried to retrieve with her
>crawling on the back of the limo.
>
> FBI agents O'Neil and Silbert in their report on the autopsy: "surgery
>in the head area" in their report. This was the basis for David Lifton's
>(1983) book, "Best Evidence" that proved the JFK autopsy photos were first
>doctored before they were taken to "prove" the fatal shot came only from the
>rear--and then could blame only LHO as the 'patsy' he has been proved to be.
> A bunch of fake photos were taken supposedly of JFK after his death, and
>this one was just one of them.
>
> Nowhere was it reported to the general public at that time (pre-Lifton's
>1983 book) about surgery in the head area, *only* the doctors at Parkland
>working on his throat wound and giving him blood and oxygen.

You've confused the two... it was the doctors at *BETHESDA* who noted the
surgery, Dr. Humes... The doctors at Parkland are not involved in this aspect of
the case.


> Therefore, the Navy doctors at Bethesda were probably the ones who did
>the altering of JFKs head


If you'll read Douglas Horne's five volume set, you'll run across more evidence
for precisely this. Dr. Humes was quite certainly involved.

This probably explains why the HSCA was forced to lie about the medical
evidence.


>on orders from above with the huge number of
>higher-ranking military men at the autopsy at Bethesda, and probably that's
>why Dr. [Cmdr.] James Humes burned his original notes [extremely suspicious,
>and a violation of medical ethics I'll bet]

And it was done on Sunday, after it became clear that there wasn't going to be
any trial - where people who couldn't be controlled would be able to legally put
the conspirators in a tough spot.

Interestingly, Tony Marsh denied this... and then lied about Dr. Humes, stating
that the burning took place *SATURDAY* morning...

>because it wouldn't match up to
>what was done to JFK at Bethesda compared to when he came in.

No... you seem unsure again... it was done so that they could alter the autopsy
report to say what they wanted it to say.

Dr. Humes was involved FROM THE BEGINNING with everything done at Bethesda.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

Ben Holmes

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 9:20:38 PM2/2/12
to
In article <5LqdnT6uV6l9nLfS...@earthlink.com>, News says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:b739dd69-a8d3-49a5...@y10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
>On Jan 30, 11:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Let me re-emphasize and expand upon a specific excerpt from the
>> autopsy report:
>>
>> The report says that the large wound that was present in the head of
>> President Kennedy had an "absence of scalp and bone". So, a certain
>> amount of BOTH scalp AND bone were absent (i.e., missing, gone, blown
>> away, not there) in the region of JFK's head where the large wound was
>> located.
>>
> Nice try, but it ain't so.


That *is* what the autopsy report states.
Since the Harper fragment *NEVER* made it to the autopsy, it's not possible for
any legitimate X-rays to show no bone missing.



>> Answer -- It's impossible. Because ALL of the scalp and bone at the
>> right-rear of President Kennedy's head is STILL THERE, present and
>> accounted for, in these two autopsy pictures:
>>
>> http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fX_2E4JJqm8/TydroufoXDI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/eP8JFXE...
>
> It's possible. I remember the pictures very well. I even described
>for you the exact area where the Parkland people saw the large hole in
>the head, and the scalp flap described by McClelland and Boswell. We
>agree that all pieces of the skull are present. That all has been
>explained to you clearly. Boswell explained the flap covering or
>exposing the wound. Why do you pretend that you didn't hear any of
>it? Why not admit that you heard it and then try to debate it?
>Instead you just go off and complain again that medical people and I
>won't believe your take on the case.
>
> Over and over, all the medical personnel, the government agents and
>the technicians saw the same thing as to the large hole in the right
>rear, and you and a couple of misguided hangers-on say that they are
>all wrong! Amazing the hubris!
>
> For those following alongf, here are the statements and drawings of
>the Parkland and Bethesda medical personnel :
>
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/parkland_boh/parkland_wound.htm
>http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/boh/beth/beth.htm
>
>Chris
>
>---
>
>Doesn't that first link *prove* the later autopsy photos [2nd link] were
>faked or altered?
>Audrey Bell said there was "a massive wound at the back of his head."
>That refutes the crap that DVP said about an opening at the right front
>area.
>Unless there were both, and I'm sure DVP didn't intend to mean that.
>Besides, an entrance wound (frontal--right side looking from his back) is
>small, and the exit wound (rear) is huge, and that is exactly what Audrey
>Bell is describing along with the drawing on where the big hole really was,
>consistent with the fatal shot from the right front, and NOT from the Book
>Depository Building in the rear, so LHO could not have possibly fired the
>fatal shot, if he fired any shots at all.
>
>Occipital, occipital, occipital wound in the back of his head she said; NOT
>parietal in the front-side area! You don't see spinal fluid from a frontal
>head wound, and that's another clue what she saw *had* to be from the back
>of his brain area that was gone. The right side and top of his head was
>intact, consistent with a shot from the right-front taking out the rear part
>of his brain.
>
>And, Dr. Kemp Clark's quote also proved the gaping wound *had* to be in the
>rear with his remark on "cerebeller tissue were extruding." You don't get
>cerebellum tissue from a wound in the front part of a person's brain.
>
>Thanks for posting the effective rebuttal in both words and diagrams to the
>DVPs and littledog's ignoramusus' view of his murder in trying in vain to
>"prove" only LHO could be the sole shooter.
Message has been deleted

Ben Holmes

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 5:20:58 PM2/3/12
to
In article <puidnYvgSKLRzbHS...@earthlink.com>, News says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>news:jgffq...@drn.newsguy.com...
> I meant to say more clearly than I did above, it was the doctors at
>Bethesda who did it.
> The doctors at Parkland did not touch the head at all, exactly as you
>said.


Just making the record clear for anyone who isn't buried in the evidence... :)



>>> Therefore, the Navy doctors at Bethesda were probably the ones who did
>>>the altering of JFKs head
>
> See, that's what I said on who the guilty doctors were.


Yes...


>> If you'll read Douglas Horne's five volume set, you'll run across more
>> evidence for precisely this. Dr. Humes was quite certainly involved.
>>
>> This probably explains why the HSCA was forced to lie about the medical
>> evidence.
>>
>>
>>>on orders from above with the huge number of
>>>higher-ranking military men at the autopsy at Bethesda, and probably
>>>that's
>>>why Dr. [Cmdr.] James Humes burned his original notes [extremely
>>>suspicious,
>>>and a violation of medical ethics I'll bet]
>>
>> And it was done on Sunday, after it became clear that there wasn't going
>> to be any trial - where people who couldn't be controlled would be able to
>> legally put the conspirators in a tough spot.
>
> Good point on the day it was done--after LHO was eliminated!


The *timing* of the paperwork burning points to the reason why.



>> Interestingly, Tony Marsh denied this... and then lied about Dr. Humes,
>> stating that the burning took place *SATURDAY* morning...


And, I might point out, Tony surely understood the fact that the *TIMING* of the
destruction of paperwork provides the clues as to *WHY* it was done.

Which explains why he lied about it.



>>>because it wouldn't match up to
>>>what was done to JFK at Bethesda compared to when he came in.
>>
>> No... you seem unsure again... it was done so that they could alter the
>> autopsy report to say what they wanted it to say.
>
> Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to say on making the pics
>and report match-up to make it look as if only LHO could fire the shots and
>only from the rear.
>
>
>> Dr. Humes was involved FROM THE BEGINNING with everything done at
>> Bethesda.
>
> I don't understand why he never got brought up on court-martial
>charges, not to mention having his doctor's license revoked after admitting
>he burned his original notes!
> First class evidence of the beginning of the cover-up!

Why would the people who *ORDERED* Dr. Humes to do what he did bring him up on
charges???

That would be like me telling one of my employees to go do something, then fire
him for doing what I told him to do.

Dr. Humes was undoubtedly given some 'National Security' reason, exactly as was
given to Warren to head the commission.

The problem is that no matter how involved the coverup is, it never manages to
be perfect. So little details will jump out and show you the truth. For example,
the 6.5mm virtually round object that someone thought would provide the evidence
they needed to show that it was a Mannlicher Carcano that did the deed... not
knowing that the object contradicts *OTHER* evidence.

One obvious clue is when the official theory has to be supported by lies... such
as the one told by Bugliosi when he lied about Carrico's testimony.

When a topic tends to be supported by "facts" that can easily be shown to be
lies, perhaps the theory needs to be reworked...

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 5:24:07 PM2/3/12
to
On Feb 3, 4:23 pm, "News" <m...@sb.net> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jgffq...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <LPOdnfcoF7CbY7TSnZ2dnUVZ_oadn...@earthlink.com>, News says...
>
> >>x-no-archive: yes
>
> >>"David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >>news:71941a07-6880-4a5c...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> McClelland was undoubtedly wrong...and this proves it:
>
> >>>http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fX_2E4JJqm8/TydroufoXDI/AAAAAAAAEMQ/eP8JFXE...
>       I meant to say more clearly than I did above, it was the doctors at
> Bethesda who did it.
>       The doctors at Parkland did not touch the head at all, exactly as you
> said.
>
> >>    Therefore, the Navy doctors at Bethesda were probably the ones who did
> >>the altering of JFKs head
>
>        See, that's what I said on who the guilty doctors were.
>
> > If you'll read Douglas Horne's five volume set, you'll run across more
> > evidence
> > for precisely this. Dr. Humes was quite certainly involved.
>
> > This probably explains why the HSCA was forced to lie about the medical
> > evidence.
>
> >>on orders from above with the huge number of
> >>higher-ranking military men at the autopsy at Bethesda, and probably
> >>that's
> >>why Dr. [Cmdr.] James Humes burned his original notes [extremely
> >>suspicious,
> >>and a violation of medical ethics I'll bet]
>
> > And it was done on Sunday, after it became clear that there wasn't going
> > to be
> > any trial - where people who couldn't be controlled would be able to
> > legally put
> > the conspirators in a tough spot.
>
>       Good point on the day it was done--after LHO was eliminated!
>
> > Interestingly, Tony Marsh denied this... and then lied about Dr. Humes,
> > stating
> > that the burning took place *SATURDAY* morning...
>
> >>because it wouldn't match up to
> >>what was done to JFK at Bethesda compared to when he came in.
>
> > No... you seem unsure again... it was done so that they could alter the
> > autopsy
> > report to say what they wanted it to say.
>
>       Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to say on making the pics
> and report match-up to make it look as if only LHO could fire the shots and
> only from the rear.
>
> > Dr. Humes was involved FROM THE BEGINNING with everything done at
> > Bethesda.
>
>       I don't understand why he never got brought up on court-martial
> charges, not to mention having his doctor's license revoked after admitting
> he burned his original notes!
>       First class evidence of the beginning of the cover-up!

Humes was picked as 'their boy'. They would never let any dirt fall
on him as they needed his 'official' autopsy. They didn't think about
what a terrible witness he would be with his many versions of where
the entry woulnd was, his burning of notes on a presidential autopsy
and other mistakes.

Chris

Bud

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 7:19:01 PM2/3/12
to
You retards throw dirt on everyone trying to keep "your boy" Oswald
clean.
Message has been deleted

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 5:32:44 PM2/4/12
to
> > Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Don't be silly. LHO may well have been involved to some degree, he
just wasn't a competent sniper. He might have been pressed into
service for some menial task.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 5:52:58 PM2/4/12
to
No, he wasn't. He was an assassin. He was just getting good at it a
few days before he died. A competent sniper would have taken JFK out
with one shot. Competent snipers are trained to kill their targets at
hundreds, sometimes thousands of yards. One shot, one kill. Oswald
needed 3 shots at less than 90 yards to accomplish the same thing.

> He might have been pressed into
> service for some menial task.
>
You mean like aiming his rifle at JFK and squeezing the trigger. It's
always the low man on the totem pole that gets the shitty jobs.

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 6:49:35 PM2/4/12
to
> always the low man on the totem pole that gets the shitty jobs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

LHO was a little wise guy with no future. He wasn't a good sniper,
and certainly would have been a lousy assassin.

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 8:30:07 PM2/4/12
to
I think JFK might have a different opinion.

Bill Clarke

unread,
Feb 4, 2012, 11:32:37 PM2/4/12
to
In article <W9Gdnc_iy8IsPbDS...@earthlink.com>, News says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>news:jghmk...@drn.newsguy.com...
> True, I was just supposing a less-corrupt U.S. as it should have
>been then.
> Who would be the appropriate officials to revoke his medical license
>on the burning of his notes?
> The military or the civilian State officials where Humes got his
>license?
> If it is the civilian State officials, it takes it out of the hands
>of those corrupted military bigwigs who ordered him to do what he did in
>falsely reporting an autopsy *after* he altered the body.
> I'm just concentrating on the burned notes at the moment, not the
>altering of the body--which should have caused widespread alarms on what the
>military did in this case after David Lifton's book publicized it in 1983.
>
>
>> Dr. Humes was undoubtedly given some 'National Security' reason, exactly
>> as was
>> given to Warren to head the commission.
>
> Sounds logical and probable. However, "National Security" can't be
>used as a legitimate or legal cover for a tort or of wrongdoing by anyone of
>authority, including military officials. Presuming the Nuremburg Trials
>proved that on authority figures doing bad things in the lame, "I was only
>following orders" defense in International Law for all time.
> If Warren was told by LBJ that telling the truth on JFK's murder would
>have caused WW3 with the Russians, I believe that was just another lie by
>LBJ to cover-up the responsibility purely by domestic personnel: the
>CIA-Mafia alliance, and possibly LBJ and his close-knit gang of murderers
>and criminals such as Mac Wallace.
>
>> The problem is that no matter how involved the coverup is, it never
>> manages to
>> be perfect. So little details will jump out and show you the truth. For
>> example,
>> the 6.5mm virtually round object that someone thought would provide the
>> evidence
>> they needed to show that it was a Mannlicher Carcano that did the deed...
>> not
>> knowing that the object contradicts *OTHER* evidence.
>>
>> One obvious clue is when the official theory has to be supported by
>> lies... such
>> as the one told by Bugliosi when he lied about Carrico's testimony.
>>
>> When a topic tends to be supported by "facts" that can easily be shown to
>> be
>> lies, perhaps the theory needs to be reworked...
>
> Except by those determined to ignore many previous cases where a
>person acted the same consistent way, but the idiots (re: Bill Clarke)
>believe a person would have from some strange, unexplained reason acted 180
>degrees differently in a future event.
>

You keep using that word idiot when you are the one embarrassing yourself
showing your lack of knowledge about the history of the war. The idiot here is
you!

Now, nitwit, I don’t think Kennedy would have to do a 180 degree turn in Vietnam
to do as he did in Cuba and Berlin. You seem to think that just because JFK
didn’t nuke Cuba and Russia he was some kind of pacifists. Hardly, to his
credit he stood firm in both Cuba and Berlin. What makes you think he wouldn’t
stand firm in Vietnam? The fact that the communist blinked and made it
unnecessary for JFK to escalate in Cuba and Berlin seems to have escaped you.
Note, Newsboy, that the missiles came out of Cuba and Berlin stood. JFK won
both times and the communist allowed him to win on the cheap, thank god. If you
don’t think the blockade of Cuba (an act of war in itself) and our tanks sitting
at Check Point Charlie in Berlin wasn’t rather hairy then you need to read some
more.

"I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw [from Vietnam]. That would
be a great mistake...a great mistake." President Kennedy Via CBS Interview
September 1963.

Bill Clarke

Ben Holmes

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 1:43:17 PM2/5/12
to
In article <W9Gdnc_iy8IsPbDS...@earthlink.com>, News says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>news:jghmk...@drn.newsguy.com...
>True, I was just supposing a less-corrupt U.S. as it should have been then.
>Who would be the appropriate officials to revoke his medical license
>on the burning of his notes? The military or the civilian State officials
>where Humes got his license?


The military would have to act first... civilian authorities would have no
evidence of any wrong-doing unless the military first presented it.



>If it is the civilian State officials, it takes it out of the hands
>of those corrupted military bigwigs who ordered him to do what he did in
>falsely reporting an autopsy *after* he altered the body.


There's a reason for the UCMJ - justice in the military is different from
justice in civilian life.

For example, if you were in the Marine Corps with me, and I were your superior,
it would be a crime for you to point the wrong finger at me... I would have you
charged, and you could lose rank, money, and even some of your freedom for what
in civilian life would mean little.

Civilian law largely stays out of the way of military law, and visa versa.


>I'm just concentrating on the burned notes at the moment, not the
>altering of the body--which should have caused widespread alarms on what the
>military did in this case after David Lifton's book publicized it in 1983.
>
>
>> Dr. Humes was undoubtedly given some 'National Security' reason, exactly
>> as was given to Warren to head the commission.
>
> Sounds logical and probable. However, "National Security" can't be
>used as a legitimate or legal cover for a tort or of wrongdoing by anyone of
>authority, including military officials. Presuming the Nuremburg Trials
>proved that on authority figures doing bad things in the lame, "I was only
>following orders" defense in International Law for all time.


Who says it's "wrongdoing"?

For example, let us imagine that you are Major Mitchell, and have just been
ordered, during war, to assassinate a specific person. Now as far back as
General Order #100, promulgated by Lincoln, the U.S. does not allow the
assassination of a specific person. Further enhanced by Executive order under
Ford...
http://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

Would you go out and assassinate a specific person in the opposing military?


> If Warren was told by LBJ that telling the truth on JFK's murder would
>have caused WW3 with the Russians, I believe that was just another lie by
>LBJ to cover-up the responsibility purely by domestic personnel: the
>CIA-Mafia alliance, and possibly LBJ and his close-knit gang of murderers
>and criminals such as Mac Wallace.
>
>> The problem is that no matter how involved the coverup is, it never
>> manages to
>> be perfect. So little details will jump out and show you the truth. For
>> example,
>> the 6.5mm virtually round object that someone thought would provide the
>> evidence
>> they needed to show that it was a Mannlicher Carcano that did the deed...
>> not
>> knowing that the object contradicts *OTHER* evidence.
>>
>> One obvious clue is when the official theory has to be supported by
>> lies... such
>> as the one told by Bugliosi when he lied about Carrico's testimony.
>>
>> When a topic tends to be supported by "facts" that can easily be shown to
>> be
>> lies, perhaps the theory needs to be reworked...
>
> Except by those determined to ignore many previous cases where a
>person acted the same consistent way, but the idiots (re: Bill Clarke)
>believe a person would have from some strange, unexplained reason acted 180
>degrees differently in a future event.

By the way, Isoroku Yamamoto was the man assassinated by Mitchell's 339th
Squadron.

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 5:17:15 PM2/5/12
to
> I think JFK might have a different opinion.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, he might have, if some unknown assassin hadn't of shot him
first...:)

Chris

Bud

unread,
Feb 5, 2012, 7:00:14 PM2/5/12
to
Certainly Oswald was unknown to Kennedy.

> Chris

mainframetech

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 7:25:02 AM2/6/12
to
LOL! I was thinking of 'unknown' to us...:)

Chris

bigdog

unread,
Feb 6, 2012, 10:08:57 AM2/6/12
to
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If Oswald hadn't been an assassin, he would still be unknown to us.
0 new messages