Und? Wer sagt, dass der Kopf nicht mal angehoben oder zur Seite gedreht wurde? MClelland befand sich JFKs Kopf am nächsten:Branntweiner schrieb:McClelland hat eine Tracheotomie durchgeführt, der Hinterkopf Kennedys lag auf der Bahre
Da spricht er auch von einem Austrittloch im Hinterkopf:
extremely blasted.
the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp
and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as
well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral
haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way
that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see
that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior
cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted
out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly
from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted
open.
Seien frühen eines Autrittsloch am Hinterkopf sind konsistent- was für Loyalitätskonflikte MCClelland hatte und wie die Interviews geführt wurden. gibt es diese Sendung irgendwo zu sehen?
Paul PetersEr konnte die die "occipetal lobes" sehen, einen teil des gehirns, der sich hinten befindet:
(Assistant Professor Of Urology):
According to Gerald Posner, Dr. Peters said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 10th, 1992: "[The cerebellum] is definitely pressed down and that would be the damage I referred to...."
But what did Dr. Peters report to David Lifton, a number of years before the alleged Posner interview?
"I could see the occipital lobes clearly.... I thought it looked like the cerebellum was injured, or missing, because the occipital lobes seemed almost on the foramen magnum."
This statement is especially revealing, since Peters apparently had an excellent view of the head wound; given his description, the bulk of the cerebellum must have been missing.
And what did Dr. Peters report to Harrison Livingston when he asked the doctor whether the hole was "...above his right ear or behind his right ear?" Peters answered: "It was both. It really went behind and also a bit forward of the ear."
Marion JenkinsDulany war zunächst bei Connally, dann bei JFK- da hatte man mit der tracheotomie schon begonnen.
(Professor And Chairman Of Anaesthesiology):
According to Gerald Posner, Dr Jenkins said to him in an interview Posner says he conducted on March 3rd, 1992:
"...[T]here could not be any cerebellum. The autopsy photo, with the rear of the head intact and a protrusion in the parietal region, is the way I remember it. I never did say occipital."
But what did Dr. Jenkins say in his earlier reports and in his Warren Commission testimony?
"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital)...even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound."
"I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound...."
Contrary to his alleged Posner interview, Dr. Jenkins both wrote and said "occipital."
DR. DULANY - Well, as I stated, I principally cared for the Governor and then after his emergency treatment had been cared for, I went into the room where President Kennedy was being cared for....
Mr. SPECTER - Were you present from the start of the Governor's treatment?
DR. DULANY - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And about what time did you go into the room where the President was being treated?
DR. DULANY - Well, I believe the Governor was supposed to have been in the surgery suite upstairs within 12 minutes after he came in, and so I'm sure I must have been in the room where the President was, about 7 minutes or so afterwards.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the condition of the President when you entered?...
DR. DULANY - Well, at this time his pupils were fixed and dilated and he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed.
There was already a tracheotomy tube in the neck wound or what was later described as a wound, and had a cutdown running and several other doctors were putting chest tubes in.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any neck wound on the President?http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/dulany.htm (Archiv-Version vom 25.01.2012)
DR. DULANY - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. SPECTER - The tracheotomy had already been performed?
DR. DULANY - It had been placed in.
Mr. SPECTER - Had the incision already been made when you first saw the President's neck?
DR. DULANY - I really didn't examine it close enough to make any statement along that line.
Mr. SPECTER - Then, did you observe any wound in the President's neck at all?
DR. DULANY - No, I just know that the tracheotomy was in and later I was told that this was a wound when it was first seen--you know, that's the best I can tell you.
Mr. SPECTER - That's fine, Dr. Dulany, thank you very much for appearing here today.
DR. DULANY - Yes; thank you.
SECRET SERVICE AGENT CLINT HILL: described the wounds he saw at Parkland as, "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed...There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." (WC--V2:141)http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
" But the scalp was lacerated, & a pretty good sized piece of the frontalBoswell, interviewed by Livingstone, High Treason 2, p196
& right occipital portion of the skull had separated and were stuck to
the undersurface of the scalp. "
" Well, this was an attempt to illustrate the magnitude of the
wound again. And as you can see it’s 10 centimeters from right to left, 17 centi-
meters from posterior to anterior. This was a piece of 10 centimeter bone that
was fractured off of the skull and was attached to the under surface of the skull. . . There were fragments attached to the skull or to the scalp and all the three
major flaps." (Boswell, interviewed by the HSCA FPP)
Boswell is explicit that the skull is missing beneath the scalp in the autopsy picture, above :
Q ...Now I'd like to ask you a question
about what is underneath the scalp of what we are
looking at now. Let's take the marking that
appears towards the hairline right at the base of
the neck, or where the hairline meets the neck. If
we take the point above that, where would you say
that the scalp is or that the skull will be missing
underneath the scalp that we can view there?
A Probably right about here.
Q So you're--
A Just about the base of the ear.
Q So you're pointing to approximately
halfway up the ruler that we can observe and to the
right of that small fragment, so the skull is
missing--
A Right.
(Boswell ARRB)
Colour autopsy photo. The yellow hashed area marks the approximate location of the skull defect according to a skull Boswell marked for the ARRB ]
Warum sollte man in Abschlussberichte grobe Skizzen einfügen?
Warum sollte ich denen, die die Röntgenbilder und Autopsiefotos entwickelten, nicht glauben?
Finally, this piece has another side to it as well: it concerns what a CIA officer at the Mexico City station had to say about it. His name was David Atlee Phillips and, in sworn testimony to the HSCA, he backed up Mrs. Tarasoff’s claim about the tape and the request for money to assist in another defection to the Soviet Union. But the Phillips story has another twist. The day before his sworn testimony, Phillips told a different, more provocative version to Ron Kessler of the Washington Post. He told Kessler that on this tape Oswald asked for money in exchange for information. Why was this crucial transcript destroyed? What motivated Phillips to tell two different stories about this piece in less than 24 hours?http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html
This third piece not only reinforces the likelihood that the plotters were seeking to ensure CIA sources would reveal a link between Oswald and the Soviets, but also invites us to ask questions about David Phillips. Indeed, one might ask, in view of the foregoing, what was Phillips doing during Oswald’s visit and the subsequent exchange of cables with CIA HQ concerning Oswald’s activities in Mexico?
Arcacha, Banister, and "Mr. Phillips"
Probe has turned up a long lost transcript of a deposition of a person whose name would be instantly recognized by anyone who has studied the Kennedy assassination. It is our hope to reveal the source of this deposition to the ARRB if and when they come to the West Coast.
In this deposition, we find the following startling information. Picking up where the witness was telling how Sergio Arcacha Smith, one of Garrison's original suspects in the Kennedy assassination planning, had invited the witness to a meeting in Guy Banister's office:
Q: Did you go alone to that meeting?
A: As I recall, I did, yes.
Q: Who was there?
A: Mr. Banister, Mr. Arcacha Smith, and Mr. Phillips.
Q: Do you know his first name [meaning Phillips]?
A: No.
Q: Had you seen him before?
A: No.
Q: Was he a Latin?
A: No.
Q: What was his interest in the meeting?
A: He seemed to be running the show.
Q: Telling Banister and Arcacha Smith what to do?
A: His presence was commanding. It wasn't in an orderly military situation, you know. It was just they seemed to introduce Mr. Phillips.
Q: How old a man was he?
A: I would say he was around 51, 52 [Note: the speaker is young.]
Q: American?
A: American.
Q: Was he identified as to his background?
A: No.
Q: Were hints dropped as to his background?
A: Just that he was from Washington, that's all.
Q: Did you assume from that he was with the CIA?
A: I didn't assume anything, I never assume anything. . . .I think someone mentioned something about this conversation isn't taking place.
The project that Banister and Arcacha and Mr. Phillips were working on, according to the witness, was to be a televised anti-Castro propaganda program, something that would have been in the direct purview of David Phillips as chief of propaganda for Cuban operations at that time.
Joannides, in his job evaluation of 31http://www.jfklancer.com/morley.html (Archiv-Version vom 03.08.2013)
July 1963, was credited with having established control over the group.
Five day later, Lee Harvey Oswald wandered into the DRE's New Orleans
delegation, setting off a string of encounters between the pro-Castro
ex-Marine and the anti-Castro exiles. Members of the DRE confronted
Oswald on a street corner. They stared him down in a courtroom. They
sent a DRE member to Oswald's house posing a Castro supporter. They
challenged him to a debate on the radio. They made a tape of the debate
which was later sent to Joannides. And they issued a press release
calling for a congressional investigation of the thoroughly obscure
Oswald.
n the 12 weeks prior to Nov. 22, the agency had been keeping tabs on the man who would later assassinate the president. In August, Oswald had tried to insinuate himself into the ranks of the anti-Castro Cuban Student Directorate, then turned around and started handing out pamphlets for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. What the C.I.A. failed to disclose for more than 30 years was that the Directorate's leaders in Miami were receiving $25,000 a month at the time. As I reported in the Miami New Times two years ago, an undercover agency officer working for Helms named George Joannides was guiding and monitoring the group's activities at the time of its contacts with Oswald.http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.morley.html (Archiv-Version vom 09.02.2014)
In September, one of the agency's Latin American operatives had stood in line next to Oswald in New Orleans as he applied for a visa to travel to Mexico City where, two weeks later, Oswald visited the Cuban consulate. His arrival there was recorded by C.I.A. photo and audio surveillance teams reporting to a highly-regarded career officer named David Atlee Phillips, perhaps Helms's most accomplished protégé. Reports of Oswald's presence in Mexico City went back to Langley, where they were reviewed by Helms's top aide, Tom Karamessines. Had the agency's investigation of Oswald proceeded the way Whitten wanted, the accused assassin's connections to Cuba would have been fully reviewed, forcing the agency to account, at least internally, for what Joannides, Phillips, and Karamessines knew about Oswald.
Still more vindication came in November 1998. Without fanfare, the CIA declassified the personnel file of a previously unknown operations officer on the Special Affairs Staff named George Joannides. Jane Roman had said that in late 1963 certain people in the CIA’s anti-Castro operation were showing “a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.” Skeptics of my story could rightly ask, “Like who?”...
The new records suggested George Joannides was one such SAS operative. The reason for his interest? The bulk of the available evidence indicates that Joannides in late 1963 was running a psychological warfare operation designed to link Lee Harvey Oswald to the Castro government without disclosing the CIA’s hand.
He also was in charge of handling the anti-Castro student group that Oswald had tried to infiltrate in August 1963. They called themselves the Cuban Student Directorate and it was Joannides’s job to guide and monitor them. Under a CIA program code named AMSPELL, he was giving $25,000 a month to Luis Fernandez Rocha and Juan Salvat, the Directorate’s leaders in Miami. That funding supported the Directorate’s chapters in New Orleans and other cities.
AMSPELL funds were also used within hours of the Kennedy’s death to link Oswald to Castro.http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/WhatJaneRomanSaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_6.htm
The results of his expenditures, it must be said, were consistent with U.S. policy. The former Directorate leaders say their purpose in launching a propaganda blitz against Oswald was to discredit the Castro regime and create public pressure for a U.S. attack on Cuba.
Vergleiche mal die Darstellung der WC mit dem Z- Film, wenn der Kopf der Darstelung im richtigen Winkel ist:
Um den Ablauf zu verdeutlichen?
Was meisnt du genau "Ablauf"? Oswalds offizielle Position sowie Kennedys Position zum Zeitpunkt des Kopfschusses stehen fest, somit auch der Schsuswinkel- warum sollte dann eine so "grobe" Skizze veröffentlicht werden.
Ablauf = wie die Kugel durch den Schädel geflogen ist.
Gibt es für dich überhaupt eine realisitsche Darstellung?
Der Zapruderfilm ist ein 2D- Film.
Na also- d.h. wo sie eintrat, wo sie austrat, in welchem Winkel sie anflog.
Zeichnungen sind nunmal 2D, oder hast Du schon mal
vielleicht kommt er ja aus der Zukunft...
eine 3D-Zeichnung angefertigt...?
naja: das ist die offizielle position von oswald.
Ja, bereits im Mathematik-Unterricht der 13. Klasse wurde das verlangt.
eine 3D-Zeichnung angefertigt...?
Natürlich geht das. Sonst könnte man ja keine Pläne für dreidimensionale Objekte anfertigen ...
Genau darum ging es mir. man kann etwas dreidimensional darstellen,
Du meinst Grafikdesigner. Und ja, ich arbeite (fast) täglich mit blender
