Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer on Black Op: The HSCA testimony of Thomas Canning


Recommended Posts

Here is a link to my most recent appearance on Black Op radio. Host Len Osanic and I discussed the 1978 testimony of a trajectory expert named Thomas Canning, in which Canning claimed Governor Connally's and President Kennedy's wounds aligned with shots from the sniper's nest. After that we rambled on a bit about Bill O'Reilly and Marquette University professor John McAdams. It's pretty colorful stuff for those with an interest. (I apologize for all the "umms") On the second link below, Len has provided links to the visual exhibits I discuss in the show. This allows the listener to view the government exhibits I'm discussing, while I'm discussing them.
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black724b.mp3

http://blackopradio.com/archives2015.html
Black724b
blackopradio.com

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CTKA

Hear No Evil: Social Constructivism & the Forensic Evidence In the Kennedy Assassination

by Donald Byron Thomas

 

This is the true strength of the book and the reason why I believe it will be such a valuable contribution to the literature. Thomas shows that the problem is not the evidence but how it has been interpreted in the cause of "social constructivism." He explains how Alverez knowingly "rigged" his experiment to produce a "jet recoil effect." (Chapter 10) And how NASA rocket scientist, Thomas Canning, fudged the data and moved the President's wounds to make it appear that the bullet trajectories were consistent with a gunman in the sixth floor window. (Chapter 12) He proves that Vincent Guinn lied under oath and cherry-picked the ballistic data in order to pin the blame on Oswald. (Chapter 13) And he shows how the HSCA forensic pathology panel deliberately misrepresented JFK's head wound. (Chapter 8) In short, he demonstrates that there is no need to doubt its veracity because "the overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that there was a conspiracy." (p. 728) And he fits it all into a sound reconstruction of events that is sure to spark at least the occasional heated debate—but you'll have to buy the book to find out the details!

Links to information mentioned in this article:

Rydberg drawings of Kennedy's head wound

The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet by John Hunt

HSCA Pathology Panel (on the autopsy materials)

HSCA Public Hearings Exhibits

Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Analysis Proves Oswald's Guilt?
by Gary L. Aguilar (Erik Randich, Pat Grant, Cliff Spiegelman and William A. Tobin Study)

Early Papers on the Acoustic Evidence by Don Thomas

Luis Alverez' tests by Steward Galanor

Testimony of Dr. James Barger, 5 HSCA 650

 

 

#####################################################

Introduction to the 2013 Presentation on the HSCA

By James DiEugenio

Posted February 8, 2015

 

Further, many of the so-called scientific panels and experts that Blakey relied upon have also been called into serious question. For example, Vincent Guinn’s bullet lead analysis has today been completely discredited (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 71-76). Thomas Canning, his trajectory analyst, has also been undermined (Destiny Betrayed, p. 344). And Blakey accepted the so-called sniper’s nest evidence of the rifle and three shells. Further analysis has proven this evidence is dubious (ibid,, pgs. 343-44).

====================================

CTKA

Hear No Evil: Social Constructivism and the Forensic Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination
by Donald Byron Thomas

A Comprehensive Review: Part Two
by David Mantik

 

Chapter 12: Bullet Trajectory (p. 421)

This chapter is an effective annihilation of Thomas Canning’s trajectory work for the HSCA. Thomas goes into exquisite, and welcome, mathematical detail to expose Canning’s biases (social constructivism at work again, though Canning probably never heard that phrase). Thomas concludes that Canning’s analysis was thoroughly unscientific, even though in real life Canning was a rocket scientist. Canning’s analysis assumes, of course, that the magic bullet followed a straight line. However, the Forensic Pathology Panel had specifically advised the HSCA to avoid an analysis like Canning’s—because the data was too uncertain. Canning then proceeded to ignore this very advice. [DM: I have criticized Dale Myers for his computer reconstruction on these same grounds, i.e., uncertain data.] Thomas explicitly, and appropriately, chastises Canning for his bizarre concept of "the minimum reasonable margin of error," a concept that does not exist in standard practice. Canning’s chief concession though was this: the circle of potential error included parts of another building behind JFK! Of course, this statement was omitted from the final report. That would, after all, have opened the door to another gunman.

One of Canning’s chief uncertainties for the head shot was the degree of deflection. Thomas asks whether 5º was reasonable. If so, why not 10º or even 15º? (Of course, this logic applies also to Thomas’s own proposal of a GK shot exiting JFK’s right occiput—more later about that.) He returns to the paper cited above by Karl Sellier (1971). But now Thomas is a bit more specific: deflection increases "...with the hardness of the bullet, the hardness of the target, and the angle of strike." Deflections as great as 65º were reported by Sellier when bullets struck metal plates. Since Thomas has just cited the "angle of approach" to JFK’s head (from the GK) as 50-60º, he seems to suggest that this 65º deflection (with metal plates) is both noteworthy and pertinent to the JFK case. Thomas then introduces the notion of yaw, which is the angle between the bullet’s axis of spin and its momentum vector (direction of travel), with the implication that a significant yaw may have contributed to the large deflection of a GK shot. I found this entire argument less than convincing, especially in view of Cyril Wecht’s verdict, already cited above.

Thomas next tackles, in commendable detail, the trajectory of the neck wound. He concludes that the forward tilt of JFK, cited by Canning in order to facilitate the SBT, would require a man with the stature of Shaquille O’Neal (spelled "O’Neil"). His final conclusion though is that this type of trajectory analysis can neither prove nor disprove the SBT: "No precise alignment can be proven" because the data are simply too imprecise and the bullet track through tissue cannot now be known. I liked this conclusion very much—that’s just the way it is, but someone should tell Dale Myers.

My summary. The magic bullet is a fiction. So is any other single bullet. The throat wound and the back wound were caused by separate events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I've begun listening to the Black Op Radio program to which you link. I'm struck immediately, as Jim DiEugenio speaks, by how boldly the Warren Commission fudged and dissembled. I'm struck the same way by Steven Gaal's post infra.

The Warren Commission as a body lied boldly.

That tells me something. Their charge was to lie.

But why did Warren and Ford lie? (Dulles was a professional xxxx, so he's understandable.)

Did they think they had to? If so, did they think it was for the good of the country? I think so, on both counts.

I think they were afraid of where an honest investigation might lead. I don't think they had a clue who killed JFK or why, but they knew an honest investigation might lead to unacceptable conclusions. Being politicians, I believe, they chose the easiest path, the path of least resistance.

I think politicians, I know politicians, today would do the same thing.

Edited by Jon G. Tidd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I've begun listening to the Black Op Radio program to which you link. I'm struck immediately, as Jim DiEugenio speaks, by how boldly the Warren Commission fudged and dissembled. I'm struck the same way by Steven Gaal's post infra.

The Warren Commission as a body lied boldly.

That tells me something. Their charge was to lie.

But why did Warren and Ford lie? (Dulles was a professional xxxx, so he's understandable.)

Did they think they had to? If so, did they think it was for the good of the country? I think so, on both counts.

I think they were afraid of where an honest investigation might lead. I don't think they had a clue who killed JFK or why, but they knew an honest investigation might lead to unacceptable conclusions. Being politicians, I believe, they chose the easiest path, the path of least resistance.

I think politicians, I know politicians, today would do the same thing.

Their charge was to rubber stamp the FBI's "investigation."

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Your comment is compelling. The Warren Commission did not rubber stamp the FBI report, which says a separate shot hit JBC.

Until today, the WC Report is at odds, in the most central way, with the FBI Report.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

Why do you suppose they did that?

Did Tague's injury have anything to do with it?

How did the FBI deal with Tague's injury, and when?

I don't know the answers to these questions and I'm too lazy to look them up right now.

I guess the WC felt it had to make some modifications.

What else did they disagree with the FBI about?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Your comment is compelling. The Warren Commission did not rubber stamp the FBI report, which says a separate shot hit JBC.

Until today, the WC Report is at odds, in the most central way, with the FBI Report.

Well, Jon, you know what I think -- the WC Report is at odds in the most superficial way with the FBI Report.

Aside from minutia, the central theme of the FBI Report was that Lee Harvey Oswald was the "Lone Assassin." All the other points were secondary or minor.

The WC Report was faithful in every way to the "central" FBI claim.

In fact, this is what made the WC so "bold" as you put it. All they had to do was to agree with the "Lone Assassin" theory, and to use their nine months in office as a means to manipulate all the evidence that came their way, twisting it and shaping it to conform to the "Lone Assassin" theory of OSWALD.

This included forgeries of the autopsy X-rays and notes and photographs.

What were they hiding with all these forgeries? Only one answer -- MORE THAN ONE "LONE SHOOTER."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tommy,

Please define "they".

Of course Tague's injury influenced the writer (singular) of the Warren Report.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

Is there anything else besides the shot that hit Connally that they (the Warren Commission) wrote up differently than the FBI report?

My whole point was that they (the Warren Commission) might have had to modify the shot that hit Connally solely because they (the Warren Commission) had to explain the injury to Tague.

Maybe I'm wrong or it's just too simplistic.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the WC felt it had to make some modifications.

What else did they disagree with the FBI about?

If you want to hear some frank and straightforward talk from Warren Commission counsel members (Liebeler, Ball, and Jenner), including discussion of the WC's disagreements with the 12/9/63 FBI Report, listen to the program below.

Do conspiracy believers really think these three guys went on a national radio show (voluntarily!) just so they could lie their tails off?....

If you'd like to cut right to the topic of "Sylvia Odio", here's that excerpt taken from the above program:

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My whole point was that they (the Warren Commission) might have had to modify the shot that hit Connally solely because they (the Warren Commission) had to explain the injury to Tague.

Not at all, Tommy. The WC fully acknowledges in its Final Report (on Page 117) that the Main Street curb damage (and therefore the injury to Tague as well) could have come as a result of a fragment that struck JFK's head.

Therefore, via the possibilities laid out by the Warren Commission on Page 117, the WC obviously didn't feel pressured into endorsing the Single-Bullet Theory based on James Tague's injury:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0071a.htm

WCR-Page-117.gif

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

I've begun listening to the Black Op Radio program to which you link. I'm struck immediately, as Jim DiEugenio speaks, by how boldly the Warren Commission fudged and dissembled. I'm struck the same way by Steven Gaal's post infra.

The Warren Commission as a body lied boldly.

That tells me something. Their charge was to lie.

But why did Warren and Ford lie? (Dulles was a professional xxxx, so he's understandable.)

Did they think they had to? If so, did they think it was for the good of the country? I think so, on both counts.

I think they were afraid of where an honest investigation might lead. I don't think they had a clue who killed JFK or why, but they knew an honest investigation might lead to unacceptable conclusions. Being politicians, I believe, they chose the easiest path, the path of least resistance.

I think politicians, I know politicians, today would do the same thing.

One of the most telling quotes for me, Jon, comes from McCloy in Epstein's book Inquest. He said that the commission felt like it had to show the world the U.S. was not a banana republic. A banana republic, it bears noting, is not one where a president gets murdered by foreign powers, but one where elements of his own government--most usually the military--rises up to murder him. In this light, McCloy was telling Epstein what most of us know is true--that the commission saw it as their patriotic duty to put the seal of approval on Johnson's presidency--unless there was some INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS reason not to. As Oswald was shut up before he could talk, and as the FBI refused to look too hard at evidence running counter to the Oswald did it scenario, no such INCREDIBLY OBVIOUS reasons were discovered...by most of the commissioners and staff. I can't say the same is true of Arlen Specter, of course, as he KNEW the back wound was a back wound, but insisted it on calling it a neck wound, even after viewing the autopsy photos in 1999.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, David is right. The SBT was not made necessary by Tague, but by the WC staff's study of the Z-film, which convinced the staff that Kennedy and Connally reacted too close together for them to have been hit by separate shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, David is right. The SBT was not made necessary by Tague, but by the WC staff's study of the Z-film, which convinced the staff that Kennedy and Connally reacted too close together for them to have been hit by separate shots.

Pat,

According to Mr. Tidd, the FBI said that Connally and Kennedy were hit by separate shots, and that the WC disagreed with the FBI on this.

On what, if anything, did the FBI base its belief?

Just wondering: What's the chance that a bullet from a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano could penetrate and exit a human head like that and still have enough momentum to cause the injury which Tague sustained?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...