Gerald Ford has died at age 93

[Brassmask]

Have you figured out some way to deny that he was a member of the Warren Commission?

That only makes him a "co-conspirator after the fact" in the minds of a very few, and it's still not an actual fact.

Do you then deny that he falsified evidence?

[Brassmask]

Do you then deny that he falsified evidence?

Before you answer, you may want to get up to speed.

Let me help.

With all of these contradictions emerging – both during the Warren Commission hearings and in the aftermath of its final report – one has to wonder how the Warren Commission managed to arrive at the conclusions it did.

A key edit in the Warren Report may have helped. The report's first draft said: "A bullet had entered his [President Kennedy's] back at a point slightly below the shoulder to the right of the spine." Had that stood, the trajectory would have made it impossible for the bullet that struck Kennedy to come out his neck, and then somehow critically wound Connally.

Newly released documents show, however, that Warren Commission member Congressman Gerald Ford pressed the panel to change its description of the wound and place it higher in Kennedy's body. Ford wanted the wording changed to: "A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine." The panel's final version was: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

This crucial change only came to light in 1997, when the Assassination Record Review Board released handwritten notes made by Ford that had been kept by J. Lee Rankin, the Warren Commission's chief counsel. Ford's change is even at odds with his own declaration in the Oct. 2, 1964 issue of Life: "I personally believe that one of these three shots missed entirely – but which of the three may never be known. I believe that another bullet struck the president in the back and emerged from his throat (and went on to strike Connally.)"

When the alteration was brought to Ford's attention in 1997, he said it "had nothing to do with (thwarting) a conspiracy theory" and was made "only in an attempt to be more precise." Assassination researcher Robert Morningstar, however, called the change "the most significant lie in the whole Warren Commission report." He pointed out that if the bullet had hit Kennedy in the back, it could not have gone on to strike Connally the way the commission said it did. Morningstar contended that the effect of Ford's editing suggested that a bullet hit the president in the neck – "raising the wound two or three inches. Without that alteration, they could never have hoodwinked the public as to the true number of assassins."

Ford's alteration supports the single-bullet theory by making a specific point that the bullet entered Kennedy's body ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission staff originally wrote.

Harold Weisberg, a longtime critic of the Warren Commission's work, said: "What Ford is doing is trying to make the single bullet theory more tenable."

http://www.crimemagazine.com/06/ford-jfk,1111-06.htm

Sure, you could take him at his word but with all the other mounds and grandiose piles of evidence of lies and obfuscation, what's the point?  The Warren Commission was out to cover up anything that could possibly make people think that there was a conspiracy.  The next committee discovered lots of cases where they omitted or completely lied (the HSCA was polite and called them mistakes).  Ford was secretly funnelling information to Hoover.

[Amianthus]

Do you then deny that he falsified evidence?

Yup.

Looks like the picture of the wound in question is substantially similar to the description in the Warren Commission report. Or are you gonna quibble about semantics now?

[Brassmask]

Now are you seriously going to look at that (fake) photo up above and tell me that this ("A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.") is an accurate description of where that bullet hole is?

You're actually going to tell me that bullet hole is in "the back of his neck"?  Are fucking kidding me?

[Amianthus]

You're actually going to tell me that bullet hole is in "the back of his neck"?  Are fucking kidding me?

Yup. Above the bullet hole is only the shoulder muscles. That part of the body is actually the flesh joining of the back, shoulder, and neck. JFK was an athlete, so he had some large muscles.

It's definitely not the location that is promulgated by conspiracy theorists. As this drawing suggests, the bullet hole according to conspiracy theorists was over 5" below the shirt collar. The actual photo, though, shows the bullet hole just below where the collar would be.



You can debate whether that particular spot is neck, shoulder, or back, but that would just be arguing semantics, which I know you despise.

[Brassmask]

You're misrepresenting semantics.  Semantics is the difference between "surge" and "escalation".  Semantics is not the difference between "neck" and "back".  Neck and back is like car and boat. 

What Ford was trying to do by altering that sentence was making it seem like that magic bullet could have gone in the hole that you and I are discussing and then come out the hole in Kennedy's throat just below his Adam's apple.  That is the basis of the drawing you presented. 

What is your aversion to reality?

[Amianthus]

Semantics is not the difference between "neck" and "back".  Neck and back is like car and boat. 

No, they're not. I would say that the hole in the photo is in the neck or shoulder. It's definitely not in the back. I consider the back to be below the collarbone, and that hole is about level with the collarbone.

What Ford was trying to do by altering that sentence was making it seem like that magic bullet could have gone in the hole that you and I are discussing and then come out the hole in Kennedy's throat just below his Adam's apple.  That is the basis of the drawing you presented. 

Except that the drawing assumes that the bullet hole was nearly six inches below the collar, which is was not. Computer modeling shows that the bullet path is straight until it hits Connelly's bone, and is an accurate portrayal.

What is your aversion to reality?

I'm not the one with the aversion.

[Brassmask]

Semantics is not the difference between "neck" and "back".  Neck and back is like car and boat. 

No, they're not. I would say that the hole in the photo is in the neck or shoulder. It's definitely not in the back. I consider the back to be below the collarbone, and that hole is about level with the collarbone.

What Ford was trying to do by altering that sentence was making it seem like that magic bullet could have gone in the hole that you and I are discussing and then come out the hole in Kennedy's throat just below his Adam's apple.  That is the basis of the drawing you presented. 

The problem with your bullshit computer model is that the doctors at Parkland all stated that the hole in Kennedy's throat was an ENTRY WOUND that they opened up more in order to insert breathing tubes.  So, no matter where the hole was in his BACK (not neck), no bullet went all the way through Kennedy and hit Connelly.

Reality just has a way of creeping in on lies.

At least one doctor stuck his finger in the wound in Kennedy's back and felt the bullet in there.

You see how this works?  There was no bullet that went through Kennedy and into Connelly and did all that magic damage that no bullet in the history of gunfire has ever done and come out pristine.  You're over there arguing about where Jack's mother threw the magic beans.  There never were any magic beans.

Except that the drawing assumes that the bullet hole was nearly six inches below the collar, which is was not. Computer modeling shows that the bullet path is straight until it hits Connelly's bone, and is an accurate portrayal.

What is your aversion to reality?

I'm not the one with the aversion.

[Amianthus]

The problem with your bullshit computer model is that the doctors at Parkland all stated that the hole in Kennedy's throat was an ENTRY WOUND that they opened up more in order to insert breathing tubes.

The buffs will endlessly push the doctors impression that the wound
might have been one of entry, but will not tell you about *all* the
speculation the doctors engaged in.

For example, the doctors speculated that a fragment from the head shot
had *exited* from Kennedy's throat.

Let me quote Josiah Thompson:

    Frazier's suggestion that the throat wound might have been caused
    by a fragment (possibly bone) has already been made by one of the
    Parkland doctors who helped Perry make his trachetomy incision.
    Only three hours after the assassination, Dr. Robert N. McClelland
    had written an "admission note" in which he had remarked: "The
    President was at this time comatose from a massive gunshot wound
    of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea (WCR, p. 526).
    As another Parkland doctor pointed out in his testimony, the idea
    of such a fragment driver downward and out the throat by the head
    impact had been discussed at Parkland Hospital on that Friday
    afternoon.  (SSID, p. 53

Thompson references Carrico's testimony on this latter point (6H5):

    Mr. Specter:  Was there any discussion among the doctors who
    attended President Kennedy as to the cause of the neck wound?

    Dr. Carrico:  Yes; after that afternoon.

    Mr. Specter:  And what conversations were there?

    Dr. Carrico:  As I recall, Dr. Perry, and I talked and tried after
    -- later in the afternoon to determine what exactly had happened,
    and we were not aware of the missle wound to the back, and
    postulated that this was either a tangential wound from a
    fragment, possibly another entrance wound.  It could have been an
    exit wound, but we knew of no other entrance wound.

    Mr. Specter:  Was the wound in the neck consistent with being
    either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?

    Dr. Carrico:  Yes.

Thompson further quotes several sources that echoed this same
speculation:

    This same hypothesis was put forward by various government
    spokesmen in December, 1963.  Citing governmental sources,
    NEWSWEEK (Dec. 30, 1963), TIME (Dec. 27, 1963), and the WASHINGTON
    POST (Dec. 18, 1963) all carried stories asserting that the
    autopsy had produced evidence that a fragment from the second
    bullet (the head shot) had been deflected downward and had pased
    out through the throat.  THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL
    ASSOCIATION (Jan. 4, 1964) reported that "a small fragment of this
    bullet [the head shot] angled down and passed out through
    Kennedy's throat.  (SSID, p. 53)

So what have the buffs been doing with this testimony?  They have been
*suppressing* the doctors' speculation that the throat wound was the
exit wound of a fragment, and *pushing* the doctors speculation that
the wound was an entrance wound.

and

The following is from the JAMA, April 28, 1993, page 2058.

    CLINICIANS' FORENSIC INTERPRETATIONS OF FATAL GUNSHOT WOUNDS OFTEN
    MISS THE MARK.

    The odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain
    fatal gunshot wound are no better than the flip of a coin,
    according to a recent study at a level 1 trauma center.  The
    study, which looked at single, perforating (exiting) gunshot
    wounds and multiple gunshot wounds, found that trauma specialists
    made errors in 52% of the cases, either in differentiating the
    entrance and exit wound, or in determining the number of bullets
    that struck the victim.

    Investigators at the Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Wake Forest
    University, Winston-Salem, NC, compared the postmortem findings of
    a board-certified forensic pathologist with the medical records of
    emergency medicine physicians, trauma surgeons, and neurosurgeons.
    The study is the first to quantify the forensic acumen of these
    specialists, says Vincent DiMaio, MD, a forensic pathologist and
    editor of THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AND PATHOLOGY.

    The study's coauthors . . . investigated the fatal gunshot wounds
    treated by trauma specialists at the hospital between January 1987
    and June 1992.  They excluded single penetrating (nonexiting)
    gunshot wounds from the study.

    Of the 46 cases identified, 24 had been misinterpreted by the
    trauma specialists.  These included 16 errors in differentiating
    the exit and entrance wound, and 15 errors in determining the
    number of bullets.  In seven cases, the clinician had made both
    types of errors.

    As expected, multiple gunshot wounds were more often
    misinterpreted--74% of the time.  Of the single, perforating
    gunshot wounds, 37% had been misclassified.

    The researchers presented their results at the recent annual
    meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in Boston,
    Mass.

Of course, Kennedy would fall in the "multiple" gunshot wound
category.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/wound4.txt

[Brassmask]

ludicrous.

Mcadams.

You must be kidding.

[Amianthus]

ludicrous.

Mcadams.

You must be kidding.

Not as ludicrous as "Crime Magazine." Besides, the quote was transcripts of interviews and a JAMA article, they just happened to be hosted by McAdams.

BTW, what's your complaint? They disagree with you? Seems like they agree with science.

[Brassmask]

McAdams is a guy who is indicative of the ostrich mentality towards the JFK murder.

And not only that, part of the "quoting" was from the Warren Commission report.  Come on, it's been shown over and over that they lied and fabricated testimony and didn't conduct a valid investigation.  The HSCA, though flawed and also suspect, at least admitted that someone "probably" shot from the grassy knoll and there was a conspiracy.

Jesus, what's your reticence towards reality?

[sirs]

McAdams is a guy who is indicative of the ostrich mentality towards the JFK murder....Jesus, what's your reticence towards reality?

And what's yours towards both science & facts?

[Amianthus]

Jesus, what's your reticence towards reality?

I don't have a "reticence towards reality" - when presented with valid evidence, I accept it. You have brought no valid evidence. Just because there were some mistakes in the WC report does not make the fundamental conclusion incorrect. And the science leans towards a "lone gunman" scenario.

[Brassmask]

Jesus, what's your reticence towards reality?

I don't have a "reticence towards reality" - when presented with valid evidence, I accept it. You have brought no valid evidence. Just because there were some mistakes in the WC report does not make the fundamental conclusion incorrect. And the science leans towards a "lone gunman" scenario.

How does your version of  "science" explain a plume of smoke coming from the grassy knoll?

How does your version of  "science" explain half the people in Dealey Plaza running towards the grassy knoll and saying that shots came from the grassy knoll?

Last I heard, "science", in reality, showed a man in a policeman's uniform shooting from the grassy knoll.  Not to mention the guy who was standing in front of the fence who "felt" the bullet whiz past his ear.

Science has proven that the Zapruder film is faked.  Is that science or some crazy science?

The point is that Science emphatically supports the theory of a massive coverup of a massive conspiracy.

Your general cherrypicking at this thing is ridiculous when people who were present have spent the last 43 years looking at this thing and coming up again and again with Oswald (at least not the man who was call Oswald) not even having anything to do with the assassination act itself.