text:
The Education Forum
JFK Assassination Debate
Controversial Issues in History
Dr. Malcolm Perry R.I.P. (1929-2009)
By Peter Fokes
December 8, 2009 in JFK Assassination Debate
Peter Fokes
Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Passed away today.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6757817.html
On President Kennedy's wounds:
J. Raymond Carroll 15 posts
Bernice Moore 4 posts
Pat Speer 3 posts
David Von Pein 3 posts
J. Raymond Carroll
Location:Long Island, New York
Interests:https://www.facebook.com/raymond.carroll.3154/photos
The New York TImes, as we have come to expect, just cannot quite bring itself to tell the simple truth when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, "It could have been either."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/us/08per...ref=todayspaper.
THis is obfuscation. Perry was unsure about the head wound, but he was very clear that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
DR. MALCOM PERRY- The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=10
Guest James H. Fetzer
The complicity of The New York Times in concealing the true causes of
death of our 35th President stains it reputation forever. I have replied
to a very sad post from François Carlier, which those who make it their
business to join The Times in this unsavory enterprise are, no doubt,
going to use to bolster their case. This is completely unconscionable,
but also entirely predictable from those who are betraying the truth.
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 08:27:32 -0600 [08:27:32 AM CST]
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu
To: "François Carlier" <Fra-Carlier@orange.fr>
Cc: "Barb Junkkarinen" <Barbjfk@comcast.net>, jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Subject: Re: copy of a post
Quite a few years ago, I also wrote to Malcolm Perry, M.D., about his
experiences during the treatment of President John F. Kennedy, but I,
unlike Francois Carlier, was aware of his contemporaneous reports about
the wound the the throat and was therefore acutely distressed by what
I received in reply. It was a handwritten letter on lined paper that,
as in her case, affirmed the findings of THE WARREN REPORT (1964). But
I had the advantage of having read the Parkland Press Conference, which
began at 3:16 PM on 22 November 1963, during which he described the wound
to the throat as "an entrance wound", "as a wound of entrance", and said
"the bullet was coming at him". Dr. Perry was grossly abused by the FBI,
Commander Humes, and Arlen Specter and intimidated into changing his mind
about the wound, which he knew "up close and personal". Anyone who thinks
that Perry was thereafter speaking or writing the truth, I am sorry to say,
has thereby demonstrated their incompetence in relation to his role in the
assassination. Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who was the last physician to view
the body before it was wrapped in sheets and placed in the large, bronze-
colored ceremonial casket at Parkland, drew diagrams of the appearance of
the throat wound before and after Perry performed a tracheostomy incision
through the wound. It was a clean, neat puncture wound, clearly of entry,
through which he made a simple, straight incision. CrenshaW also sent me
diagrams of the wound to the back of the head, which I published with his
diagrams of the throat wound as Appendix A of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998).
The Parkland Press Conference transcript, which was never provided to the
Warren Commission, may also be found there as Appendix C. For those who
are unfamiliar with the research that appears here, I recommend that they
track it down, since it includes studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,
that proved the autopsy x-rays had been altered and by Robert Livingston,
M.D., a world authority on the human brain, concluding that the images of
a brain in diagrams and photographs stored at the National Archives cannot
possibly be of the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Since these studies
shattered the cover-up in the death of JFK, you might want to read them to
come up-to-speed with respect to the most important research ever conducted
on the medical evidence, which was reinforced by studies by Mantik and by
Douglas Horne, the senior analyst for military affairs for the AARB, which
are published in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000) and are now being confirmed
by a five-volume study of the medical evidence by Horne, which is only now
being released and is accessible via amazon.com. In relation to the basic
evidence concerning the body and even the Zapruder film, which is analyzed
in both of my books and in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003), where Horne
corroborates our finding that it's a fabrication, the case has been solved.
For those who still linger to the illusion that THE WARREN REPORT was right,
you can download "Reasoning about Assassinations" via google, where I take
apart the "magic bullet" theory in a study that I presented at Cambridge
and published in a peer-reviewed international journal. I recommend it.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
McKnight Professor Emeritus
University of Minnesota Duluth
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/
Quoting "François Carlier" <Fra-Carlier@orange.fr>:
Hello, everybody,
Doctor Perry (Rest in Peace, you were a fine man !) once wrote a letter to me, a very
nice letter, in which he answered my questions on the medical evidence and gave his
opinion. I quote him in my book "Elm Street".
It is absolutely clear that he sided with the Warren report.
He was an honest man who "was there", saw the body, and did not buy the conspiracy
idiotic theories.
He certainly did not believe a word of Lifton's theory.
Everybody should know it.
As for me, if I have to choose between, on the one hand, doctor Perry, and on the other,
the likes of Lifton or Groden, ... boy, the decision is quickly reached !!!
May God bless Doctor Perry.
/François Carlier/
I have just sent this email to the Public Editor at the New York Times
Dear Mr. Hoyt:
Last year you were good enough to cause the Times to publish a correction to its obituary for detective Paul Bentley, after I pointed out a significant error. I want to thank you for that correction, but I must now point out another error, again relating to the JFK assassination.
Today's obituary for Doctor Malcolm Perry contains the following passage:
Dr. Perry used the bullet hole in Kennedy's neck to perform the procedure, concluding, as the Warren Commission noted, that "it was one of the safest and easiest spots from which to reach the trachea."
But in doing so the doctor changed the appearance of the wound, thereby making it far less valuable as evidence. Even more fatefully, when he was asked by reporters if he thought the bullet hole was an entrance or an exit wound, he replied, "It could have been either."
I attach a copy of the official transcript of the 11/22/63 press conference at Parkland hospital at which Dr. Perry made his first statements about the president's wounds. You will see that the Perry quotation in today's Times was NOT IN REFERENCE TO THE THROAT WOUND. When Dr. Perry said "it could have been either" he was referring to the HEAD WOUND.
In reference to the throat wound, here is what Dr. Perry actually said, according to the transcript:
As a faithful Times reader for 30 years, I am repeatedly disappointed to see that the Times appears unable to face facts -- even simple facts -- when it comes to reporting on the assassination of President Kennedy.
I respectfully submit that a correction to the Perry obituary is in order.
Good work! Check this out: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6758471.html How long will it remain there? Best!
Bernice Moore
THANKS RAYMOND....GOOD SHOW...
Robert E. Cox
Location:Santa Fe, NM USA
Thanks, Raymond, for your response. I've added my support to your request with the following email to Clark Hoyt at the Times, whose address, btw, is public@nytimes.com. I'm sure a few more letters to Hoyt from members of this forum wouldn't hurt. --rec
Mr. Hoyt:
I add my support to the request of J. Raymond Carroll for a correction in the New York Times obituary of Dr. Malcolm Perry, relating to Perry's comments regarding the throat wound of President John Kennedy. Mr. Carroll's request is based on solid fact, and to allow the Times's report to stand without correction is a disservice to the historical record.
Abiquiu, N.M.
I've added my support to your request with the following email to Clark Hoyt at the Times, whose address, btw, is public@nytimes.com. I'm sure a few more letters to Hoyt from members of this forum wouldn't hurt. --rec
Thank you Robert.
Based on my prior experience with Clark Hoyt in the Paul Bentley matter, I expect that he will give this appropriate attention, and in due course I expect that some form of correction will appear in the Times. However I do not believe that a flurry of emails from forum members will necessarily be helpful.
I did indicate to MR. Hoyt that I was posting a cc of my email on this forum, and I suspect that Mr. Hoyt or one of his assistants will check us out anyway.
However I do not believe that a flurry of emails from forum members will necessarily be helpful.
Raymond: You are no doubt correct. However, I do believe that something needs to be done to bring an end to the sloppy, and even government-biased journalism that too often pops up in self-styled "newspapers of record" when they purport to revisit facts of the Kennedy assassination. I certainly do not want Public Editor Hoyt to believe that it is only Raymond Carroll who takes issue with such displays of journalistic irresponsibility. Although a flurry may be overkill, a few complaints may be of benefit in the long run.
ss elmer more badgered malcolm Perry into changing his informtion on the neck wound,,,
HISTORIC NEW INFORMATION ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Michael T. Griffith, 1999
Missing Autopsy Photos, the Large Head Wound, and Other Issues
What follows is a brief summary of some of the historic new evidence contained in recently released autopsy witness interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1976-1979 and in interviews of key witnesses conducted over the last three years by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).
What do the abovementioned documents reveal? As we'll see in a moment, they contain, among other things, evidence that a bullet struck Kennedy in the right temple, that there was a large wound in the back of the skull (which of course indicates the bullet came from the front and exited the rear of the head), that several important autopsy photos are missing, that there was **not** a straight path from the Oswald window to the back wound to the throat wound (because the back wound was lower than the throat wound and because Kennedy was not leaning off the seat when the back missile struck), that even Secret Service agents believed there had been a conspiracy, and that autopsy photos were altered (obviously in order to give a false impression of the direction of the gunfire that struck the president).
Here are some of the important new disclosures:
* John Stringer reported that the THROAT WOUND was probed. This is key because it proves the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified that they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry.
* White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went DOWNWARD from the throat wound, that is, the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory.
* Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) UPWARD to the area of the right orbit. This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not.
* Saundra Kay Spencer, whom I have mentioned in previous messages, according to chain of evidence documentation processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and, as I've noted in a previous message, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the extant autopsy photos. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were TWO sets of autopsy photos.
* Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.
* O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed what appeared to be an ENTRY WOUND IN THE RIGHT TEMPLE. This is key because there were several reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist).
* Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he told the HSCA on this point, namely, that he saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple").
* O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos, one genuine and the other altered.
* Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy.
* Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
* Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into THREE wounds. The WC said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than one gunman.
* Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled AT LEAST two probes inserted into wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which THREE probes were inserted into wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period.
* Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his comment.
* Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere.
* The Secret Service (SS) agent in charge of the Miami SS office told the HSCA he believed some elements of the SS might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination.
* SS Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
* Robert Bouck, who was the chief of the Protective Research Division of the SS in 1963, told the HSCA he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.
* Special Agent Fox made black and white autopsy photo prints at the SS lab.
* Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.
* Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an "orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged period of time, but he also HANDLED it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson "confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear.
* Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e., that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda.
* X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer is almost certainly correct. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed? The missile fragments described by Custer are another fatal blow to the lone-gunman theory, which in turn means there must have been more than one shooter.
* Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays.
* Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.
Interested readers can read this information in the released documents themselves, which are available from the National Archives. Or, they can read an excellent summary of those documents in the appendix to the new edition of Harrison Livingstone's best-selling book HIGH TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK AND THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY. Livingstone quotes heavily from the newly released documents, and provides reproductions of some of them in his appendices.
Some of the sources for the information above include the following::
- HSCA deposition of Robert Knudsen, August 11, 1978
- ARRB deposition of Gloria Knudsen. October 8, 1996
- ARRB deposition of Robert Karnei, May 21, 1996
- ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996
- ARRB deposition of John Van Hoesen, September 26, 1996
- ARRB deposition of Earl McDonald, May 14, 1996
- ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer, October 28, 1997
Francis O'Neill
We read in the recently released ARRB medical evidence interviews that former FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB that the large head wound was "a massive wound" that was located in the back of the head (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 69-70). He told ARRB staffer Jeremy Gunn,
O'Neill: . . . you could not miss this wound here in the head.
Gunn: Again, you're pointing to the back of your head?
O'Neill: Yes. It was--it was a massive wound. (Deposition, pp. 69-70).
Agent O'Neill, it should be remembered, got a close-up, prolonged look at the president's wounds during the autopsy.
We now have further evidence that President Kennedy's back wound was well below the neck, much lower than where Dr. Humes placed it for the Warren Commission. The low location for the back wound refutes the single-bullet theory, among other things. The recently released ARRB autopsy witness interviews contain numerous important disclosures and confirmations. Let us turn our attention to Francis O'Neill's comments on the back wound and on Dr. Boswell's relocation of the back wound. O'Neill, of course, got a close-up, prolonged look at the body during the autopsy.
O'Neill was asked about his 1-10-78 HSCA wound diagram, in which he placed the wound well below the base of the neck (the diagram can be seen on page 349 of Livingstone's KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY). He replied that he stood by the diagram, that the location he marked was accurate to the best of his recollection (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 104-107). Indeed, O'Neill said the wound was absolutely no higher than where he marked it on his diagram! Here is a part of his exchange with ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn--O'Neill's HSCA diagram is referred to as Exhibit 86:
Gunn: If you were to make marks today or attempt to indicate where your understanding is of the wounds to the body, would you make them substantially different from the ones that appear on Exhibit 86?
O'Neill: No, no. My recollection would be just as good then. In fact--well, just as good then as it is now. To the best of my recollection, these are [correct]--once again--approximate.
Gunn: Sure, understood.
O'Neill: CERTAINLY, NOTHING UP HIGHER--LIKE THAT, NO.
Gunn: And you're referring to the shoulder wound [when you say nothing up higher]--?
O'Neill: Yes.
Gunn: -- when you say "nothing up higher"?
O'Neill: IF ANYTHING, [the wound was] LOWER. BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING HIGHER THAN THAT. (Deposition, pp. 107-108, emphasis added)
O'Neill was then asked why he had told the HSCA that he disagreed with Dr. Boswell's depiction of the back wound for the HSCA (in that depiction, Dr. Boswell located the wound markedly higher than he had on the original autopsy face sheet). Here's part of the Gunn-O'Neill exchange on this issue:
Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]?
O'Neill: Because I had heard--I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111).
So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O'Neill "disagreed with that thoroughly."
O'Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O'Neill said in reply, ". . . naturally, I would disagree with that," adding the following:
O'Neill: But I can't understand why he [boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added)
So, we now have another very solid, emphatic witness that the back wound was where Boswell ORIGINALLY marked it on the autopsy face sheet. And, as most of us know, this low location, which rules out the single-bullet theory, is supported by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, by the 1/27/64 WC transcript, by Special Agent (SA) Clint Hill's description of the wound, by SA Glen Bennett's description of the wound, by SA Roy Kellerman's 8-24-77 HSCA wound diagram, by SA James Sibert's 8-25-77 HSCA wound diagram, and by the accounts of medical assistants at the autopsy.
James Sibert
The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet.
* Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT)because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162).
* Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound BELOW the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162).
* Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119).
* Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw **and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.)
* Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162).
* Sibert said there were a lot of high-ranking military officers at the autopsy, that the autopsy room was crowded, and that it was fairly noisy (Deposition, pp. 76-77, 152).
* Sibert said there was no visible damage on the head forward of the right ear (Deposition, pp. 67-68).
* Sibert said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (Deposition, pp. 65-72). He said his 8-25-77 wound diagram for the HSCA made the wound somewhat too small and that the wound was "a little" to the right of where he placed it in that diagram (Deposition, pp. 70-71). In the diagram he placed the wound squarely in the middle of the back of the head (see Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY, p. 344). Sibert said it was a little larger than that and a little more to the right of the midline (Deposition, p. 71).
* Sibert said the alleged autopsy photo of the back of the head (which shows the back of the head intact) did not "at all" match his recollection of the wound, and he speculated that for this photo scalp had been pulled over the large defect (Deposition, pp. 126-128).
* Sibert said he did not remember seeing the metal stirrup that is seen to support Kennedy's head in some of the autopsy photos (Deposition, p. 122).
* With regard to Humes's statement at the start of the autopsy that it was apparent there had been surgery to the head, Sibert said that was exactly what Humes said, and that at no point during the autopsy did Humes retract or qualify that statement (Deposition, pp. 95-96).
Edward Reed
Former Bethesda Naval Hospital x-ray technician Edward Reed told the ARRB that Kennedy's body arrived in a "typical military, aluminum casket" (Deposition of Edward F. Reed to the ARRB, October 21, 1997, pp. 25-26). When counsel asked Reed if he would describe the casket as a ceremonial casket, Reed replied, "No." Asked what kinds of handles the casket had, Reed said, "Just the normal stainless steel handles." (Some have suggested that two caskets were employed in a sort of shell game at Bethesda. Noel Twyman's examines this possibility in his 1997 book BLOODY TREASON.)
John Stringer
We can add John Stringer, who was a photographer at the autopsy, to the list of witnesses who saw an entrance wound right next to the external occipital protuberance (EOP), near the hairline. We read in the recently released ARRB medical interviews that Stringer told the ARRB (1) that the rear head entrance wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was, i.e., near the hairline, next to the EOP, and (2) that the supposed image of a higher entry wound on the skull was NOT the entrance wound he saw on the night of the autopsy (indeed, Stringer denied this image is that of a bullet wound) (Deposition of John T. Stringer to the ARRB, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196).
For any newcomers, this is very important because this is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound could not have been caused by a bullet from the so-called "Oswald sniper's window." In other words, Oswald could not have fired the missile that struck the back of President Kennedy's head.
Another point of interest is that Stringer acknowledged to the ARRB that the extant set of autopsy photos is INCOMPLETE (Deposition, pp. 215-216). Surely WC apologists will finally drop their arguments for the completeness of the existing set of autopsy photos.
What It All Means
Some 30 years later, we are finally getting a glimpse into a key phase of the assassination conspiracy, namely, the cover-up. We are also, finally, getting a pretty clear picture of the true nature of the president's wounds. The new disclosures confirm previous evidence of shots from the front.
One wonders what Warren Commission defenders will say to these disclosures. "Human error"? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said Knudsen showed him photos that showed a large wound in the back of the head? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that dozens of other witnesses said they saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a photo that showed an apparent entrance wound in JFK's right temple? Is it just a coincidence, therefore, that initial reports from Parkland Hospital said there was an entrance wound in the right temple? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he said he clearly recalled taking photos showing missile fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he recalled seeing a large fragment from the back? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that there are several other reports of a large fragment or bullet falling from the back or from the body wrappings at some point after the body arrived to the hospital? Was Von Hoesen dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was he part of the alleged mass hallucination in which trained medical personnel looked at a wound that was "really" above the right ear but "mistakenly" thought they saw it in the back of the skull? Was Knudsen dreaming or mistaken when he told his wife there were autopsy photos missing and that another photo had been altered? And on and on we could go.
At some point, reason and candor must prevail. The "human error" explanation, if it can even be called such, has long since ceased to be credible. There is now powerful, compelling evidence that there was a large wound at the back of the skull, which means the autopsy photos that show the back of the head undamaged are fakes--either the wound was covered with scalp for the purpose of these photos or the photos were simply doctored after the fact. Furthermore, we now have additional evidence that a bullet struck the president in the right temple, just as the initial reports from Parkland Hospital said was the case. It's now clearer than ever that a bare minimum of one shot was fired from the front, and hence that there was a conspiracy.
Back to Michael T. Griffith
Edited September 5, 2010 by Bernice Moore
---thanks to jim Ostrowski
and geraldven fyi...from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".
THE WARREN COMMISSION QUESTIONING TACTICS THAT MADE ARLEN SPECTER SENATOR FOR LIFE
An example of Arlen Specter "leading the witness" during his interview of the Parkland doctors is taken from James W. Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters:
When the government took charge with its official story of a lone assassin firing from the rear. the doctors were pressured by the Warren Commission to change their initial observations of Kennedy's body. The Warren Commission's staff counsel, Arlen Specter, a future U.S. senator,confronted the Dallas doctors with a question that contained the answer the Commission was seeking:
"Assuming... that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have just given to you"(note 551, Chapter 6)
As Charles Crenshaw (who was not asked to testify) pointed out later, Specter had asked the doctors, "If the bullet exited from the front of Kennedy's throat, could the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat have been an exit wound" (note 552, Chapter 6)
The doctors went along with Specter's show of logic: Yes, assuming the bullet exited from the the front of Kennedy's throat, that wound could indeed have been an exit wound. Pressed further by Warren Commission member Gerald Ford, who would later become president, Dr. Malcolm Perry repudiated as "inaccurate" the press reports of his clear description of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound.(note 553)
That was not enough for Allen Dulles, who wanted the Warren Commission to draw extensively on the doctors' denial of their earliest press statements as a way to counteract the "false rumors" of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound. The Commission, Dulles felt, needed "to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth (note 554)
Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony." Moore said that in threatening Perry he acted "on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters." (note 555, Chapter 6)
Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck" (note 556) Moore admitted, "I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry." (note 557) However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching order from Washington." He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off." (note 558) In the cover-up the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated.
With the power of the government marshaled against what the Parkland doctors had seen, they entered into what Charles Crenshaw called "a conspiracy of silence." (note 559) When Crenshaw finally broke his own silence in 1992, he wrote:
"I believe there was a common denominator in our silence-- a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble. Although we never admitted it to one another, we realized that the inertia of the established story was so powerful. so thoroughly presented, so adamantly accepted, that it would bury anyone who stood in its path... I was as afraid of the men in suits as I was of the men who had assassinated the President... I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (note 560, Chapter 6)
The above is taken from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".
Excerpted by Gerald Ven, JFK Lancer, bold type emphasis added, Jim Ostrowski
b..
It is so unusual that a comment like this should be posted on a major newspaper in Texas that I want to preserve it. They appear to be playing it straight, except there have been three recommendations of the comment, while the paper reports zero at the top. Jim
AP Texas News
NEWSSPORTS BUSINESS ENTERTAINMENT LIFE TRAVEL BLOGS
JOBSHOMES CARS CLASSIFIEDS
Mobile | SMS
icon 1 Comments
Doctor who attended JFK in Dallas has died
By TERRY WALLACE Associated Press Writer © 2009 The Associated Press
Dec. 7, 2009, 10:37PM
icon Print
iconShare
iconDel.icio.us
iconDigg
iconTwitter
Yahoo! Buzz
iconStumbleUpon
DALLAS — Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry II, who attended to President John F. Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital after he was shot in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, has died. He was 80.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, the teaching hospital for Parkland, said Monday that Perry died Saturday in Tyler after a battle with lung cancer.
Perry was an assistant professor of surgery at UT Southwestern and a vascular surgeon on the Parkland staff when he became the first staff surgeon to treat Kennedy.
In an extensive interview by the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination, Perry recalled taking the case over from the senior resident, checking the president's vital signs and finding none but noting a convulsive effort to breath. He performed a tracheotomy on the president while other staff doctors and surgeons gathered to help.
Perry and another surgeon performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation on Kennedy until no brain activity was detected on the trauma room instruments. At 1 p.m., Kennedy was declared dead by Dr. Kemp Clark, the UT Southwestern neurosurgery chairman, from a catastrophic head wound.
Dr. Robert McClelland was the last surgeon to attend Kennedy in Trauma Room 1. McClelland, a longtime friend and Parkland and UT Southwestern colleague of Perry's, remembers that the shock of realizing whom they were treating faded quickly when they entered the trauma room.
"At Parkland we're accustomed, all of us are, to treating many different cases," McClelland told The Associated Press on Monday. "Of course, it's the president," he said. Was it hard to put that aside? "No, not really. Everything was so rapidly happening that we were called on the peak of the moment."
Perry told the commission that the neck wound Kennedy suffered from the sniper's first rifle shot would likely have not been fatal. However, he testified that neither he nor Clark could tell from their examinations from where the bullets came.
The vascular surgeon also was one of the doctors to operate on presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, who was shot two days after Kennedy's death by Jack Ruby.
After a long career, Perry retired in 2000 as professor emeritus of surgery at UT Southwestern. But McClelland, now 80, said that after the assassination his friend never mentioned their role in the case, and that they never discussed it even among themselves.
"No, we didn't, for reasons he kept to himself. Immediately after, he had a bad experience with interviews that hurt him deeply. Whenever the subject threatened to come up, he'd raise an eyebrow and that would be that," he said.
Perry was born in Allen, Texas, a once-tiny farming-and-railroad town about 20 miles north of Dallas that is now one of the city's fastest-growing suburbs. He was raised by his grandfather and namesake, Dr. Malcolm O. Perry I, a general practitioner in the small town.
Associated Press writer Jamie Stengle contributed to this report.
Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post here. Comments are subject to the site's terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Houston Chronicle. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
You must be logged in to comment. Login | Sign up
Report item as: (required) X
Comment: (optional)
* Most recommended comments
* Most recent comments
* Hide comments
JamesFetzer (0)
JamesFetzer wrote:
Quite a few years ago, I wrote to Malcolm Perry, M.D., in relation to his
experiences during the treatment of President John F. Kennedy. Because
I was aware of his contemporaneous reports about the wound the the throat
as well as the wound to the head, I was acutely distressed by the letter that
I received in reply. It was a handwritten letter on lined paper that affirmed
THE WARREN REPORT (1964) in describing the throat wound as an exit
wound. This saddened me, having read the Parkland Press Conference, which
to the throat as "an entrance wound", as "a wound of entrance", and said
and published in a peer-reviewed international journal. It is easily available.
Recommend: (3) (0) [Report abuse]
Guest Tom Scully
In a two minute audio interview segment, Dr. Perry distorts the statment he gave to the press on November 22, 1963, claiming he qualified his "from the front" assertion with additional remarks that there are no record of him making. They do not exist in the transript.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFEoAmF4SbM
All of us make our own legacy. This is now part of Dr. Perry's legacy; his "gift" (of touchiness and "spin") to his grandchildren, and to the nation! Upon his death yesterday, he joins a small army of his contemporaries; all gone to the grave with their reputations forever tainted by their suppression of the truth, as the record indicates they once knew it, even stated it, to actually be.
Nice point, Tom. In his handwritten letter to me (which I will post if I can track it down), he said that eventually the transcript of the Parkland Press Conference would be published and the truth would be known. He meant, of course, that it would substantiate the correction of the record that he maintained in this later years. The transcript was published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE in 1998 and the truth is accessible to us all. Unfortunately, as you observe, Dr. Perry had abandoned the truth some time long ago.
From: Mantik, David W.
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 7:13 PM
To: letters@latimes.com
Cc: Mantik, David W.
Subject: Malcolm Perry, MD, Obituary
In Perry's obituary, I was acutely disappointed that you called Oswald the assassin. He was only convicted by the Warren Commission and the media, but never in court. In fact, the last government investigation (by Congress) described the assassination as a "probable conspiracy." Since when does the media decide who is a criminal?
Malcolm Perry, himself, at his famous press conference (11/22/63), said three times that the throat shot came from the front. Readers would do well to buy Doug Horne's book, Inside the ARRB, released just last week. He is the first employee from an official government commission to state in print that there was a massive cover-up in the medical evidence. In fact, that's what happened. Google my own work at the National Archives: 20 Conclusions after 9 Visits.
David W. Mantik, MD, PhD
PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:


I cannot test for this (and no one has complaint) but I am wondering if there are instances where the forms will not display on someone's browser because of a firewall or something else?
It is possible that forms may be blocked because of the high level security on the firewall. Another cause is the broswer settings. Forms created with JotForm makes use of Java Script for validation this has to be enabled in the browser otherwise it would cause an issue.


text:
Radeon Rx 200 series
(Redirected from AMD Radeon Rx 200 series)
This article is about the GPU series announced in 2013. For the similarly named series, released in 2001 by ATI, see R200.
The AMD Radeon R5/R7/R9 200 series is a family of GPUs developed by AMD. These GPUs are manufactured on a 28 nm Gate-Last process through TSMC or Common Platform Alliance.[11]
AMD Radeon R5/R7/R9 200 Series
October 8, 2013; 6 years ago (October 8, 2013)
Sea Islands
Volcanic Islands
TeraScale 2
GCN 1st gen
GCN 2nd gen
GCN 3rd gen
Radeon R5 235X
Radeon R9 295X2
Direct3D 12.0 (feature level 12_0) (GCN version) [1]
Shader Model 6.0
OpenCL 2.0 (GCN version) [2]
OpenGL 4.5 (4.6 Windows 7+ and Adrenalin 18.4.1+)[3] [4] [5] [6][7]
Vulkan 1.1 (GCN only) [8] [9] [10]
SPIR-V
Radeon HD 7000 series
Radeon R5/R7/R9 300 series
1 Release
2.1 Multi-monitor support
2.2 AMD TrueAudio
2.3 Video acceleration
2.4 Use in cryptocurrency mining
2.5 CrossFire Compatibility
2.6 Virtual super resolution support
2.7 OpenCL (API)
2.8 Vulkan (API)
3 Desktop models
3.1 Radeon R9 295X2
3.2 Radeon R9 290X
3.3 Radeon R9 290
4 Chipset table
4.1 Desktop models
4.2 Mobile models
5 Radeon Feature Matrix
6 Graphics device drivers
6.1 AMD's proprietary graphics device driver "Catalyst"
6.2 Free and open-source graphics device driver "Radeon"
ReleaseEdit
The Rx 200 series was announced on September 25, 2013, at the AMD GPU14 Tech Day event.[12] Non-disclosure agreements were lifted on October 15, except for the R9 290X, and pre-orders opened on October 3.[13]
ArchitectureEdit
This article is about all products under the AMD Radeon Rx 200 Series brand.
A GPU implementing Graphics Core Next 3 (Volcanic Islands) is found on the R9 285 (Tonga Pro) branded products.
A GPU implementing Graphics Core Next 2 (Sea Islands) is found on R7 260 (Bonaire), R7 260X (Bonaire XTX), R9 290 (Hawaii Pro), R9 290X (Hawaii XT), and R9 295X2 (Vesuvius) branded products.
A GPU implementing Graphics Core Next 1 (Southern Islands) is found on R9 270, 270X, 280, 280X, R7 240, 250, 250X, 265, and R5 240 branded products.
A GPU implementing TeraScale 2 (VLIW5) (Northern Islands or Evergreen) is found on R5 235X and "below" branded products.
OpenGL 4.x compliance requires supporting FP64 shaders. These are implemented by emulation on some TeraScale (microarchitecture) GPUs.
Vulkan 1.0 requires GCN-Architecture. Vulkan 1.1 requires actual 2nd Gen. of GCN or higher.[14]
Multi-monitor supportEdit
Main article: AMD Eyefinity
The AMD Eyefinity-branded on-die display controllers were introduced in September 2009 in the Radeon HD 5000 Series and have been present in all products since.[15]
AMD TrueAudioEdit
Main article: AMD TrueAudio
AMD TrueAudio was introduced with the AMD Radeon Rx 200 Series, but can only be found on the dies of GCN 2/3 products.
Video accelerationEdit
AMD's SIP core for video acceleration, Unified Video Decoder and Video Coding Engine, are found on all GPUs and supported by AMD Catalyst and by the free and open-source graphics device driver.
Use in cryptocurrency miningEdit
During 2014 the Radeon R9 200 series GPUs offered a very competitive price for usage in cryptocurrency mining. This led to limited supply and huge price increases of up to 164% over the MSRP in Q4 of 2013 and Q1 of 2014.[16][17] Since Q2 of 2018 availability of AMD GPUs as well as pricing has, in most cases, returned to normal.
CrossFire CompatibilityEdit
Because many of the products in the range are rebadged versions of Radeon HD products, they remain compatible with the original versions when used in CrossFire mode. For example, the Radeon HD 7770 and Radeon R7 250X both use the 'Cape Verde XT' chip so have identical specifications and will work in CrossFire mode. This provides a useful upgrade option for anyone who owns an existing Radeon HD card and has a CrossFire compatible motherboard.
Virtual super resolution supportEdit
Starting with the driver release candidate version v14.501-141112a-177751E, officially named as Catalyst Omega, AMD's driver release introduced VSR on the R9 285 and R9 290 series graphics cards. This feature allows users to run games with higher image quality by rendering frames at above native resolution. Each frame is then downsampled to native resolution. This process is an alternative to supersampling which is not supported by all games. Virtual super resolution is similar to Dynamic Super Resolution, a feature available on competing nVidia graphics cards, but trades flexibility for increased performance.[18][19] VSR can run at a resolution upwards of 2048 x 1536 at a 120Hz refresh rate or 3840 x 2400 at 60Hz.[20]
OpenCL (API)Edit
OpenCL accelerates many scientific Software Packages against CPU up to factor 10 or 100 and more. Open CL 1.0 to 1.2 are supported for all Chips with Terascale and GCN Architecture. OpenCL 2.0 is supported with GCN 2nd Gen. or 1.2 and higher)[21] For OpenCL 2.1 and 2.2 only Driver Updates are necessary with OpenCL 2.0 conformant Cards.
Vulkan (API)Edit
API Vulkan 1.0 is supported for all with GCN Architecture. Vulkan 1.1 (GCN 2nd Gen. or 1.2 and higher) will be supported with actual drivers in 2018.[21]
Desktop modelsEdit
Radeon R9 295X2Edit
The Radeon R9 295X2 was released on April 21, 2014. It is a dual GPU card. Press samples were shipped in a metal case. It is the first reference card to utilize a closed looped liquid cooler.[22][23] At 11.5 teraflops of computing power, the R9 295X2 was the most powerful dual-gpu consumer-oriented card in the world, until it was succeeded by the Radeon Pro Duo on April 26, 2016, which is essentially a combination of two (2) R9 Fury X (Fiji XT) GPUs on a single card.[22] The most powerful GPU now is the Nvidia Quadro RTX 6000[24]. The R9 295x2 has essentially two R9 290x (Hawaii XT) GPUs each with 4GB GDDR5 VRAM. [22]
Radeon R9 290XEdit
A R9 290X by Sapphire
The Radeon R9 290X, codename "Hawaii XT", was released on October 24, 2013 and features 2816 Stream Processors, 176 TMUs, 64 ROPs, 512-bit wide buses, 44 CUs (compute units) and 8 ACE units. The R9 290X had a launch price of $549.
Radeon R9 290Edit
The Radeon R9 290 and R9 290X were announced on September 25, 2013.[25][26] The R9 290 is based on AMD's Hawaii Pro chip and R9 290X on Hawaii XT. R9 290 and R9 290X will support AMD TrueAudio, Mantle, Direct3D 11.2, and bridge-free Crossfire technology using XDMA. A limited "Battlefield 4 Edition" pre-order bundle of R9 290X that includes Battlefield 4 was available on October 3, 2013, with reported quantity being 8,000. The R9 290 had a launch price of $399.
The Radeon R9 285 was announced on August 23, 2014 at AMD's 30 years of graphics celebration and released September 2, 2014. It was the first card to feature AMD's GCN 3 microarchitecture, in the form of a Tonga-series GPU.
Radeon R9 280X was announced on September 25, 2013. With a launch price of $299, it is based on the Tahiti XTL chip, being a slightly upgraded, rebranded Radeon HD 7970 GHz Edition.
Radeon R9 280 was announced on March 4, 2014. With a launch MSRP set at $279, it is based on a rebranded Radeon HD 7950 with an increased clock speed, from 725 MHz to 975 MHz.[27][failed verification]
Radeon R9 270X was announced on September 25, 2013. With a launch price of $199, it is based on the Curaçao XT chip, which was formerly called Pitcairn.[28] It is speculated to be faster than a Radeon HD 7870 GHz edition. Radeon R9 270 has a launch price of $179.
Radeon R7 260X was announced on September 25, 2013. With a launch price of $139, it is based on the Bonaire XTX chip, a faster iteration of Bonaire XT that the Radeon HD 7790 is based on. It will have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory as standard and will also feature TrueAudio, on-chip audio DSP based on Tensilica HiFi EP architecture. The stock card features a boost clock of 1100 MHz. It has 2 GBs of GDDR5 memory with a 6.5 GHz memory clock over a 128-bit Interface. The 260X will draw around 115 W in typical use.[29][30]
Radeon R7 250 was announced on September 25, 2013. It has a launch price of $89.[29] The card is based on the Oland core with 384 GCN cores. In February 10, 2014, AMD announced the R7 250X which is based on the Cape Verde GPU with 640 GCN cores and an MSRP of $99.[31]
Chipset tableEdit
(codename)
& Price
& Fab
& Die Size
Fillrate[a][b][c]
Processing power[a][d]
(GFLOPS)
Config[e]
Clock[a] (MHz)
Texture (GT/s)
Pixel (GP/s)
& width
Size (MiB)
Clock (MT/s)
Band-
width (GB/s)
R5 220[32]
(Caicos Pro)
OEM Terascale 2
40 nm 370×106
67 mm2 80:8:4 625
650 5 2.5 200 N/A DDR3
64-bit 1024 1066 8.53 18 W PCIe 2.1 ×16
April 3, 2014[34]
? 160:8:4 625 5 2.5 200 N/A DDR3
64-bit 1024
2048 1066 8.53 19 W[35]
(Caicos XT)
OEM 160:8:4 775 6.2 3.1 248 N/A DDR3
64-bit 1024 1800 14.4 35 W[36]
R5 235X[32]
64-bit 1024 1800 14.4 18 W
(Oland)
November 1, 2013[37]
OEM GCN 1st gen
28 nm 1040×106
90 mm2 384:24:8 730
780 14.6 5.84 560.6
599 29.2 DDR3
16.0 30 W PCIe 3.0 ×8
(Oland Pro)
US $69 320:20:8 730
499.2 29.2 DDR3
128-bit 2048
72 30 W, <45 W (4 GB)[39]
(Oland XT)
US $89 384:24:8 1000
(1050) 24 8 768
806.4 48 DDR3
4600 73.6 75 W
R7 250E[40]
(Cape Verde Pro)
US $109 1500×106
123 mm2 512:32:16 800 25.6 12.8 819.2 51.2 GDDR5
2048 4500 72 55 W PCIe 3.0 ×16
(Cape Verde XT)
US $99 640:40:16 1000 40 16 1280 80 GDDR5
2048 4500 72 95 W
(Bonaire)
US $109 GCN 2nd gen
160 mm2 768:48:16 1000 48 16 1536 96 GDDR5
128-bit 1024 6000 96 95 W
(Bonaire XTX)
US $139 896:56:16 1100 61.6 17.6 1971.2 123.2 GDDR5
2048 6500 104 115 W
(Pitcairn Pro)
US $149 GCN 1st gen
212 mm2 1024:64:32 900
925 57.6 28.8 1843.2 115.2 GDDR5
256-bit 2048 5600 179.2 150 W
(Pitcairn XT)
US $179 1280:80:32 900
925 72 28.8 2304
148 GDDR5
R9 270X)[41]
US $199 1280:80:32 1000
4096 5600 179.2 180 W
(Tahiti Pro)
352 mm2 1792:112:32 827
933 92.6 26.5 2964
3343.9 741
384-bit 3072 5000 240 250 W
(Tahiti XTL)[42]
US $299 2048:128:32 850
1000 109–128 27.2–32 3481.6
1024 GDDR5
(Tonga Pro)
US $249 GCN 3rd gen
359 mm2 [43] 1792:112:32 918 102.8 29.4 3290 206.6[44] GDDR5
256-bit 2048 5500 176[f] 190 W
(Tonga XT)
Unreleased [46] 2048:128:32 1002 128.3 32.1 4104 256.5 GDDR5
(Hawaii Pro)
438 mm2 [47] 2560:160:64 up to 947[g] 151.52 60.608 4848.6 606.1 GDDR5
512-bit 4096 5000 320 250 W[49]
(Hawaii XT)
US $549 2816:176:64 1000[g] 176 64 5632 704 GDDR5
8192 5000 320 250 W[49]
R9 295X2[41][51]
(Vesuvius)
US $1499 2× 6200×106
2× 438 mm2 2× 2816:176:64 1018 358.33 130.3 11466.75 1433.34 GDDR5
512-bit 2× 4096 5000 2× 320 500 W
^ a b c d e f Boost values (if available) are stated below the base value in italic.
^ a b Texture fillrate is calculated as the number of Texture Mapping Units multiplied by the base (or boost) core clock speed.
^ a b Pixel fillrate is calculated as the number of Render Output Units multiplied by the base (or boost) core clock speed.
^ a b Precision performance is calculated from the base (or boost) core clock speed based on a FMA operation.
^ a b Unified Shaders : Texture Mapping Units : Render Output Units
^ The R9 285 utilizes loss-less colour compression which can increase effective memory performance (relative to GCN 1st gen and 2nd gen cards) in certain situations.[43][45]
^ a b Base clock of R9 290 and R9 290X will maintain at 947 MHz and 1000 MHz before reaching 95 °C, respectively.[48]
Mobile modelsEdit
(Fab)
Size (GiB)
R5 M230
(Jet Pro)
January 2014 GCN 1st gen
(28 nm) 320:20:8:5 780
855 3.4 17.1 547 DDR3
64-bit 2
4 1000 16 Unknown
June 2014 320:20:8:5 925
(Topaz)
23.5 549.1
752.6 DDR3
R7 M260X
(Opal)
715 5.7 17.2 549 GDDR5
128-bit 2
(Opal XT)
May 2014 384:24:8:6 725
825 6.6 19.8 633.6 DDR3
(Venus Pro)
May 2014 640:40:16:10 575
625 10 25 800 GDDR5
(Venus XT)
775 12.4 31 992 GDDR5
(Venus XTX)
925 14.8 37 1184 GDDR5
4 1125 72 50 W
(Saturn XT)
February 2015 GCN 2nd gen
(28 nm) 896:56:16:14 1000
1100 17.6 61.6 1792 GDDR5
4 1500 96 ~75 W
(Neptune XT)
May 2014 GCN 1st gen
(28 nm) 1280:80:32:20 850
900 28.8 72 2176
256-bit 4 1200 153.6 100 W
(Amethyst XT)
November 2014 GCN 3rd gen
(28 nm) 2048:128:32:32 750
800 25.6 102.4 3276.8 GDDR5
256-bit 4 1375 176 250 W
^ a b c Boost values (if available) are stated below the base value in italic.
^ Texture fillrate is calculated as the number of Texture Mapping Units multiplied by the base (or boost) core clock speed.
^ Pixel fillrate is calculated as the number of Render Output Units multiplied by the base (or boost) core clock speed.
^ Precision performance is calculated from the base (or boost) core clock speed based on a FMA operation.
^ Unified Shaders : Texture Mapping Units : Render Output Units
Radeon Feature MatrixEdit
The following table shows features of AMD's Radeon-branded GPUs (see also: List of AMD graphics processing units).
[ VisualEditor ] [
Name of GPU series
Islands/Polaris
Apr 2000 Aug 2001 Sep 2002 May 2004 Oct 2005 May 2007 Nov 2007 Jun 2008 Sep 2009 Oct 2010 Jan 2012 Sep 2013 Jun 2015 Jun 2016 Jun 2017 Jul 2019
Radeon 7000 Radeon 8000 Radeon 9000 Radeon X700/X800 Radeon X1000 Radeon HD 1000/2000 Radeon HD 3000 Radeon HD 4000 Radeon HD 5000 Radeon HD 6000 Radeon HD 7000 Radeon Rx 200 Radeon Rx 300 Radeon RX 400/500 Radeon RX Vega/Radeon VII(7nm) Radeon RX 5000
AMD support
Not publicly known[citation needed] TeraScale instruction set GCN instruction set RDNA instruction set
TeraScale 1 TeraScale 2 (VLIW5) TeraScale 3 (VLIW4) GCN 1st gen GCN 2nd gen GCN 3rd gen GCN 4th gen GCN 5th gen RDNA
Fixed pipeline[a] Programmable pixel & vertex pipelines Unified shader model
11 (9_2) 9.0b
11 (9_2) 9.0c
11 (9_3) 10.0
11 (10_0) 10.1
11 (10_1) 11 (11_0) 11 (11_1)
12 (11_1) 11 (12_0)
12 (12_1)
N/A 1.4 2.0+ 2.0b 3.0 4.0 4.1 5.0 5.1 5.1
1.3 2.0[b] 3.3 4.5 (on Linux 4.2)[52][5][6][c] 4.6 (on Linux: 4.5+)
(Win 7+ or Mesa 17+) 1.1
N/A Close to Metal 1.1 1.2 2.0 (Adrenalin driver on Win7+)
1.2 (on Linux, 2.0 and 2.1 WIP mostly in Linux ROCm) ?
Video decoding ASIC
N/A Avivo/UVD UVD+ UVD 2 UVD 2.2 UVD 3 UVD 4 UVD 4.2 UVD 5.0 or 6.0 UVD 6.3 UVD 7[53][d] VCN 2.0[53][d]
Video encoding ASIC
N/A VCE 1.0 VCE 2.0 VCE 3.0 or 3.1 VCE 3.4 VCE 4.0[53][d]
? PowerPlay PowerTune PowerTune & ZeroCore Power ?
TrueAudio
N/A Via dedicated DSP Via shaders
N/A 1
HDCP[e]
? 1.4 1.4
PlayReady[e]
Supported displays[f]
1–2 2 2–6 ?
Max. resolution
? 2–6 ×
2560×1600 2–6 ×
4096×2160 @ 60 Hz 2–6 ×
5120×2880 @ 60 Hz 3 ×
7680×4320 @ 60 Hz[54] ?
/drm/radeon[g]
/drm/amdgpu[g]
N/A Experimental[55]
^ The Radeon 100 Series has programmable pixel shaders, but do not fully comply with DirectX 8 or Pixel Shader 1.0. See article on R100's pixel shaders.
^ These series do not fully comply with OpenGL 2+ as the hardware does not support all types of non-power of two (NPOT) textures.
^ OpenGL 4+ compliance requires supporting FP64 shaders and these are emulated on some TeraScale chips using 32-bit hardware.
^ a b c The UVD and VCE were replaced by the Video Core Next (VCN) ASIC in the Raven Ridge APU implementation of Vega.
^ a b To play protected video content, it also requires card, operating system, driver, and application support. A compatible HDCP display is also needed for this. HDCP is mandatory for the output of certain audio formats, placing additional constraints on the multimedia setup.
^ More displays may be supported with native DisplayPort connections, or splitting the maximum resolution between multiple monitors with active converters.
^ a b DRM (Direct Rendering Manager) is a component of the Linux kernel. Support in this table refers to the most current version.
Graphics device driversEdit
AMD's proprietary graphics device driver "Catalyst"Edit
Main article: AMD Catalyst
AMD Catalyst is being developed for Microsoft Windows and Linux. As of July 2014, other operating system are not officially supported. This may be different for the AMD FirePro brand, which is based on identical hardware but features OpenGL-certified graphics device drivers.
AMD Catalyst supports of course all features advertised for the Radeon brand.
Free and open-source graphics device driver "Radeon"Edit
Main article: free and open-source "radeon" graphics device driver
The free and open-source drivers are primarily developed on Linux and for Linux, but have been ported to other operating systems as well. Each driver is composed out of five parts:
Linux kernel component DRM
Linux kernel component KMS driver: basically the device driver for the display controller
user-space component libDRM
user-space component in Mesa 3D;
a special and distinct 2D graphics device driver for X.Org Server, which if finally about to be replaced by Glamor
The free and open-source "Radeon" graphics driver supports most of the features implemented into the Radeon line of GPUs.[6] Unlike the nouveau project for Nvidia graphics cards, the open-source "Radeon" drivers are not reverse engineered, but based on documentation released by AMD.[56]
AMD FireMV
AMD FireStream
List of AMD graphics processing units
^ "AMD Catalyst™ 15.7.1 Driver for Windows® Release Notes". AMD. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ "AMD OpenCL™ 2.0 Driver". AMD. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ "AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition 16.3 Release Notes". AMD. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ "AMDGPU-PRO Driver for Linux Release Notes". 2016. Archived from the original on 2016-12-11. Retrieved 2018-04-23.
^ a b "Mesamatrix". mesamatrix.net. Retrieved 2018-04-22.
^ a b c "RadeonFeature". X.Org Foundation. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ https://www.geeks3d.com/20180501/amd-adrenalin-18-4-1-graphics-driver-released-opengl-4-6-vulkan-1-1-70/
^ "Radeon Software Adrenalin Edition 18.3.4 Release Notes". AMD. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ "Radeon™ Software for Linux® with Vulkan® 1.1 support". AMD. Retrieved 2018-04-21.
^ "AMD Open Source Driver for Vulkan". GPUOpen. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ "AMD Launches Next Generation Volcanic Islands (VI) GPUs in 2014 - Successor to Sea Islands". WCCFtech.
^ Ryan Smith. "AMD Announces Next Generation Radeon R7 and R9 Video Cards". anandtech.com.
^ Sebastian Pop (30 September 2013). "Launch Date Revealed for AMD Radeon R9 290X Hawaii Graphics Card". softpedia.
^ https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products#submission_318
^ "AMD Eyefinity: FAQ". AMD. 2011-05-17. Retrieved 2014-07-02.
^ Ryan Smith. "Radeon R9 290X Retail Prices Hit $900". anandtech.com.
^ "AMD graphics card pricing skyrockets due to cryptocurrency mining, could kill AMD's gaming efforts". ExtremeTech.
^ Smith, Ryan. "The AMD Radeon R9 Fury X Review". Anandtech. Purch. p. 8. Retrieved 19 August 2015.
^ Kowaliski, Cyril. "Catalyst Omega driver adds more than 20 features, 400 bug fixes". TechReport.com. Retrieved 31 May 2017.
^ "AMD's Virtual Super Resolution Explained". Levvvel. Retrieved 23 December 2019.
^ a b https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products
^ a b c AMD Radeon R9 Series Graphics Archived April 14, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
^ Ryan Smith. "Meet the Radeon R9 295X2: Cooling & Power Delivery - The AMD Radeon R9 295X2 Review". anandtech.com.
^ "NVIDIA's Quadro RTX 6000 should be the most powerful laptop GPU ever". Engadget. Retrieved 2019-10-22.
^ "What to expect from GPU14 event in Hawaii". Retrieved 25 September 2013.
^ "AMD GPU Lineup Announced: R9 and R7 Series". pcper.com.
^ Ryan Smith. "AMD Announces Radeon R9 280: Radeon HD 7950 w/Boost Returns". anandtech.com.
^ Woligroski, Don. "AMD Radeon R9 270 Review: Replacing The Radeon HD 7800s". TomsHardware.com. Retrieved 12 November 2013.
^ a b "AMD Releases R7 Series Graphics Cards With AMD Radeon R7 240, AMD Radeon R7 250 and AMD Radeon R7 260X GPUs". Advanced Micro Devices. Retrieved 29 November 2013.
^ Ung, Gordon Mah (8 October 2013). "Everything You Wanted to Know About AMD's New TrueAudio Technology". maximumpc. Archived from the original on 11 July 2014. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
^ Ryan Smith. "AMD Announces Radeon R7 250X; Shipping Today". anandtech.com.
^ a b c d "Radeon™ R5 Series Graphics Cards | OEM | AMD". www.amd.com. Retrieved 2017-03-13.
^ "Radeon™ R5 Series Graphics Cards | AMD". www.amd.com. Retrieved 2017-02-19.
^ btarunr (3 April 2014). "AMD Launches Radeon R5 230 in the Retail Channel, Gigabyte Outs its Offering". TechPowerUp. Retrieved 14 April 2014.
^ Wiles, Debbie (4 April 2014). "AMD Launches Radeon R5 230 for Retail Market". CPU-World.com. Retrieved 14 April 2014.
^ "AMD Radeon R5 235 OEM". TechPowerUp. Retrieved 10 July 2015.
^ "AMD Radeon R5 240 OEM". TechPowerUp. Retrieved 30 January 2016.
^ a b c d e f "Radeon™ R7 Series Graphics Cards | AMD". www.amd.com. Retrieved 2017-02-19.
^ [1][dead link]
^ "AMD Radeon R7 250E". TechPowerUp. Retrieved 5 January 2016.
^ a b c d e f g h "Radeon™ R9 Series Graphics Cards | AMD". www.amd.com. Retrieved 2017-02-19.
^ Mujtaba, Hassan (26 October 2013). "AMD Preparing Tahiti XTL Revision of Radeon R9 280X Graphic Card for November Release". WCCFtech.com. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
^ a b Sandhu, Tarinder (2 September 2014). "Review: Sapphire Radeon R9 285 Dual-X OC (28nm Tonga)". Hexus. Retrieved 11 September 2014.
^ Smith, Ryan (10 September 2014). "AMD Radeon R9 285 Review: Feat. Sapphire R9 285 Dual-X OC". AnandTech. Purch Group. p. 17. Retrieved 11 September 2014.
^ Hruska, Joel (2 September 2014). "AMD Radeon R9 285 review: The GCN 3rd gen Torpedo that Takes out Nvidia's GTX 760". ExtremeTech. Ziff Davis. Retrieved 11 September 2014.
^ "AMD Radeon R9 285X spotted". Retrieved 10 January 2019.
^ Smith, Ryan (24 October 2013). "The AMD Radeon R9 290X Review". AnandTech. Purch Group. Retrieved 24 October 2013.
^ Angelini, Chris (5 November 2013). "AMD Radeon R9 290 Review: Fast and $400, But is it Consistent?". Tom's Hardware. Purch Group. Retrieved 6 November 2013.
^ a b Moammer, Khalid (21 June 2015). "AMD R9 Nano Performance Indirectly Revealed – More Compute Power than a Titan X". WCCFtech.com. Retrieved 25 July 2015.
^ Gareth, Halfacree (6 November 2014). "AMD board partners launch R9 290X 8GB models". bit-tech.net. Retrieved 15 June 2018.
^ Shilov, Anton (4 April 2014). "AMD Radeon R9 295 X2: Final Specs Out, Card may not Fit into All PCs". KitGuru. Korona Solutions. Retrieved 6 April 2014.
^ "AMD Radeon Software Crimson Edition Beta". AMD. Retrieved 2018-04-20.
^ a b c Killian, Zak (22 March 2017). "AMD publishes patches for Vega support on Linux". Tech Report. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
^ "Radeon's next-generation Vega architecture" (PDF). Radeon Technologies Group (AMD). Retrieved 13 June 2017.
^ Larabel, Michael (7 December 2016). "The Best Features of the Linux 4.9 Kernel". Phoronix. Retrieved 7 December 2016.
^ "AMD Developer Guides". Archived from the original on 2013-07-16. Retrieved 2014-07-14.
TechPowerUp! GPU Database
AMD Radeon R9 Series Graphics
GPU14 Tech Day Public Presentation.pdf
AMD Announces FirePro W9100
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radeon_Rx_200_series&oldid=932090698"

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
A Constitution for the Living
Imagining How Five Generations of Americans Would Rewrite the Nation's Fundamental Law
Beau Breslin
Contents and Abstracts
1 1787: An Introduction
chapter abstract
The introduction sets up the premise of the book by recounting the true story of a famous dinner party hosted by Thomas Jefferson. The 1789 dinner, which took place in Paris, included four prominent guests. The topic of conversation that night was constitutionalism. It was here that Jefferson discussed an argument he made to James Madison about the value of generational constitutions. For Jefferson, the "earth belongs to the living," by which he meant that every generation has a right to draft its own constitutional text. A Constitution that endures beyond the age of a single generation is the very definition of tyranny, Jefferson argued. One generation simply cannot dictate to another what its political and social priorities ought to be.
The narrative of the first imaginary Constitutional Convention in 1825 includes characters such as Daniel Webster, Martin van Buren, John Gaillard, Horatio Seymour, and Jefferson himself. The Convention pits the Jacksonian Democrats, who favor a more populist agenda, against the Federalists (like Webster) who prefer a more traditionalist, conservative world view. The Jacksonian Democrats will triumph in this duel, and the Federalists will fade from the political scene. The topics discussed at this imaginary Convention include electoral college reform, extending the vote to all white men, the proper placement of a Bill of Rights, federal protection of a potential right to education, and the increasing power of an independent judiciary.
The imaginary 1863 Constitutional Convention takes place at the midpoint of the American Civil War. Convention delegates begin by relocating away from the hostilities, up the Atlantic coast to Boston. They issue invitations to the states of the Confederacy, but they receive no response. In Boston, many constitutional questions are explored, including whether to extend suffrage to the freed slaves and whether to establish a "freedman's bureau." In the end, the Convention agrees to draft clauses that emancipate the slaves, guarantee their equal rights, and grant them the right to vote. The Convention also covers issues of apportionment and the need for loyalty oaths should the Confederate states rejoin the Union. Talk, at the end, turns to ratification and how to get the southern states to acknowledge the authority of a Constitution they had no hand in drafting.
Back in Philadelphia, the 1903 imaginary Constitutional Convention begins with a recognition that the 1863 Constitution—the Constitution of the prior generation—has failed. On the minds of delegates are the financial panic of the late nineteenth-century, Reconstruction and Redemption, the plight of the everyday worker, and the increasingly imperialist nature of American foreign policy. This is the first Constitutional Convention to include people of color, though no women are invited. Even so, the delegation takes up the women's suffrage movement's call and simultaneously exposes a clandestine "southern strategy" to dilute the Black vote. Booker T. Washington and Quanah Parker are important players in the crafting of the 1903 Constitution.
The world is changing. In fact, it changes so dramatically in the first half of the twentieth century that the 1953 Constitutional Convention delegates choose to explore major topics such as federalism, term limits for the President, the lingering effects of slavery and racism, and the importance of unanimous state ratification. The draft Constitution that emerges from these proceedings will be the longest in American history, including in it a number of minute provisions. The 1953 gathering is perhaps best remembered as the first to include women.
The 2022 Constitutional Convention emerges from of a quasi-crowdsourcing process, not the only invention of this particular assembly. The selection process for delegates is dramatically changed, with the bulk of the Convention-goers elected directly by the people of each state. Proposals are made to reimagine the "undemocratic" Senate and to alter the Presidential term to a single six-year stint. Other proposals include the introduction of a third branch of Congress—the National Assembly—as well as term limits for Congressmembers, a constitutional right to a protected environment, and an alteration of the right to bear arms. The Convention gets bogged down in a debate over the constitutionality of the right to privacy. It ends with an interesting modification of the text's famous Preamble.


text:
"Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's interpretation of the Constitution."
« Home | Kennedy Corrected » | No Right to Remove G-String » | Looking Back on Miers » | ABA Grudge, Part 2 » | I Have a Papercut Named Stanford » | Beer Review: Stone Cellar Marquette Pilsner » | I Have a Headache Named Kennedy » | Posner the Poet » | Have a Seat » | Deputy Lawsuit Will Go Forward »
Praise for Roberts and Things to Come
After Ted Kennedy and Gregory Stanford whined about the Court and its new members, I thought it would be good to post some praise for Chief Justice John Roberts. Writing in The American Lawyer, Slate's resident smarmy legal commentator Dahlia Lithwick has a lot of good things to say about the Chief. Take a look...
Let me confess that Roberts had me-an unrepentant old-school liberal-at hello. He is handsome and mild, and those two small children of his are adorable. He has proven to be both hilariously funny and self-deprecating on the bench. And he has none of the pretensions of his predecessor: no stripes, no snarling at oral advocates, and no Court security officers hunting down rumpled reporters who mistakenly believe that office casual can pass for courtroom attire. But what Roberts has done, far more cannily than Rehnquist, is to use the media to get across his judicial philosophy.
Lithwick then praises the Chief for changing the tone of the Court and helping the public see its members in a new light...
Not only has Roberts removed the gilded bars from his robe, but he's removed them from around himself. He has been known to take the subway to work. He brings his own lunch. A colleague of mine reported with glee that Roberts was at his own front door handing out candy last Halloween. He smiles at the attorneys being sworn in to the Supreme Court bar before oral argument. These are not inconsequential achievements. Roberts knew it was time to humanize the Court, but he has done so without in any way demeaning it.
Lithwick also repeats the praise given by Justice O'Connor, Professor Douglas Kmiec, and even People for the American Way (I bet it hurt for them to make those comments). While nice to hear, we've heard these compliments before from many sources. I want to focus on another comment in the piece...
In light of the cert grants for the next term, there is no doubt that the Roberts court is willing to take another look at some of O'Connor's legal architecture (notably, regarding affirmative action and partial birth abortion), and to take on new issues, including the Environmental Protection Agency's duty to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
That one sentence is easy to gloss over in a glowing piece about Roberts, but I think it is an incredibly important and astute observation by Lithwick. The next term is the first full term with the new Court. Justice O'Connor spent about half of the last term on the Court while Justice Alito was being confirmed. By granting cert in affirmative action and partial birth abortion cases, certain members of the Court have made it clear that O'Connor's work is not sacred. Legal battles like those two are not finished. It is certainly possible that the PBA case will come out differently, and it is possible that the Court will take a slightly different view in the affirmative action case (although, the case itself is quite different than the previous AA ones).
This is one of the reasons that I doubt the "Roberts is a minimalist" line. Lithwick repeats it, Prof. Cass Sunstein popularized it, and it's made its way into the legal discourse. I think that Roberts has charmed these people. That combined with his relatively short appeals court record didn't give commentators much to work with for predictive analysis. He will go for the consensus decision when he can, crafting a strong majority if it's within reach. But he's not going to be manipulated by his colleagues on the Court. He has strong opinions about the law and will dissent forcefully if necessary (Ex. Georgia v Randolph). If he and others on the Court believe that O'Connor's vote resulted in an incorrect decision, I believe that the Court will take on these issues again, especially if it's a case where Justice Kennedy disagreed with O'Connor.
10:06 PM | Permalink
I'm Steve
From Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." P.J. O'Rourke
Kennedy Corrected
No Right to Remove G-String
Looking Back on Miers
ABA Grudge, Part 2
I Have a Papercut Named Stanford
Beer Review: Stone Cellar Marquette Pilsner
I Have a Headache Named Kennedy
Posner the Poet
Deputy Lawsuit Will Go Forward
The Least Worst of Eminent Domain
Agrestic
Bob Bauer
Gary Becker and Richard Posner
Boots & Sabers
CCAP
Confirm Them
Simon Dodd
Environmental Law Prof
Rick Esenberg
Food Law Prof Blog
Georgetown Law Faculty
Green Bag
David Harsanyi
Allison Hayward
Law Blog Metrics
Letters in Bottles
Tucker Max
John McAdams
Milwaukee Federalist Society
MULS Federalist Society
Property Prof Blog
Rick Sincere
Stubborn Facts
That's What She Said
U of Chicago Law Faculty
Underneath Their Robes
WI Statutes
WisBar
Dennis York
and Blogger Templates


i3pystatus - extensible i3status replacement with many modules and very flexible configuration. Multi-threaded and lock-up free.
By default, when you close a window, the buffer with the clipboard info will dissapear. You have to use a clipboard manager like "Parcellite" to avoid that.