Reply #34: Well, it's not absurd to "suggest all these people were wrong"....

[SDuderstadt]

especially when their accounts are absolutely contradicted by the physical evidence.

For starters, what particular reason do we have to believe Russell Kent? Is he an expert on the assassination? I'd never heard of him before, have you? How do you know that what Kent states is true? Have you confirmed it in any way? More importantly, did you read what he wrote in any detail? Do you notice how he writes in an extremely tentative manner?

For example, Kent's preamble includes the following:

"Most of the available evidence points to wounding in the right rear (occipito-parietal) of the head:

The Zapruder film shows wounding in the right
Most of the reports from the Parkland Memorial Hospital doctors mention wounding in the right rear (1).
Most of the eye-witnesses report wounding in the right rear (2).
The major wounds disclosed in the autopsy photographs and x-rays were in the right of the skull."

He goes on to cite one portion of WCT as saying:

"Dr. JENKINS. I do not know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process.
Mr. SPECTER. The autopsy report disclose no such development, Dr Jenkins.
Dr. JENKINS. Well, I was feeling for - I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also." (3)

Read that carefully and you find that the witness (Jenkins) is casting doubt as to what he actually observed, stating that he "thought" there was a wound, but does not "know whether this is right or not". Does that sound convincing to you?


He goes on to cite a secret service agent thusly:

"Secret Service Agent William Greer drove the Presidential limousine through Dallas on November 22nd 1963 and must have got a look at JFK's head when they arrived at Parkland Memorial Hospital.

Greer described to author David Lifton how JFK's head "looked like a hard-boiled egg with the top chopped off" (14). This would mean damage to the left as well as the right."

Notice that it's not Greer who states "This would mean damage to the left as well as to the right", but could be either Kent or Lifton and, further, the statement itself is not very clear as "to the left as well as to the right of WHAT?"

In the case of Malcom Kilduff, it's even less convincing, especially since the interview was conducted some 28 years after the assassination.

As far as any references to David Lifton, he is one of THE most suspect CT authors and is simply not believable. For example, Lifton claims that JFK's body was kidnaped and surgery was performed to obscure the physical evidence. As if this wasn't goofy enough on its face, please try to answer the following questions.

1) When was JFK's body kidnaped since the coffin was never out of anyone's sight all the way up to arrival at the autopsy?

2) How would the "conspirators" have known where the body was to be taken for the autopsy so they could arrange to return it before the start of said autopsy?

3) Wouldn't you think that conspirators smart enough to pull off such a plot would have made sure that physical evidence contradicting the above was "done away with"?

By the way, please tell me what "silly game" I am playing. Be specific. It sounds to me more likely that, like most diehard CT's, you simply cannot take it when evidence refuting your "theory" shows just how silly your theory is.