Which JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theory Do You Prefer?

Brad Meltzer, the host of Lost History, has an FBI agent checking out all leads viewers submit, who says a witness made a claim about JFK's brain, to which I replied:

"Regarding JFK's brain, if a witness claims to have seen it placed in his grave at Arlington National Cemetery, either the witness is lying or the cemetery's superintendent John Metzler was when he said nothing other than the vault containing Kennedy's body was placed in there."

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CornShucker

I watched back when it was first recommended to me, too many loose ends for me to go that route.

Theres your sign

Like I said People, don't listen to what others tell you , "Meh… nothing to see here".

See "JFK, The Smoking Gun." Watch the whole thing.
-- snip --

Well, I suffered through the thing a second time... I find comments like the one above abrasive and condescending.

You are letting your "all the shots came from behind" bias show. For anyone who hasn't watched the vid, it includes the acceptance of the "magic bullet". You may buy into that, but I don't and never will.

The throat wound was an entrance wound and Dr. Perry was a talented and thoughtful physician who was known at Parkland as an "artist" with a scalpel.

As I was thinking about posting a reply, I tried to think of something I could use as an example... An American dime is 17.91mm in diameter. A friend of mine pointed out that the eraser on a #2 pencil is almost perfect in size. Bear that in mind as you read Dr. Perry's description of the throat wound and also notice that he placed the tracheostomy where he did for very specific reasons. While he was trying to save his patient's life, he was also trying to make sure that he did nothing to add to the damage already done.

Dr. Malcolm Perry
Warren Commision Testimony

Mr. SPECTER - Will you continue, then, Dr. Perry, as to what you observed of his condition?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium. I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly. I did not see any other wounds. I examined the chest briefly, and from the anterior portion did not see any thing. I pushed up the brace on the left side very briefly to feel for his femoral pulse, but did not obtain any. I did no further examination because it was obvious that if any treatment were to be carried out with any success a secure effective airway must be obtained immediately. I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point--

Mr. DULLES - I am a little confused, I thought Dr. Carrico was absent. That was an earlier period.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; he was present.

Mr. DULLES - He was present?

Dr. PERRY - Yes; he was present when I walked in the room and, at that point, I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. Apparently Dr. Carrico had already asked them to set up the tray.

So Dr. Perry sees a hole below the Adam's apple the size of an eraser on a #2 pencil.

Mr. SPECTER - Why did you elect to make the tracheotomy incision through the wound in the neck, Dr. Perry?

Dr. PERRY - The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy. This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. In addition the presence of the wound indicated to me there was possibly an underlaying wound to the neck muscles in the neck, the carotid artery or the jugular vein. If you are going to control these it is necessary that the incision be as low, that is toward the heart or lungs as the wound if you are going to obtain adequate control. Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time?

Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration. (At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea. Will you describe that as precisely as you can, please? Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea. I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you now proceed to describe what efforts you made to save the President's life?

Dr. PERRY - At this point, I had entered the neck, and Dr. Baxter and Dr. McClelland arrived shortly thereafter. I cannot describe with accuracy their exact arrival. I only know I looked up and saw Dr. Baxter as I began the tracheotomy and he took a pair of gloves to assist me. Dr. McClelland's presence was known to me at the time he picked up an instrument and said, "Here, I will hand it to you." At that point I was down in the trachea. Once the trachea had been exposed I took the knife and incised the windpipe at the point of the bullet injury. And asked that the endotracheal tube previously placed by Dr. Carrico be withdrawn slightly so I could insert a tracheotomy tube at this level. This was effected and attached to an anesthesia machine which had been brought down by Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Giesecke for better control of circulation. I noticed there was free air and blood in the right mediastinum and although I could not see any evidence, myself any evidence, of it in the pleura of the lung the presence of this blood in this area could be indicative of the underlying condition. I asked someone to put in a chest tube to allow sealed drainage of any blood or air which might be accumulated in the right hemothorax. This occurred while I was doing the tracheotomy. I did not know at the time when I inserted the tube but I was informed subsequently that Dr. Paul Peters, assistant professor of urology, and Dr. Charles Baxter, previously noted in this record, inserted the chest tube and attached it to underwater seal or drainage of the right pneumothorax.

Mr. DULLES - How long did this tracheotomy take, approximately?

Dr. PERRY - I don't know that for sure, Mr. Dulles. However, I have--a matter of 3 to 5 minutes, perhaps even less.

I've heard the claim many times that no bullets(missiles) were removed from Kennedy's body. There's been a lot of subterfuge over the years and it's much easier to watch a movie than to read (sometimes boring) transcripts hoping to find a nugget of value mixed in...

a reply to: CornShucker

For anyone who hasn't watched the vid, it includes the acceptance of the "magic bullet". You may buy into that, but I don't and never will.

No it doesn't, lol. You couldn't have watched it if you think that.

Don't be offended. And stop lying.

The throat wound was an entrance wound and Dr. Perry was a talented and thoughtful physician who was known at Parkland as an "artist" with a scalpel.

It wasn't an entrance wound, and thats BS about the doctor.

You are bringing Warren commission testimony to debunk a movie about debunking the Warren commission?

Roger that.

Here's the Reader's Digest version... (I just lost 1/2 hour of typing)

Info from: "Inside the ARRB", Volume I
Back in 1966 there was a Military Inventory done of autopsy related information. Apparently photographer John Stringer
was upset that the photos he'd taken of the 5cm bruise at the top of the pleural cavity of the right lung were missing. Carl Belcher, an official of the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, is on record as saying, "...Mr. Stringer presented me with a photographic negative and four photographs of another memorandum dated November 22, 1963, from FBI agents O'Neill and Sibert to Captain J.H. Sover, Jr. acknowledging receipt of 'a missile' removed by 'Commander James J. Humes, M.C.., USN, on this date."

It appears that Mr. Belcher made a change to the Verification of Inventory sheet that was eventually signed. His name was removed and there was an added disclaimer above the area for the signatories. It's possible that rather than set off a firestorm, he decided to let the responsibility lay on Humes' shoulders knowing it might be lost in the thousands of pages of documents.

Humes testified before the Warren Commision that the "exit wound" on the neck was 7 to 8cm in length.

Most Parkland witnesses in Trauma Room One described a small, neat transverse tracheostomy incision that was about 2.5 to 3 centimeters in length, and one (Dr. Crenshaw) has stated that it closed neatly when the breathing tube was removed after death.

Quite possibly this butchery was done digging for the bullet.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CornShucker

For anyone who hasn't watched the vid, it includes the acceptance of the "magic bullet". You may buy into that, but I don't and never will.

No it doesn't, lol. You couldn't have watched it if you think that.

Don't be offended. And stop lying.

The throat wound was an entrance wound and Dr. Perry was a talented and thoughtful physician who was known at Parkland as an "artist" with a scalpel.

It wasn't an entrance wound, and thats BS about the doctor.

You are bringing Warren commission testimony to debunk a movie about debunking the Warren commission?

Roger that.

It's my turn to tell YOU to watch the movie! It shows the trajectory of the magic bullet.

Twice was two too many times for me. I'm not going to argue with you any more than I'm going to insult you. This isn't gradeschool.

You could learn a lot if you'd take the time to watch JFK #3: Critical Thinking by Daniel Sheehan of the Romero Institute.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: CornShucker

For anyone who hasn't watched the vid, it includes the acceptance of the "magic bullet". You may buy into that, but I don't and never will.

No it doesn't, lol. You couldn't have watched it if you think that.

Don't be offended. And stop lying.

Go back an WATCH your own crappy movie and quit pretending you know what you're talking about. Go to the 1 hour 20 minute mark and you'll get to see them show Oswald get JFK and Connolly with one shot, the Magic Friggin' Bullet!!!! You musta gone to get another beer or take a leak or something, but if you are talking about JFK:The Smoking Gun, then you are talking out of the wrong orifice....

originally posted by: intrptr
-- snip --

The throat wound was an entrance wound and Dr. Perry was a talented and thoughtful physician who was known at Parkland as an "artist" with a scalpel.

-- snip --, and thats BS about the doctor.
-- snip--

That was a direct quote from one of the doctors at Parkland. As soon as I find the right vid, I'll post the relevant portion and then you can eat your words. Do prefer Ketchup or Mustard?

A quick and dirty edit, but I think I've made my point.

a reply to: CornShucker

I wish I could star you twice. I have been following this thread because I have been following this case for something like 35 years. You are one of the most knowledgeable people I've seen here posting. Thanks.

a reply to: CornShucker

It shows the trajectory of the magic bullet.

There are no such things as "magic bullets", so you know.

That distraction has thrown many an investigation into dead ends. The Carcano 6.5mm round was designed to over penetrate, and did just exactly what it was intended to do… in a straight line not some "magic theory" BS.

You either have little real knowledge of rudimentary ballistic forensics or are just reloading old dead theories. Whether you do that from a position of ignorance or one of intentional disinformation is not interesting to me at all.

Have a nice life.

intrptr out

a reply to: CornShucker

nvm…

The vehicle was modified and had the governor in a jump seat that altered the position and height of his seat and when you add those altered dimensions it corrects the bullets trajectory and dismissed the 'magic bullet' premise,

There is unequivocal evidence that the Secret Service conspired to alter the evidence from autopsy, the reason for that is not to create the magic bullet myth but something else, I'm not sure as to why.

originally posted by: CoriSCapnSkip
Isn't it entirely possible that Ruby never told all he knew as he felt threatened and ultimately safer in prison? Look what happened to Dorothy Kilgallen after he talked to her!

Sorry I didn't get a reply in earlier. I've been either trying to process what I've read or been buried in Volume I since my ARRB set came in. I wish I could have embedded the Doug Horne videos but YT wouldn't let me. I doubt the majority of those just skimming this thread took the time to watch. After getting the books it has occurred to me that one could almost do a thesis just on the ARRB. They weren't meant to be a confrontational panel, in fact the main board were basically bureaucrats who either were satisfied with the Warren Commission's work or just doing what bureaucrats do, putting time and drawing a check. While the ARRB had the authority to appeal redacted documents (and apparently were successful in almost all cases), could issue subpoenas and take depositions under oath (as well as informal interviews that were on the record but without the risk of perjury), their mission statement wasn't to re-investigate the assassination. A deposition was a one-shot deal and in some cases (Commander Humes, for instance) they were left wishing that they could go back and ask questions based on information they hadn't known at the time.

Regarding Jack Ruby, he was no angel but you almost have to feel sorry for him. He begged to be transferred to a facility outside of Texas and claimed he would talk, but keeping him in Texas guaranteed he wouldn't live a long life. The gov't had already perfected the fast acting cancer that they intended to use to kill Castro. The book "Dr. Mary's Monkey" is on my wishlist for the near future. Ruby had to have known that the "vitamin shots" that he'd been given were his death sentence. From what I've read, he was well aware (if not involved) of the clandestine lab where the work had been done.



Dorothy Kilgallen's biggest mistake was being naive as to how ruthless the players in the shadows were. She put herself on their radar by getting that interview with Ruby. Making the kind of public statements that she did made a virtual certainty that she'd never die of old age.

originally posted by: wtbengineer
a reply to: CornShucker

I wish I could star you twice. I have been following this thread because I have been following this case for something like 35 years. You are one of the most knowledgeable people I've seen here posting. Thanks.

Sincere thanks for that. I'm suffering the usual "morning after regret" for losing my temper last night. The main reason that I only worked in management once was that I always wound up feeling worse than the employee I'd had to reprimand. There was only one time that I had to (really HAD to) fire someone and my stomach was in knots for a couple of weeks. Some consider it a weakness, but I've never liked confrontation and I am very slow to anger. I make a conscious effort to avoid hurting anyone if at all possible.

Regarding the OP and the assassination, so much has finally made it into the public domain that I am gradually getting close to a firm personal opinion on the Who and Why. For now, I'm not ready to commit what it is because I've a mountain of new information that I've yet to read.

There is just so d@mned much involved with the assassination that anyone who grabs onto some new nugget of info or a new theory (I am going to quit even bothering with the word "conspiracy". Any rational, reasonably intelligent person knows there was a conspiracy.) and thinks they now "know it all" and confidently states, "There's no need to look any further" looks foolish.

I found Daniel Sheehan's lecture on Critical Thinking interesting and valuable. The word "bias" has kinda gotten a bad rap over time. Bias is just the overall term for the bits of information on a given subject that you come to accept as almost certainly true. Now that I've watched the lecture and had time to think about what was said I have decided to consciously make a small change in the way I approach things. Modern thinking has so thoroughly attached meaning to Right and Left that I've been trying to find a different way to describe the "fork in the road" that new information presents.

It makes no difference which side of the fork you want to give a label if you consider one Affirmative and one Does Not Apply. That does away with the negative emotions of the Right/Left connotation.

For a short distance into either side of the fork your bias should be weighed against the new information you are considering. The relevance of the new info to your accepted bias (what you've already internalized as almost certainly fact) determines how far down that fork is useful. An open mind requires that, as long as you aren't at the end of your journey and haven't formed your final conclusion, information that doesn't conflict with your bias has the potential of becoming included in your bias. When (If) you reach a point that is too far outside your bias, it's time to go back to the fork in the road. Anything else down that path Does Not Apply.

The documentary JFK:The Smoking Gun is a good example. I regret that it wound up causing hard feelings, but watching it was far from useless. The information about new weapon and the witness testimony about seeing the weapon and Secret Service men being thrown back as the car accelerated is useful and I've filed it away as part of what happened at Dealey Plaza. That's as far as I can go, though. The rest of it falls short of the claim that I need "Look No Further". There are too many other loose ends to be considered. The Secret Service was only one small part of the government and things went on that were far beyond their purview.

I think Oswalt attempted to kill JFK. Oswalt was able to shoot JFK through the lower throat area. One of Oswald's shots missed and hit the road. When JFK's car started to accelerate as well as the agents car behind it, the agent in the followup car accidently pulled the AR15 trigger caused by the cars acceleration. The cover up started by the FBI when they determined one of their own shot the president. a reply to: HawkeyeNation

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
The vehicle was modified and had the governor in a jump seat that altered the position and height of his seat and when you add those altered dimensions it corrects the bullets trajectory and dismissed the 'magic bullet' premise,

There is unequivocal evidence that the Secret Service conspired to alter the evidence from autopsy, the reason for that is not to create the magic bullet myth but something else, I'm not sure as to why.

There is just so much that doesn't make sense with the assassination when viewed as a whole that's it's small wonder that 50 years later there are still more questions than answers.

Something that I just reached in Volume I last night is a glaring example of "Why hasn't anyone thought to bring this up before?"

ETA:
Obviously, as the senior photographer, the judgement call wouldn't have been Stringer's. I'm just asking, in general, why nobody that has examined the autopsy photos over the years never thought to ask why Commander Humes or one of the other pathologists didn't do so.

Horne makes the comment that Mr. Gunn asked him many times, rhetorically, if the autopsy photo were intended to Reveal or Conceal?

The author, Doug Horne, and the man he worked directly under, Jeremy Gunn, established a cordial relationship with a man they met at the old National Archives building. His name is Earl McDonald and it turns out he was trained by John Stringer. When John Stringer retired McDonald went on to become the senior instructor at Bethesda, himself.

It's an interesting section of the book because he was able to give them invaluable insight into way things were done at Bethesda before John Stringer was deposed regarding his work at the JFK autopsy.

I had planned on reading for a while and then going to sleep. Once I thought about the implications, I was wide awake...

It was standard procedure to shave the head of someone who died of gunshots to the head. Why wasn't this done? I know the standard answer will be, "Because the Kennedy family said not to." That is the same reason that was given for stopping short of dissecting the neck. It d@mned sure wasn't going to be an open casket, so why would the family object to shaving his head?

ETA:
Obviously, as senior photographer, it wouldn't have been Mr. Stringer's judgement call. I'm just asking, in general, why nobody that's examined the autopsy photos over the years has never thought to ask that.

Horne does say that over the years Mr. Gunn asked him, rhetorically, whether the autopsy photos were meant to Reveal or Conceal?

This should have been asked all along!

originally posted by: bucsarg
I think Oswalt attempted to kill JFK. Oswalt was able to shoot JFK through the lower throat area. One of Oswald's shots missed and hit the road. When JFK's car started to accelerate as well as the agents car behind it, the agent in the followup car accidently pulled the AR15 trigger caused by the cars acceleration. The cover up started by the FBI when they determined one of their own shot the president. a reply to: HawkeyeNation

Politician Huey Long is thought to have died in much the same manner. In his case there's a question as to whether the alleged would-be assassin even had his gun with him, or whether it was planted on his body later. In any case, it was of no consequence as that gun was a .22 and all the slugs in Long's body were .33s and .44s--the calibers used by his own bodyguards! This really served to change history as it directly benefitted Franklin D. Roosevelt!

originally posted by: CornShucker
It was standard procedure to shave the head of someone who died of gunshots to the head. Why wasn't this done? I know the standard answer will be, "Because the Kennedy family said not to." That is the same reason that was given for stopping short of dissecting the neck. It d@mned sure wasn't going to be an open casket, so why would the family object to shaving his head?

Because at that point they were still deciding whether to open the casket at any point during the proceedings. The decision as to whether to open the casket wasn't made until after the late president's brother and widow saw the body following the funeral home's work. The funeral home tried their very best to make JFK look presentable, and did well considering what they had to work with, but in the end, more because of heavy makeup on the face than because of anything to do with the head wound, it was decided not to open the casket at any point...but until that decision was made it could have gone either way.

originally posted by: CoriSCapnSkip

originally posted by: CornShucker
It was standard procedure to shave the head of someone who died of gunshots to the head. Why wasn't this done? I know the standard answer will be, "Because the Kennedy family said not to." That is the same reason that was given for stopping short of dissecting the neck. It d@mned sure wasn't going to be an open casket, so why would the family object to shaving his head?

Because at that point they were still deciding whether to open the casket at any point during the proceedings. The decision as to whether to open the casket wasn't made until after the late president's brother and widow saw the body following the funeral home's work. The funeral home tried their very best to make JFK look presentable, and did well considering what they had to work with, but in the end, more because of heavy makeup on the face than because of anything to do with the head wound, it was decided not to open the casket at any point...but until that decision was made it could have gone either way.

Just time for a quick Thanks! Guess I'll never completely come to terms with it all. My brother and I were in Gatlinburg on vacation with two of our aunts the day the country learned they'd lost their new baby. It's hard to picture present day America having the kind of reaction I saw that day. Everywhere the sidewalks in a "tourist town" were filled with somber men and weeping women. Our aunts cut the vacation short and returned to New York and Virginia. The only happy memory is spending the $40 they gave us for food while on the Greyhound on comic books. By the time we got back to Indiana we each had a stack almost a yard tall...

a reply to: CoriSCapnSkip

Glad you found it interesting. I've been trying to locate where I read that. So far I have found this about the funeral home staff, who it seems were sworn to secrecy about anything interesting they may have observed. herald-review.com...