You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE.

You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE.

WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.

Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of $65.00 or more (to KFJC). Click Here to obtain Dav­e’s 40+ years’ work, com­plete through Late Fall of 2021 (through FTR #1215).

“Polit­i­cal language…is designed to make lies sound truth­ful and mur­der respectable, and to give an appear­ance of solid­i­ty to pure wind.”

— George Orwell, 1946

EVERYTHING MR. EMORY HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT THE UKRAINE WAR IS ENCAPSULATED IN THIS VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

ANOTHER REVEALING VIDEO FROM UKRAINE 24

Mr. Emory has launched a new Patre­on site. Vis­it at: Patreon.com/DaveEmory

FTR#1273 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

FTR#1274 This pro­gram was record­ed in one, 60-minute seg­ment.

Intro­duc­tion: This broad­cast con­tin­ues our vis­its with Jim DiEugenio–author of Des­tiny Betrayed and JFK Revis­it­ed–select­ed by Oliv­er Stone to write the screen­play for his lat­est doc­u­men­tary.

In these broad­casts, we are addi­tion­al­ly priv­i­leged by the par­tic­i­pa­tion of Dr. Gary Aquilar, one of the experts fea­tured in the Stone/DiEugenio doc­u­men­tary, as well as being one of the ground-break­ing fig­ures in the ongo­ing inquiry into the med­ical evi­dence in the assas­si­na­tion.

Dr. Aquilar high­light­ed the deep pro­fes­sion­al com­pro­mis­ing of peo­ple who filled “expert” roles in the var­i­ous med­ical exam­i­na­tions, the involve­ment of a num­ber of them as “experts” in oth­er, impor­tant intel­li­gence-con­nect­ed cas­es such as the assas­si­na­tion of Mar­tin Luther King.

In par­tic­u­lar, Dr. Aquilar parsed the incon­sis­ten­cies in a review of the med­ical evi­dence in the JFK assas­si­na­tion case that was insti­tut­ed by then Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ram­sey Clark–“inconsistencies” which are dif­fi­cult to ascribe to caprice or error.

In addi­tion to his pre­sen­ta­tion of new mate­r­i­al with which even Jim DiEu­ge­nio was unfa­mil­iar, Gary was instru­men­tal in dis­cus­sion of the medical/forensic evi­dence in the JFK assas­si­na­tion case.

1a.—We begin with review of the Secret Ser­vice con­fis­cat­ing JFK’s corpse in con­tra­ven­tion of Texas Law, there­by deny­ing Dr. Earl Rose his oblig­ed duty of per­form­ing an autop­sy on JFK.

Into the Night­mare: My Search for the Killers of John F. Kennedy and Offi­cer J.D. Tip­pit by Joseph McBride; High­tow­er Press [SC]; Copy­right 2013 by Joseph McBride; ISBN 978–1939795250; pp. 168–170.

 . . . . [Park­land physi­cian Dr. Charles] Cren­shaw recalled, “A man in a suit, lead­ing the [fed­er­al] group, hold­ing a sub­ma­chine gun, left lit­tle doubt in my mind who was in charge. That he wasn’t smil­ing best describes the look on his face . . . . Keller­man took an erect stance and brought his firearm into a ready posi­tion. The oth­er men in suits fol­lowed course by drap­ing their coat­tails behind the butts of their hol­stered pis­tols.” When Dr. Rose insist­ed on hold­ing the body in Dal­las for autop­sy, explain­ing, “You can’t lose the chain of evi­dence,” one of the men in suits screamed, “God­damit, get your ass out of the way before you get hurt,” and anoth­er snapped, “We’re tak­ing the body now.” . . . .

1b.—Next, we review Secret Ser­vice Agent Clint Hill’s tes­ti­mo­ny about being able to see deeply into JFK’s head wound because there was no brain mate­r­i­al in the fis­sure.

2.—We then syn­op­size the Park­land Hos­pi­tal M.D’s’ views and state­ments about JFK’s wounds.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: We begin our in-depth dis­cus­sion with analy­sis of the med­ical evi­dence put for­ward by the doc­tors and nurs­es and Park­land Hos­pi­tal in Dal­las: Dr. Kemp Clark’s obser­va­tion of a huge wound in the back of JFK’s head; Cor­rob­o­ra­tion of Clark’s view by Dr. McClel­land, Dr. Charles Cren­shaw (a third-year res­i­dent at the time) and nurse Audrey Bell; Dr. Mal­com Perry’s state­ment that the wound in JFK’s throat was an entrance wound; Review of the pres­sure put on Per­ry to change his tes­ti­mo­ny by Secret Ser­vice Agent Elmer Moore (who was act­ing at the direc­tion of his supe­ri­ors) and unnamed per­son­nel at Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal in Mary­land; the Secret Service’s appar­ent destruc­tion of the tape of the Park­land press con­fer­ence by Dr.’s Clark and Per­ry; The War­ren Commission’s pre­sen­ta­tion of an oppo­site point of view by Per­ry fol­low­ing pres­sure on him by Arlen Specter; ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne’s dis­cus­sion of Doc­u­ment 1327c con­firm­ing what Per­ry had orig­i­nal­ly said; Perry’s col­league Dr. Don­ald Miller who relates that Per­ry stat­ed that the throat wound was an entrance wound (fol­low­ing their long surgery at a Wash­ing­ton hos­pi­tal; Dr. Gary Aquilar’s 100-page after­ward to Dr. Crenshaw’s book Con­spir­a­cy of Silence; Dr. Gary Aquilar’s dis­cov­ery that 26 wit­ness­es to the Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal autop­sy did not con­tra­dict the Park­land med­ical personnel’s obser­va­tions but con­firmed and rein­forced those obser­va­tions! (In its 1979 report, the House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions fal­la­cious­ly stat­ed that the Bethes­da wit­ness­es con­tra­dict­ed the Park­land personnel’s obser­va­tions.)

3.—Next, we turn to the sub­ject of the autop­sy per­formed at Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal per­formed on the evening of 11/22/1963

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The lack of qual­i­fi­ca­tions of Navy physi­cians Humes and Boswell; The inclu­sion of the under-qual­i­fied Army physi­cian Dr. Pierre Finck; Dr. Finck’s reluc­tant tes­ti­mo­ny on the wit­ness stand at Clay Shaw’s tri­al that an unnamed Army Gen­er­al had ordered him not to dis­sect the back wound in JFK; Dr. Humes’ destruc­tion of his notes; The “dis­ap­pear­ance” of Colonel Finck’s notes; Arlen Specter’s 8–10 meet­ings with Dr.’s Humes and Boswell pri­or to the War­ren Commission’s con­struc­tion of their tes­ti­mo­ny; Dr.’s Humes and Boswell’s shep­herd­ing of young Naval artist Harold Ryd­berg in which they said, in effect, “We’ll tell you what to draw;” Rydberg’s mov­ing of the loca­tion of the back wound up, to make it con­sis­tent with the Sin­gle Bul­let The­o­ry; The fact that Rydberg’s draw­ings were not based on the autop­sy pho­tos; The fact that the fal­la­cious plac­ing of the back wound at the base of the neck empow­ered “the Mag­ic Bul­let The­o­ry;” FBI agents Sib­ert and O’Neill’s con­tra­dic­tion of the Bethes­da autop­sy report, say­ing of Specter “What a Liar” and opin­ing that he was “fol­low­ing orders;” The War­ren Com­mis­sion’s omis­sion of Sib­ert and O’Neil­l’s infor­ma­tion; House Select Com­mit­tee on Assas­si­na­tions’ 1979 report that 26 Bethes­da autop­sy wit­ness­es con­tra­dict­ed Park­land M.D’s descrip­tions of wound in the back; Dis­cov­ery that this is not true! The con­sum­mate sig­nif­i­cance of this!

4. Next, we review the “Harp­er frag­ment” of JFK’s skull, dis­cov­ered in Dealey Plaza on 11/23/1963; the trans­fer of pos­ses­sion of the frag­ment to Dr. Burkley, JFK’s per­son­al physi­cian; the sub­se­quent dis­ap­pear­ance of the frag­ment.

5. We then take up the sub­ject of Dr. Burkley (an Admi­ral, JFK’s per­son­al physi­cian and the only doc­tor present at both Park­land Hos­pi­tal and the Bethes­da Naval Hos­pi­tal autop­sy.)

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Dr. Burkley plac­ing of the back wound at rough­ly ver­te­brae T‑3 (at vari­ance with what the War­ren Com­mis­sion said); The War­ren Commission’s omis­sion of JFK’s death cer­tifi­cate (signed by Dr. Burkley) from the vol­umes of tes­ti­mo­ny and exhibits; the absence of Dr. Burkley’s sig­na­ture on the autop­sy sketch­es in the tes­ti­mo­ny and exhibits; Burkley’s 1967 refusal to state how many bul­lets hit JFK (in an oral his­to­ry com­piled for the Kennedy Library); Burkley’s let­ter to HSCA head Richard Sprague stat­ing that he knew oth­ers beside Oswald were involved; Sprague’s abrupt removal of Sprague two weeks lat­er; Burkley’s state­ments in the ear­ly 1980’s to both Hen­ry Hurt and Michael Kurtz that he could con­tra­dict the War­ren Com­mis­sion the­sis, fol­lowed by Burkley’s abrupt rever­sal of field short­ly after mak­ing the state­ments (prob­a­bly reflect­ing pres­sure); Efforts by the ARRB to get Burkley’s daugh­ter and the law firm that had rep­re­sent­ed him dur­ing his life to dis­close infor­ma­tion; the abrupt rever­sal of field by Burkley’s daugh­ter, rather like the Admiral’s rever­sal of his state­ments to Hurt and Kurtz; Dr. Don­ald Miller’s account of Burkley’s son’s relat­ing of the Admiral’s bewil­der­ment that the War­ren Com­mis­sion had nev­er called him to tes­ti­fy.

6. Turn­ing to the sub­ject of the mys­tery of JFK’s brain, we take stock of a num­ber of impor­tant con­sid­er­a­tions.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: In an encore, nurse Aubrey Bell notes that she saw brain mat­ter and spinal flu­id leak­ing from the back of JFK’s mas­sive head wound and drip­ping into a buck­et; Dr. McClel­land also saw por­tions of the cere­bel­lum portrud­ing from the mas­sive head wound; Humes’ autop­sy report and War­ren Com­mis­sion report’s omis­sion of the obser­va­tions of Nurse Bell and Dr. McClel­land; At Park­land, Dr. William Midgett notes copi­ous brain mate­r­i­al in JFK’s lim­ou­sine; Secret Ser­vice cleaned back of limo before ship­ment; FBI agent Frank O’Neill’s state­ment that almost ½ of the brain was miss­ing; the fail­ure to sec­tion JFK’s brain–those sec­tions could have deter­mined the tra­jec­to­ry of bul­lets strik­ing JFK’s head ; ARRB’s Dr. Robert Kir­sh­n­er opines that JFK’s brain appears to have been in formalde­hyde for 2–3 weeks; The sig­nif­i­cance of Kirshner’s observation—JFK’s brain exam­ined right after assas­si­na­tion per Dou­glas Horne; Dr. Chessler notes for the cam­era that the brain was pho­tographed after assas­si­na­tion; X‑Rays of JFK’s brain showed very small frag­ments in the front of the head wound, larg­er frag­ments far­ther in–this indi­cates a shot from the front.

7. The bulk of the dis­cus­sion focus­es on the autop­sy pho­tos and pho­tos of the brain in par­tic­u­lar.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: John Stringer pho­tographed brain autop­sy 3 days after assas­si­na­tion; Jere­my Gunn’s pre­sen­ta­tion of pho­tos to Stringer; Half of pho­tos are tak­en from the top but oth­ers from bottom—Stringer says all pic­tures were from top and notes that type of film used is incon­sis­tent with what he did; Stringer says that scalp wound was peeled back to [sup­pos­ed­ly] show entrance wound in back of head, both inte­ri­or and exterior—no pic­tures of that; The dis­ap­pear­ance of tis­sue slides that had been tak­en and a large met­al con­tain­er appar­ent­ly con­tain­ing JFK’s brain; Robert Knud­sen’s hav­ing been cred­it­ed with tak­ing the autop­sy pho­tos in his New York Times and Wash­ing­ton Post obit­u­ar­ies; Knud­sen says he took autop­sy pic­tures that showed probes in Kennedy’s body; Sup­pos­ed­ly, no probes were used in the autop­sy; Those pho­tos appear to have “van­ished;” Dis­cus­sion of the sig­nif­i­cance of probes, and what those are; Knud­sen told his wife that the Secret Ser­vice destroyed pho­tos; ARRB mem­ber Dou­glas Horne’s opin­ion that both Stringer and Knud­sen took autop­sy pic­tures.

8. We review John Stringer’s salient obser­va­tion:

JFK Revis­it­ed: Through the Look­ing Glass by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Sky­horse Pub­lish­ing [HC]; Copy­right 2022 by Jim DiEu­ge­nio; Intro­duc­tion Copy­right 2022 by Oliv­er Stone; ISBN 978–1‑5107–7287‑8; p. 168.

Doug Horne: On Novem­ber 1^st, 1966, the Nation­al Archives and an offi­cial from the Depart­ment of Jus­tice met with Humes, Boswell, pho­tog­ra­ph­er John Stringer, and the radi­ol­o­gist [John] Eber­sole. And they looked at the autop­sy pho­tographs for the first time and they cre­at­ed a cat­a­log, an inven­to­ry sim­ply say­ing: this is what this pic­ture describes. Dur­ing the dis­cus­sion the DOJ wit­ness, Mr. Belch­er, who was an attor­ney, not­ed they were dis­cussing miss­ing pho­tographs. Jere­my Gunn, my boss, the gen­er­al coun­sel, did ask why these peo­ple signed an inven­to­ry which they knew not to be true. And Stringer said, “Well, some peo­ple do object, but they don’t last very long.”. . . .

9. We then review Dr. Burkley’s dis­patch­ing of his aide James Young and his sub­or­di­nates, Mr.‘s Mills and Mar­tin­dale to retrieve mate­r­i­al from JFK’s lim­ou­sine.

Top­ics of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Mills and Mar­tin­dale’s retrieval of a piece of JFK’s skull; Their retrieval of a bul­let with a bent tip; Their retrieval of a bul­let frag­ment; The appar­ent impact of a bul­let on the met­al fram­ing the wind­shield; The appar­ent pas­sage of a bul­let frag­ment through the wind­shield of JFK’s lim­ou­sine; The dis­ap­pear­ance of the skull frag­ment, intact bul­let with the bent tip and bul­let frag­ment; the rebuild­ing of JFK’s lim­ou­sine, fea­tur­ing replace­ment of the wind­shield and the met­al fram­ing of it–this fol­low­ing the Secret Ser­vice’s clean­ing of JFK’s lim­ou­sine.