monstra schrieb:Wie kommen solche Ergebnisse wie des Clark Panels trotz all der angeblichen Evidenzen dagegen zustande:
das Clark Panel hat z.B. den Eintrittspunkt des Kopfschusses falsifiziert
https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htmDie Schaffung des Clark Panels war POLITISCH motiviert, ebenso die Auswahl der Mitglieder des Panels, die äh, ein gutes Verhältnis mit Regierung, Militär und Geheimdiensten hatten und auch entsprechende regierungsfreundliche Ergebnisse lieferten
While researching the Clark Panel, I came to realize that virtually every article published on the release of the Clark Panel's report was a rehash of a press release from the government claiming the report supported the Warren Commission's conclusions.Pat Speer
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22827&p=329405Um die Ergebnisse der nach der Warren Kommission und der Autopsie korrigierten zwar einige Befunde der Pathologen, tasteten aber die offizielle Version von zwei Schüssen, die JFK von hinten trafen, nicht an, einer mit der "single Bullet" und ein Kopftreffer.
Dies sehen Anhänger der offiziellen Version als unabhängige Bestätigung der Einzeltätertheorie an
Und diese Lokalisation ist falsch, wie mehrere voneinander unabhängige Untersuchungen festgestellt haben
Der zitierte User blieb jedoch eine Antwort auf zwei wichtige Fragen schuldig
Inwiefern waren sie
1. voneinander unabhängig?
2. unabhängig von der Regierung?Die nächsten Blogposts werden untersuchen, ob dies der Fall ist
Das Clark Panel 1968
Das Panel wurde von Ramsey Clark ins Leben gerufen. Clark wurde 1965 unter LBJ Vize-Justizminister und 1966 Justizminister, eine Postion, die er bis 1969 bekleidete.
Anlass zur Formeirungwaren mehrere mediale Ereignisse, die die Zweifel an der Warren-Kommission vor einem Millionenpublikum thematisierten:
1) Josiah Thompsons Buch "Six Seconds in Dallas" wurde 1967 veröffentlicht, in dem der Autor für mehrere Schützen argumentiert
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKthompsonJ.htm2) Ende 1966 führte das Life-Magazine eine eigene Untersuchung des Attentats durch, die ebenfalls Zweifel an der offiziellen Version aufkommen ließ
3) Anfang 1967 sickerten zur Presse die Ermittlungen von Bezirksstaatsanwalt Jim Garrison in New Orleans durch. Garrisons Hauptverdächtiger David Ferrie starb kurz nach dem Publikwerden, bevor er angeklagt werden konnte. Garrison erhob im März 1967 Anklage gegen Clay Shaw, der mit David Ferrie, Lee Oswald und anderen teil einer Verschwörung zum Mord an JFK gewesen sein soll. Die Gerichtsverhandlung gegen Clay Shaw fand 1969 statt und endete in einem Freispruch. Neue, deit den 1990ern freigebene Dokumente zeugen jedoch nicht nur von einer Verbindung Shaws zu Ferrie und anderen VErdächtigen, sondern auch von dem Versuch der LBJ-Regierung, mit Beihilfe Clarks, Garrisons Untersuchung zu diskreditieren
Allgemein:
http://www.ctka.net/nbc_cia.htmlhttp://www.ctka.net/LetJusticeBeDone/rebuttal.htmIn an interview on Face the Nation on 12th March, 1967, CBS correspondent, George Herman, asked Clark about the death of David Ferrie. Herman asked Clark why documents concerning Ferrie had been classified by the FBI and the Justice Department. Clark replied: "No, those documents are under the general jurisdiction of the General Services Administration." According to Bernard Fensterwald, this was untrue as the Ferrie documents had specifically been classified under orders from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover...
On 25th January, 1969, Ramsey Clark's final day as Attorney General, he ordered the Justice Department to withhold from Jim Garrison, the X-Rays and photographs from the autopsy of John F. Kennedy.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKclarkRamsay.htmDas Clark-Panel hatte die Zielsetzung, die Ergebnisse der Autopsieärzte noch einmal zu begutachten. In der Öffentlichkeit wurden die Ergebnisse als im Einklang mit der offiziellen Version der Autopsieärzte und WC dargestellt.
Intriguingly, when the report was finally released, the New York Times only emphasized that the Clark Panel had ‘upheld’ the Warren Report; it made no mention of what we have discussed here, what historian Michael Kurtz has accurately described as the “many serious discrepancies between its review of the autopsy materials and the autopsy itself.”
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htmBehauptung im Bericht des Clark Panels:
each has acted with complete and unbiased independence, free of preconceived views as to the correctness of the medical conclusions reached in the 1963 Autopsy Report and Supplementary Report
John Hannah war eine der von Justizminister Ramsey Clark beauftragten Personen, die die Mediziner für das Panel nominieren sollten. Hannah leitete zwei Institutionen, die während seiner Amtszeit mit der CIA zusammenarbeiteten- Michigan State University und Agency for International Development (AID). MSU betrieb ein polizeiliches trainingsprogramm für CIA-Mitarbeiter und hatte einen Vertrag mit der Agency.
Die AID diente zeitweilig als tarnung für CIA-Operationen, auch in den 1960ern
The most common, official CIA cover, is provided by the State Department, which permits operatives to carry out diplomatic duties in an American embassy by day and their real jobs by night: trying to get local officials and other foreign nationals to turn coat and secretly work for the CIA.
Other U.S. government agencies provide cover as well. In South Vietnam, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) provided cover for CIA operatives so widely that the two became almost synonymous
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/04/cia_chief_promises_spies_new_a.html (Archiv-Version vom 02.10.2018)
Guatemala: By 1970, USAID trained over 30,000 Guatemalan police to suppress local leftists, according to William Blum’s book “Killing Hope.” Just over a decade later, Guatemalan death squads under US-backed dictator Rios Montt unleashed a genocide on the Mayan peasants.” Pando Daily
— The Vietnam War: USAID trained police and ran civilian jails. USAID also participated in the “soft” side of the Phoenix Program — funding the failed “Land to the Tillers” program granting peasants small plots of land, a program that has a poor track record, but serves some important foreign policy/propaganda purpose every time it’s rolled out because it remains one of the most enduring boondoggles in the USAID kit. Pando Daily
“n the early 1960s agents from the State Department, Green Berets, CIA, and USAID organized two paramilitary groups that would become the backbone of that country’s death squad system.” Greg Grandin
https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/warren-weinstein-was-not-an-aid-worker-he-worked-for-the-cia-through-usaid-on-behalf-of-big-business/
Hannah leugnete jegliches Wissen über die Verbindungen seiner Institutionen, die er leitete, zur CIA
Ein weiterer Nominator für das Clark Panel war J. Wallace Sterling, der nicht nur durch seinen fanatische anti-Kommunismus auffiel, sondern mit der Asia Foundation verbunden war, die zur Zeit des Clark Panels Gelder von der CIa erhielt.
Wikipedia: The Asia Foundation#OriginsDr. Russell Fisher, der Leiter das Clark Panels, hatte in einem anderen politisch sensiblen Todesfall eine Rolle. CIA-Mitarbeiter John Paisley wurde tot aufgefunden, mit einem Pistolenschuss hinters linke Ohr, dabei war er Linkshänder. Der ursprüngliche Pathologe hatte auch Quetschmale am Hals entdeckt, die auf Spuren eines umgebundenen Seils hindeuteten. Trotz dieser und anderer Hinweise auf foul play stufte Fisher den Fall als Suizid ein.
http://www.ctka.net/pr1195-clark.htmlPat Speer erwähnt noch andere Details:
In late February 1968, even though it had been but a year since the autopsy doctors had signed a report saying the wounds in the autopsy photos confirmed the accuracy of the drawings they'd created for the Warren Commission, a four-man secret panel supposedly made of random experts but actually made of close colleagues (Dr. Alan Moritz had been a mentor to the panel's leader, Russell Fisher, at Harvard, and Dr. Morgan (and presumably Carnes) had worked with Dr. Fisher at Johns Hopkins University) re-reviewed the photos and x-rays on behalf of Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This was supposedly done at the urging of the autopsy doctors themselves, but there is reason to doubt this is true. (Dr. Boswell's testimony before the ARRB suggests that he was, in fact, manipulated by
Clark's assistant Carl Eardley--the same Carl Eardley who'd forwarded the "talking points" to Dr. Humes in anticipation of his appearance on CBS--into making this request).http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22827&p=329308Speer geht auch auf die rolle von Bromley ein:
A final point learned from (researcher Harold) Weisberg’s contact with (Clark Panel spokesman Russell) Fisher should come as no surprise. Fisher told Weisberg that, when completed, the Clark Panel’s report ”was transmitted by Mr. Bruce Bromley to Mr. Carl Eardley of the Justice Department.” Eardley, of course, had previously worked with the autopsy doctors, and was the Justice Department's point man on the medical evidence.
But who was Bromley? Well, in a curious twist, Bromley was a high-priced New York attorney, a former judge, brought in by the Justice Department to help the panel write their report. He attended Harvard Law School with future Warren Commissioner John McCloy, and worked with McCloy at the prestigious law firm of Cravath, Swaine, and Moore for a number of years. At the time he was brought in by Ramsey Clark to work with the Clark Panel, Bromley had already achieved legendary status as an anti-trust attorney, with a well-deserved reputation for stall tactics. On January 17, 1969, in the waning days of the Johnson Administration, and Ramsey Clark's run as attorney general, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an anti-trust lawsuit against computer giant IBM. Well, guess who served as IBM's lead attorney for anti-trust? Bruce Bromley. And guess who was hired as IBM's chief counsel for what would become a 13-year fight against the government? Clark's predecessor, former Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, who had led the initial investigation of Kennedy's death.
Oh, my. That is peculiar. Three days before President Johnson was to leave office, and the day after his justice department spat forth a previously secret report by a previously secret panel, which, in effect, confirmed the conclusions of his presidential commission and justice department regarding the suspicious murder of his predecessor, Johnson's justice department begins a lawsuit that will keep both the head of his justice department in its initial investigation of the murder of his predecessor--and the legal adviser to the secret panel who'd reviewed its findings--in clover for the rest of their lives.
Well, so what? You might ask. This could be a coincidence. Bromley was there to advise the four members of the Clark panel. There's no reason to believe he did anything more than check their grammar and spelling.
Uhh, no. A 4-16-70 letter from researcher Howard Roffman to Harold Weisberg, found in the the Weisberg Archives, suggests there may have been more to Bromley's actions than one might first suspect. Roffman had just spoken to Dr. John Nichols, and was telling Weisberg the substance of his conversation with Nichols, and what Nichols had told him about a recent conversation he'd had with Dr. Russell Fisher. Well, guess what? Nichols told Roffman that Fisher, the undisputed leader of the Clark Panel, had revealed that Bruce Bromley, who'd been present throughout the panel's discussions, was the primary writer of the panel's report. Hmmm...
Since when do highly-regarded professional pathologists and radiologists need high-falutin' New York attorneys to record their thoughts? Did Bromley put anything in the report? Did he cut anything out?
Because, if so, well, that would go a long ways toward explaining why no notes on the panel's discussions were kept, and no drafts of its report preserved.
And no, I'm not kidding. A 3-4-70 letter to Weisberg by Russell Fisher himself revealed that all interim versions of the report had been destroyed by either himself or Bromley. This proves that Bromley continued working with the panel for weeks if not months after their initial inspection of the photos and x-rays in February, 1968.
Why was Bromley forced onto the panel?
What were they trying to hide?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22827&p=329306Radiologen des HSCA und des Clark Panel arbeiteten schon vor ihrer arbeit in den Panels zusammen, vertraten dieselben politischen ansichten und fielen durch wissenschaftlich fragwürdige, regierungsfreundliche Arbeit au
- Dr. G.M. McDonnel war "chief radiology consultant für das FPP". In den 1950ern erforschte er als Lt .Col. des Army Medical Corps die Auswirkungen von Radioaktivität auf Soldaten und Zvilisten. Der Bericht seines Projektes für das Walter Reed Hospital "Effects of Nuclear Detonations on a Large Biological Specimen (Swine)" wurde vom Handelsministerium veröffentlicht. Anfang der 1960er fiel er auf einer Konferenz der American Roentgen Ray Society durch militär- und regierungsfreundliche Aussagen auf:
UPI-artikel von ´61
dangers to mankind because of atomic tests are 'highly exaggerated.'"... McDonnell said recent measurements have gone to 500 but they would have to go to 'several million' before there would be real concern. He said x-ray workers have been exposed to many times the present readings without ill effects...Dr. McDonnel said some people in India have lived for generations literally on top of a radium bed. 'I don't think they will be harmed at all until someone comes along and tells them they are in real danger,' he added.
Schon 1950 war er am "Special Weapons Project" der Army beteiligt. In einem Bericht aus der Zeit wird dieselbe Meinung offenkundig:
An Army doctors says many physicians have an exaggerated idea about the dangers of radioactivity in an atom-bombed area. Major G.M. McDonnel says it's safe to enter a bombed area two minutes after the blast of an air-burst bomb--and that doctors and everyone else should bear this in mind lest there be unnecessary delay in rescue work if atomic disaster strikes this nation... rescue workers should be prepared to go in fast with bandages, blood, and bulldozers--'and never mind waiting for a geiger counter to see if the radioactivity is within safe limits.
einer der vier Mitglieder des Clark Panels, Dr. Russell Morgan, vertrat dieselben Ansichten auf der Radiologenkonferenz 1961 und bildete dort mit Mcdonnell ein dreiköpfiges Panel, das die Gefahr nuklearer Tests verharmloste- I am much less concerned with the fallout than with the arms race behind it.
Dr. Morgan arbeitete in einem Speziallabor wenige Meilen von Dr Mcdonnels damaligem Arbeitsplatz Walter Reed Hospital entfernt. Ihr Panel für die Harmlosigkeit nuklearen Fallouts war nicht die einzige Zusammenarbeit- sie waren Mitglieder eines Ausschusses, der im Auftrag des U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare den Bau eines Umweltzentrums in Rockville, Maryland (Standort von McDonnells Speziallabor) diskutieren sollte.
Enge persönliche, berufliche Beziehungen, gleiche politische Ansichten, Regierungskonforme Tätigkeiten, von der Regierung erwünschte wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse- das finden wir in den Panels
http://www.patspeer.com/stuck-in-the-middle-with-you
