The Lies of Colby: New Spartacus? McAdams...

[Jim DiEugenio]

As I noted in Reclaiming Parkland, which I don't think Cliff has read, one of the bombshells of the ARRB was that Stringer not only denied that he took the photos of the brain, he said he never used that process or that type of film.

I had my fair share of criticisms of Horne's book, but that was one of the gems in it, (along with his elucidation of how the x rays were forged.)

In RP, I then went through all the witnesses--I think its was 13-- who testified that a large part of the brain was missing, anywhere from about 1/3 to almost 1/2.

To any objective person, this is why the photos had to be retaken. And no shooting victim could survive that kind of brain damage. So its not about the cover up.

Finally, the reason we have less young people entering the case is not because we all don't advocate this low back wound idea. My God any student of the case is aware of it because its in many books.

The reason is simple: the other side controls the media. The lying Gary Mack, Gus Russo etc.

And when we do get in there its with the fruitcakes, like those who were on with the Files presentation, of which Pat Speer told me, "Jim, these guys made Fetzer look reasonable."

The brain evidence is very powerful and simple to present. If we ever got a show where we could use two voice over actors doing the transcript of Stringer's testimony, and have Jeremy Gunn there to set it up, and then quote the list of witnesses who say the brain was extremely damaged in volume, that would be electric if you ask me.

(Now, Cliff, go ahead and do your regular red mark, in chunks of this, to try and show how its all wrong.)

[Albert Doyle]

In RP, I then went through all the witnesses--I think its was 13-- who testified that a large part of the brain was missing, anywhere from about 1/3 to almost 1/2.

From 1/3rd - to over 50% - to remnants that could fit in the palm of your hand.

[Tracy Riddle]

Kennedy's body won't be dug up, at least not in our lifetimes. Young people are far too busy with their distracting world of social media, techno-gadgets and consumer culture to care about something that is rapidly becoming "ancient history." How many people still care about the Lincoln assassination?

The young people today who are interested in Deep Politics are focused more on their recent history (9/11 and false flag attacks, the growing US empire and endless wars), and understandably so.

[Magda Hassan]

Interestingly Cyril Wecht has just called for an new nautopsy on the body.

February 9, 2015
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43[SUP]rd[/SUP] Street
New York, NY 10036

RE: "Whodunit? In Obsessed Nation, Question Becomes Who Didn't
February 8, 2015

To the Editor:

This fascinating "Memo From Argentina" about the mysterious fatal shooting of Alberto Nisman refers to exhumations of prominent political figures whose deaths remained the subjects of continuing significant controversy in their respective countries President Salvador Allende and Nobel Prize-winning poet in Chili (1973); President Joao Goulart in Brazil (1964); Simon Bolivar in Venezuela (1830). Two other exhumations of prominent leaders should be referred to in this context President Zachary Taylor in the USA (1850), and PLO President Yasir Arafat in France (2004).

While all these deaths involved varying puzzling features, none of them entailed as much hard-core forensic scientific controversy as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; nor were the official governmental rulings as to who was responsible for those deaths rejected by such a large majority of their respective country's population as that which exists in the United States after more than half a century.

Would it not be beneficial to our nation to have the President's body exhumed so that modern day forensic scientific technology and fresh eyes could be utilized to determine with indisputable finality whether the Warren Commission was correct?

Sincerely,

Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
Forensic Pathologist
Past President, American Academy
of Forensic Sciences
Past President, American College
of Legal Medicine
Clinical Professor of Pathology,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor, Duquesne University
School of Law
Distinguished Professor of Pathology,
Carlow University


CHW/esy


Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.

*Please note our new email address: wechtpath@cyrilwecht.com

[Albert Doyle]

Would it not be beneficial to our nation to have the President's body exhumed so that modern day forensic scientific technology and fresh eyes could be utilized to determine with indisputable finality whether the Warren Commission was correct?

Sincerely,

Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
Forensic Pathologist
Past President, American Academy
of Forensic Sciences
Past President, American College
of Legal Medicine
Clinical Professor of Pathology,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor, Duquesne University
School of Law
Distinguished Professor of Pathology,
Carlow University


CHW/esy


Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.

*Please note our new email address: wechtpath@cyrilwecht.com

Not aimed at anyone specifically, but this sort of separates those who go right to it from the excuse-makers.



Wecht is going right for what needs to be done according to the dictates of his esteemed position. May God bless him and support him.



The linked Times article by Wecht does not come up on Google. (A pure example of intel censorship programming and Google)



.

[Cliff Varnell]

As I noted in Reclaiming Parkland, which I don't think Cliff has read, one of the bombshells of the ARRB was that Stringer not only denied that he took the photos of the brain, he said he never used that process or that type of film.

An even bigger bombshell: Saundra Kay Spencer denying she processed the extant autopsy photos, even though she's on record as having done so.

This sleight of hand with the photos belongs in a study of the cover-up.

I had my fair share of criticisms of Horne's book, but that was one of the gems in it, (along with his elucidation of how the x rays were forged.)

A study of forged x-rays is a study of the cover-up.

In RP, I then went through all the witnesses--I think its was 13-- who testified that a large part of the brain was missing, anywhere from about 1/3 to almost 1/2.

Did this 1/3 to 1/2 of the brain go missing in Dealey Plaza as the result of a military-style ambush -- or did it go missing at Bethesda as the result of a medical ambush?

The brain is 100% missing. This goes to the cover-up.

To any objective person, this is why the photos had to be retaken. And no shooting victim could survive that kind of brain damage. So its not about the cover up.

Re-taken photos, deep-sixed photos, faked photos, missing brain, multiple violations of autopsy protocol.

This is a study of the cover-up.

Finally, the reason we have less young people entering the case is not because we all don't advocate this low back wound idea.

The lack of JFK Critical Community consensus over the prima facie evidence of conspiracy -- the T3 back wound, throat entrance -- has allowed the Vince Bugs and Johnny Macs of the world to wave the T1 back wound flag and blow pixie dust over the most crucial evidence in the case.

My God any student of the case is aware of it because its in many books.

For every Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, David Lifton, Jim Marrs or Noel Twyman (all of whom acknowledge the low back wound) we have Tink Thompson, Cyril Wecht, Pat Speer, Stu Wexler or John Hunt waving the T1 back wound flag blowing pixie dust over the most crucial evidence in the case.

The reason is simple: the other side controls the media. The lying Gary Mack, Gus Russo etc.

The other side has always controlled the media.

Millennials have the internet.

And when they go online to look into the JFK assassination what do they encounter?

A bunch of Boomers bickering over bullshit like the head wound/s or the acoustic evidence or the goddamn windshield.

And when we do get in there its with the fruitcakes, like those who were on with the Files presentation, of which Pat Speer told me, "Jim, these guys made Fetzer look reasonable."

The brain evidence is very powerful and simple to present.

And yet you can't answer the most basic questions: how many head shots, was there pre-autopsy surgery to the head?

If we ever got a show where we could use two voice over actors doing the transcript of Stringer's testimony, and have Jeremy Gunn there to set it up, and then quote the list of witnesses who say the brain was extremely damaged in volume, that would be electric if you ask me.

An electric inquiry into the cover-up of the medical evidence.



(Now, Cliff, go ahead and do your regular red mark, in chunks of this, to try and show how its all wrong.)

[B]Does the head wound/s evidence help identify potential Persons of Interest in the actual murder?

No.

Does the T3 back wound/throat entrance help identify potential Persons of Interest?

Yes.

The Staff Support Group within the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick.

/

[Cliff Varnell]

Would it not be beneficial to our nation to have the President's body exhumed so that modern day forensic scientific technology and fresh eyes could be utilized to determine with indisputable finality whether the Warren Commission was correct?

Sincerely,

Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
Forensic Pathologist
Past President, American Academy
of Forensic Sciences
Past President, American College
of Legal Medicine
Clinical Professor of Pathology,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor, Duquesne University
School of Law
Distinguished Professor of Pathology,
Carlow University


CHW/esy


Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.

*Please note our new email address: wechtpath@cyrilwecht.com

Not aimed at anyone specifically, but this sort of separates those who go right to it from the excuse-makers.



Wecht is going right for what needs to be done according to the dictates of his esteemed position. May God bless him and support him.



The linked Times article by Wecht does not come up on Google. (A pure example of intel censorship programming and Google)



.

What monumental bollocks!

There has been "indisputable finality" to the "question of conspiracy" for over 50 years.

We've known all along with "indisputable finality" that at least two gunman fired at JFK.

Anyone who says otherwise knows not the first thing about JFK's murder.

The sheep don the wolves' clothing...

[Herbert Blenner]

Interestingly Cyril Wecht has just called for an new nautopsy on the body.

February 9, 2015
LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43[SUP]rd[/SUP] Street
New York, NY 10036

RE: "Whodunit? In Obsessed Nation, Question Becomes Who Didn't
February 8, 2015

To the Editor:

This fascinating "Memo From Argentina" about the mysterious fatal shooting of Alberto Nisman refers to exhumations of prominent political figures whose deaths remained the subjects of continuing significant controversy in their respective countries President Salvador Allende and Nobel Prize-winning poet in Chili (1973); President Joao Goulart in Brazil (1964); Simon Bolivar in Venezuela (1830). Two other exhumations of prominent leaders should be referred to in this context President Zachary Taylor in the USA (1850), and PLO President Yasir Arafat in France (2004).

While all these deaths involved varying puzzling features, none of them entailed as much hard-core forensic scientific controversy as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy; nor were the official governmental rulings as to who was responsible for those deaths rejected by such a large majority of their respective country's population as that which exists in the United States after more than half a century.

Would it not be beneficial to our nation to have the President's body exhumed so that modern day forensic scientific technology and fresh eyes could be utilized to determine with indisputable finality whether the Warren Commission was correct?

Sincerely,

Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
Forensic Pathologist
Past President, American Academy
of Forensic Sciences
Past President, American College
of Legal Medicine
Clinical Professor of Pathology,
University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor, Duquesne University
School of Law
Distinguished Professor of Pathology,
Carlow University


CHW/esy


Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.

*Please note our new email address: [EMAIL="wechtpath@cyrilwecht.com"]wechtpath@cyrilwecht.com[/EMAIL]

Why do you suppose that Wecht missed the decisive evidence that classifies the remnant bullet hole in JFK's throat as an entry wound?

Source: Report of the Forensic Pathology Panel - 7HSCA, 93
(262) There is a semicircular missile defect near the center of the lower margin of the tracheotomy incision, approximately in the midline of the neck, with margins which are slightly denuded and reddish-brown.

This same panel twice cited denudation of margins to argue that entering bullets made the 15 mm by 6 mm scalp wound and the 7 mm by 10 mm transverse back wound.

Wecht also missed the replacement of the 7 mm by 4 mm longitudinal back wound reported by Humes with the 7 mm by 10 mm transverse back wound discussed by the medical panels.

[Albert Doyle]

What monumental bollocks!

There has been "indisputable finality" to the "question of conspiracy" for over 50 years.

We've known all along with "indisputable finality" that at least two gunman fired at JFK.

Anyone who says otherwise knows not the first thing about JFK's murder.

The sheep don the wolves' clothing...

It would be poetic justice for JFK's skeleton to prove that.


He might even save us from WWIII twice...

[Jim DiEugenio]

May I again express my disappointment that this thread has been hijacked.

And I regret actually helping in that.