Trajectory Analysis and the Assassination of JFK

[Jack White]

According to graphic descriptions by witnesses, the spray emerged

TO THE REAR, FROM THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Sherry, for pointing out that footnote on Aguilar's paper. There's a few articles in there I need to read.

I have read a few of them, however. The most common-mix up on beveling occurs with contact wounds to the skull. Sometimes, if the barrel of a gun is pressed against the skull the gases released with the firing of the gun will have nowhere to go and impact the skull in such a way that the bullet entrance ends up looking like an exit. Obviously, that is not the case here.

Ron, to answer your question, what large exit on the back of the skull? The one that magically appeared at the hospital? When one reads all the statements of the Parkland witnesses, it's clear they remember ONE wound on Kennedy's skull? Since Zapruder and Newman saw this wound on the right side of Kennedy's skull, and talked about it on TV within minutes of the shooting, are we to believe this wound moved to the back of the skull en route to the hospital? And then re-appeared at the coronal suture at Bethesda? To me, it makes a hell of a lot more sense to believe that the Parkland witnesses were simply wrong. But how could so many be wrong about the same thing?

I've done a massive amount of reading on human perception and cognition over the last year and it's clear to me that human memories are quite fragile. There've been literally dozens of articles written on facial recognition, and it's been reported, over and over, that people perceive faces differently when the face is turned upside down or sideways. One article even convinced me that people read faces the same way they read words. Think about it. It's hard to read upside down. It's also hard to recognize faces when they are upside down. Anyhow, a massive amount of research has been done on this subject. I'm convinced the answer to the question of how the Parkland witnesses could be so consistent and yet so wrong lies within. I'll have more on this in the next update of my presentation.

Edited March 27, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Sherry Gutierrez]

According to graphic descriptions by witnesses, the spray emerged

TO THE REAR, FROM THE BACK OF THE HEAD.

Jack

Hi Jack,

The vantage point of the witness has a big impact on what is visible to them. Obviously there was also blood projected in front of the President. Why should the blood seen in Zapruder be discounted as the origin of any of that blood?

Nellie Connally - in front of the President - spoke of tiny bits of matter being deposited in the car.

"I felt something falling all over me. My sensation was of spent buckshot. My eyes saw bloody matter in tiny bits all over the car." Nellie Connally; Nellie Connally: That Day in Dallas by Robert R. Rees, http://rtb.home.texas.net/connally.htm

Robert Frazier testified on 2-21 & 2-22-1969 in the Clay Shaw trial. During his testimony he discussed what was found when the limo was searched at 1am on 11-23. "We found blood and tissue all over the outside areas of the vehicle from the hood ornament, over the complete area of the hood, on the outside of the windshield, also on the inside surface of the windshield, and all over the entire exterior portion of the car, that is, the side rails down both sides of the car, and of course considerable quantities inside the car and on the trunk lid area."

Testimony Of Roy H. Kellerman, Special Agent, Secret Service Beginning At 2H61

Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, between all the matter that was--between all the matter that was blown off from an injured person, this stuff all came over.

Senator COOPER. What was that?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Body matter; flesh..

Mr. SPECTER. When did you first notice the substance which you have described as body matter?

Mr. KELLERMAN. When I got to the hospital, sir, it was all over my coat.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you notice it flying past you at any time prior to your arrival at the hospital?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; I know there was something in the air.

Mr. SPECTER. When, in relation to the shots, Mr. Kellerman, did you notice the substance in the air?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Fine. When I have given the orders to Mr. Lawson, this is when it all came between the driver and myself.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you describe what it was in a little more detail as it appeared to you at that time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. This is a rather poor comparison, but let's say you take a little handful of matter--I am going to use sawdust for want of a better item--and just throw it.

This spatter is also seen in the Nix film.

I feel you are being selective in what information you want to utilize. If I am wrong, please accept my apologies.

Sherry

[Ron Ecker]

what large exit on the back of the skull? . . . I'm convinced the answer to the question of how the Parkland witnesses could be so consistent and yet so wrong lies within. I'll have more on this in the next update of my presentation.

Pat,

You cannot confine the “mistake” about the wound to Parkland doctors and nurses. To begin with, there were Clint Hill and Jackie in Dealey Plaza. Hill said the back of the head was missing. Jackie said there was nothing wrong in the front of his head, “but in the back, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her WC questioners didn’t try to get any clarification, but in Z337 you can see Jackie looking in horror at the back of JFK’s head, which looks partly missing beneath his scalp.

Hill saw the same rear head wound again at Bethesda, when Kellerman summoned him after the autopsy so that they could specifically look at the wounds. Yet they were wrong, just like the Parkland folks, in what they testified to seeing? Kellerman testified that there was “a large wound” about 5 inches in diameter in the right rear of the head.

Bethesda autopsy witnesses saw the same rear head wound that the Parkland witnesses and Hill and Kellerman saw. The HSCA tried to hide this fact by stating in its report: “In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39). This statement cited autopsy staff interviews, but when those interviews were finally released thanks to the ARRB, it was found that the HSCA was telling a bald-faced lie. (Predictably no one now seems to know who wrote that part of the report.)

X-ray technician Edward Reed told the HSCA that the head wound “was very large and located in the right hemisphere in the occipital region.” Boswell’s assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told the HSCA that “the back-right quadrant of the head was missing.” Hospital corpsman James Metzler told the HSCA that the wound was in the “right side of the head behind the right ear extending down to the center of the back of the skull.” General Wehle told the HSCA that “the wound was in the back of the head.” (Remember, according to the HSCA report none of this could have been said.) Chief Petty Officer Chester Boyers told the HSCA that “there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head.” Riebe, McHugh, and others who were present told various interviewers that there was a large wound in the back of the head. FBI agents O’Neill and Sibert told of the wound in their report of the autopsy. Mortician Thomas Evan Robinson, in charge of repairing the body for the funeral and who must surely have known what he was repairing, told the HSCA that the wound was “directly behind the back of the head.” And so forth and so on.

You can argue that all this is based on some problems of perception and cognition, and that all these Parkland and Bethesda people did not really see this rear head wound that they thought they saw, but I don’t think you are going to convince very many people.

Ron

Edited March 27, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Pat Speer]

Ron, I believe Jackie didn't say "in the back" she said "from the back." And neither Jackie nor Clint Hill said there was a large hole in the far back of Kennedy's head. I believe Clint testified that Kellerman showed him the small hole in the hairline at the autopsy. When people are laying on their back, people looking at them perceive the area above their ears as the back of their head. It's really that simple. Still, people are free to believe whatever they want. When all is said and done, they'll be wrong. No matter what REALLY happened, eventually historians and scientists will take an honest look at the accepted evidence. When they do, they'll see that Kennedy was almost certainly killed by a conspiracy. Once they come to this conclusion, all the "wild" theories of body alteration etc. will be ignored. Occam's razor, and all...

As far as Reed, the Parkland doctors etc... how many of them have testified that the wound seen on the Zapruder film and autopsy photos was any different than the wound they saw? People can nit-pick through early statements and later interviews alll day long...and twist almost anything to say anything. But how many witnesses have testified that the wounds changed or that the photos are fakes when given the chance?

I believe the answer is zero. Not Reed, who testified before the ARRB that the x-rays in the archives, which show a large head wound in front of the ear, was an x-ray he took. Ditto for Custer. Stringer, Riebe, and McClelland also had their chance to say the photos were fakes, and passed. They all testified that the photos and x-rays were as far as they knew legit and that they accurately reflected the wounds on November 22, 1963. Good luck convincing historians that all these men lied so many years after the fact.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Antti Hynonen]

Interesting subject!

Ron, Pat others, I hope you don't mind my jumping in.

Well, I'll do it anyway....

Pat Speer Posted Today, 06:01 AM

Ron, I believe Jackie didn't say "in the back" she said "from the back." And neither Jackie nor Clint Hill said there was a large hole in the far back of Kennedy's head. I believe Clint testified that Kellerman showed him the small hole in the hairline at the autopsy. When people are laying on their back, people looking at them perceive the area above their ears as the back of their head. It's really that simple. Still, people are free to believe whatever they want. When all is said and done, they'll be wrong. No matter what REALLY happened, eventually historians and scientists will take an honest look at the accepted evidence. When they do, they'll see that Kennedy was almost certainly killed by a conspiracy. Once they come to this conclusion, all the "wild" theories of body alteration etc. will be ignored. Occam's razor, and all...

As far as Reed, the Parkland doctors etc... how many of them have testified that the wound seen on the Zapruder film and autopsy photos was any different than the wound they saw? People can nit-pick through early statements and later interviews alll day long...and twist almost anything to say anything. But how many witnesses have testified that the wounds changed or that the photos are fakes when given the chance?

I believe the answer is zero. Not Reed, who testified before the ARRB that the x-rays in the archives, which show a large head wound in front of the ear, was an x-ray he took. Ditto for Custer. Stringer, Riebe, and McClelland also had their chance to say the photos were fakes, and passed. They all testified that the photos and x-rays were as far as they knew legit and that they accurately reflected the wounds on November 22, 1963. Good luck convincing historians that all these men lied so many years after the fact.

IMO You are discussing and debating one of the very key controversies of the case! On and around 11/22/63 Parkland Dr.'s and nurses etc. in DALLAS pretty much all testified the wound to the head was occipital - parietal, and also demonstrated the location of the wound by placing the palm of their hand on their own heads to the location of the wound. This location is clearly behind the right ear, more towards the back of the head, rather than directly above the ear.

Whether one is lying down, standing up or on one's head will likely not confuse a physician when one is asked to describe the location of an injury on a subject.

The controversy and the debate going on in this thread is the result of altered physical evidence.

Proof of evidence manipulation is in abundance.

Some here:

The coffin Kennedy was loaded into in Dallas - Parkland was different than the one he was received in, in Bethesda MD. The throat wound had clearly been cut/manipulated with (beyond what was done by Parkland staff for the tracheotomy) and before it was received in Bethesda. Based on the witness statements, the body (most particularly the head and neck wounds) were worked on. Hence the discrepancy between the physician's statements in Dallas and Bethesda.

The X-rays and photos were taken after the body had left Parkland, and do therefore support the new, altered location of the head wound. Based on anomalies in the Zapruder film, I would not be surprised if the head wound frames have been worked on as well to help make the illusion more believable.

Years later it is hard for Custer, Reed and Riebe to distinguish what was actually on the film/x-rays they took in 1963 and what is on the ones presented to them in 1976. Even if they were the same exact copies, many unanswered issues remain unresolved with regards to what happened to the body between Parkland and Bethesda.

Add to this the fear and threats placed on these witnesses, it is hardly a suprise how their testimony came out during the HSCA.

Having read numerous testimonies (probably all testimonies available) from eye witnesses at the plaza on that fateful day at 12:30, I would estimate that roughly 90% of the debris, brain matter and blood was sprayed into the rear left of the presidential limousine. Not least because the car was moving forward and therefore anything thrown out of the car would fall back, but also because the reaction of the body just can't be explained by some reflex reaction resulting in a jerking movement...

That explanation is in the same category as the SBT. Or Ridiculous Bullet Theory.

- What direction did Jackie go to to pick up that piece of skull again?????

- What did motorcycle officer Hargis who was on the left flank of the limo at that time testify?

Just a few people who were THERE right WHEN IT HAPPENED.

Why did the conspirasists go through the trouble with this? Well simply because they knew they'd be in deep sh** when it came to explaining a massive exit wound in the back of the victim's head, when that was supposed to be the point of entry according to the LN scenario. Remember they already had their man at this point in time and therefore had to make sure the evidence would jive with the rest of the story.

Edited March 28, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Ron Ecker]

Antii,

I basically agree with all that you say. Even on the Z film, while I have been about 95 percent sure it is unaltered, I have always been bothered by the flap that opens up in the head, which was not seen by doctors or nurses at Parkland. This could have been added to the film, to jive with the expanded wound that was seen at Bethesda.

While Jackie's comments about the head wound, thanks to the WC, are impossible to interpret with confidence, it is significant that Clint Hill, looking right down at the president in the limo, did not see this big open flap so visible in the Z film. He only saw the missing part of the back of the head. At Parkland, I am also puzzled by Dr. McClelland's comments about looking down into a wound in JFK's head, when no other doctors or nurses saw this wound that McClelland said he was looking into. (I recall another doctor later saying, on Larry King I believe, that there was a wound in the side of the head, but I was suspicious of what this Johnny come lately was saying.)

It is argued that Jackie closed the flap on the way to the hospital, so that it was not visible there, but then what was McClelland looking into as he stood over the president's head?

Someone adding the flap to the Z film raises the whole question, of course, of when and how this could have been done in the time frame and chain of custody involved in the film's development etc. It would take a week to go back and wade through all that again, only to still be uncertain, probably, as to who is right. I will have to reserve that chore for some other time.

Ron

[Pat Speer]

IMO You are discussing and debating one of the very key controversies of the case! On and around 11/22/63 Parkland Dr.'s and nurses etc. in DALLAS pretty much all testified the wound to the head was occipital - parietal, and also demonstrated the location of the wound by placing the palm of their hand on their own heads to the location of the wound. This location is clearly behind the right ear, more towards the back of the head, rather than directly above the ear.

Whether one is lying down, standing up or on one's head will likely not confuse a physician when one is asked to describe the location of an injury on a subject.

Among the things I found, Antti, when I started to read about face recognition and memory errors, is that the inversion effect is an equal opportunity employer. In other words, expertise has little bearing. Speed readers can't speed read upside down; dog experts make as many mistakes identifying indiviual dogs as non-experts once the pictures of the dogs have been rotated.

In fact, when one reads about conjunction errors, one finds that experience LEADS to errors. It has been found that we reconstruct our memories upon recall. Much of what we remember is based upon a feeling of familarity that overcomes us when we recognize something. If one knows what the President looks like, and one knows what a gunshot wound to the back of the head looks like, then one is more likely to combine the images and find them "familiar". Ask yourself how many of the Parkland witnesses have made statements or written books about how they have a clear memory of what they saw and how the autopsy photos are fakes. Just Crenshaw. How many of the others rallied to support Crenshaw? I believe zero. To me, it seems clear that their memories were based more on familiarity than on anything concrete. What brought about this feeling of "familiarity"? Were these witnesses shown the early statements of the doctors who said the wound was toward the back of the head? Was there discussion at Parkland immediately after the assassination, where it was widely repeated that the wound was on the back of the head? Research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony has shown repeatedly that people are unsure of what they see, are open to suggestions on what they see, and will frequently actually SEE what never happened. Magicians have learned to manipulate this flexibility to their own advantage. what was said to these witnesses before they put their hands to the back of their heads? How many of them were told the wound is two or three inches further forward in the autopsy photos, and asked whether that was possible? I believe that everyone of the doctors shown the photos on the Nova program deferred to the autopsy photos, including Clark, the ONLY doctor to actually inspect the wound (unless one counts Grossman).

But, to me, the fact that nails it home that the Parkland witnesses were mistaken is the simple fact that they only saw one wound. I would be willing to believe that the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos were faked if only the witnesses had said "yeah, there was this small entrance on the forehead (where Groden places it) or "there was this big entrance on the top of the head and another big exit on the back of the skull". As NONE of the witnesses saw an entrance for this supposedly occipito-parietal exit anywhere (this led some of them to conclude the bullet had deflected up the neck from the throat, by the way) and as a tangential entrance and exit for a wound in that location conflicts with all the other evidence, I just don't accept their testimony as the end-all.

(It would be interesting, nevertheless, to see where a tangential wound impacting behind Kennedy's ear would have to have come from. Off the top of my head (sorry) I'd guess that such an entrance would be consistent with a shooter in the badgeman location.)

Since the accepted evidence still points convincingly towards a conspiracy, what good can be derived from insisting that the evidence has been altered? When the single-bullet theory can be so easily debunked by using the Zapruder film, what good can be derived from insisting that the Zapruder film has been faked? Since there are many documented instances of doctors making mistakes, even within this case, what good can be derived from insisting that the doctors didn't make mistakes but that the body was altered by invisible ghouls? How is that going to win historians and the media to the side of the conspiracy theorists? When there is no other documented instances of body alteration, or even photo alteration? What good has all this talk of alteration done us? It's sold a few books, and won a few converts, and driven the supposedly rational middle over to the other side. Almost every lone-nutter I come across says the evidence is on his side. When I start to argue the evidence they almost always back down. Why has the CT community let the lone-nutters get away with convincing their converts that they are the rational ones? Because this obsession with alteration is, at least on the surface, anti-rational and anti-science.

[Jack White]

Without knowing the facts, Pat opined:

"Since the accepted evidence still points convincingly towards a conspiracy, what good can be derived from insisting that the evidence has been altered? When the single-bullet theory can be so easily debunked by using the Zapruder film, what good can be derived from insisting that the Zapruder film has been faked? Since there are many documented instances of doctors making mistakes, even within this case, what good can be derived from insisting that the doctors didn't make mistakes but that the body was altered by invisible ghouls? How is that going to win historians and the media to the side of the conspiracy theorists? When there is no other documented instances of body alteration, or even photo alteration? What good has all this talk of alteration done us? It's sold a few books, and won a few converts, and driven the supposedly rational middle over to the other side. Almost every lone-nutter I come across says the evidence is on his side. When I start to argue the evidence they almost always back down. Why has the CT community let the lone-nutters get away with convincing their converts that they are the rational ones? Because this obsession with alteration is, at least on the surface, anti-rational and anti-science."

Soon everyone will know all the facts of alteration.

Jack

[Pat Speer]

Without knowing the facts, Pat opined:

"Since the accepted evidence still points convincingly towards a conspiracy, what good can be derived from insisting that the evidence has been altered? When the single-bullet theory can be so easily debunked by using the Zapruder film, what good can be derived from insisting that the Zapruder film has been faked? Since there are many documented instances of doctors making mistakes, even within this case, what good can be derived from insisting that the doctors didn't make mistakes but that the body was altered by invisible ghouls? How is that going to win historians and the media to the side of the conspiracy theorists? When there is no other documented instances of body alteration, or even photo alteration? What good has all this talk of alteration done us? It's sold a few books, and won a few converts, and driven the supposedly rational middle over to the other side. Almost every lone-nutter I come across says the evidence is on his side. When I start to argue the evidence they almost always back down. Why has the CT community let the lone-nutters get away with convincing their converts that they are the rational ones? Because this obsession with alteration is, at least on the surface, anti-rational and anti-science."

Soon everyone will know all the facts of alteration.

Jack

I hope so, Jack. If evidence was uncovered that would convince the media and the writers of history texts of a conspiracy, I would be delighted. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to argue conspiracy while accepting the evidence. You can consider my approach Track Two, if you like. Or Track Number Two, if you don't.

[Jack White]

Without knowing the facts, Pat opined:

"Since the accepted evidence still points convincingly towards a conspiracy, what good can be derived from insisting that the evidence has been altered? When the single-bullet theory can be so easily debunked by using the Zapruder film, what good can be derived from insisting that the Zapruder film has been faked? Since there are many documented instances of doctors making mistakes, even within this case, what good can be derived from insisting that the doctors didn't make mistakes but that the body was altered by invisible ghouls? How is that going to win historians and the media to the side of the conspiracy theorists? When there is no other documented instances of body alteration, or even photo alteration? What good has all this talk of alteration done us? It's sold a few books, and won a few converts, and driven the supposedly rational middle over to the other side. Almost every lone-nutter I come across says the evidence is on his side. When I start to argue the evidence they almost always back down. Why has the CT community let the lone-nutters get away with convincing their converts that they are the rational ones? Because this obsession with alteration is, at least on the surface, anti-rational and anti-science."

Soon everyone will know all the facts of alteration.

Jack

I hope so, Jack. If evidence was uncovered that would convince the media and the writers of history texts of a conspiracy, I would be delighted. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to argue conspiracy while accepting the evidence. You can consider my approach Track Two, if you like. Or Track Number Two, if you don't.

Some of my best friends remain stuck in the past on TRACK TWO. They just

do not want to look at new information lest it upset their long-held beliefs.

Somebody ALTERING THE FILMS is MUCH STRONGER EVIDENCE than some

fictional head-snap.

Jack

[Antti Hynonen]

Pat Speer Posted Yesterday, 10:58 PM

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Mar 28 2006, 11:12 AM)

IMO You are discussing and debating one of the very key controversies of the case! On and around 11/22/63 Parkland Dr.'s and nurses etc. in DALLAS pretty much all testified the wound to the head was occipital - parietal, and also demonstrated the location of the wound by placing the palm of their hand on their own heads to the location of the wound. This location is clearly behind the right ear, more towards the back of the head, rather than directly above the ear.

Whether one is lying down, standing up or on one's head will likely not confuse a physician when one is asked to describe the location of an injury on a subject.

Among the things I found, Antti, when I started to read about face recognition and memory errors, is that the inversion effect is an equal opportunity employer. In other words, expertise has little bearing. Speed readers can't speed read upside down; dog experts make as many mistakes identifying indiviual dogs as non-experts once the pictures of the dogs have been rotated.

In fact, when one reads about conjunction errors, one finds that experience LEADS to errors. It has been found that we reconstruct our memories upon recall. Much of what we remember is based upon a feeling of familarity that overcomes us when we recognize something. If one knows what the President looks like, and one knows what a gunshot wound to the back of the head looks like, then one is more likely to combine the images and find them "familiar". Ask yourself how many of the Parkland witnesses have made statements or written books about how they have a clear memory of what they saw and how the autopsy photos are fakes. Just Crenshaw. How many of the others rallied to support Crenshaw? I believe zero. To me, it seems clear that their memories were based more on familiarity than on anything concrete. What brought about this feeling of "familiarity"? Were these witnesses shown the early statements of the doctors who said the wound was toward the back of the head? Was there discussion at Parkland immediately after the assassination, where it was widely repeated that the wound was on the back of the head? Research on the reliability of eyewitness testimony has shown repeatedly that people are unsure of what they see, are open to suggestions on what they see, and will frequently actually SEE what never happened. Magicians have learned to manipulate this flexibility to their own advantage. what was said to these witnesses before they put their hands to the back of their heads? How many of them were told the wound is two or three inches further forward in the autopsy photos, and asked whether that was possible? I believe that everyone of the doctors shown the photos on the Nova program deferred to the autopsy photos, including Clark, the ONLY doctor to actually inspect the wound (unless one counts Grossman).

But, to me, the fact that nails it home that the Parkland witnesses were mistaken is the simple fact that they only saw one wound. I would be willing to believe that the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos were faked if only the witnesses had said "yeah, there was this small entrance on the forehead (where Groden places it) or "there was this big entrance on the top of the head and another big exit on the back of the skull". As NONE of the witnesses saw an entrance for this supposedly occipito-parietal exit anywhere (this led some of them to conclude the bullet had deflected up the neck from the throat, by the way) and as a tangential entrance and exit for a wound in that location conflicts with all the other evidence, I just don't accept their testimony as the end-all.

(It would be interesting, nevertheless, to see where a tangential wound impacting behind Kennedy's ear would have to have come from. Off the top of my head (sorry) I'd guess that such an entrance would be consistent with a shooter in the badgeman location.)

Since the accepted evidence still points convincingly towards a conspiracy, what good can be derived from insisting that the evidence has been altered? When the single-bullet theory can be so easily debunked by using the Zapruder film, what good can be derived from insisting that the Zapruder film has been faked? Since there are many documented instances of doctors making mistakes, even within this case, what good can be derived from insisting that the doctors didn't make mistakes but that the body was altered by invisible ghouls? How is that going to win historians and the media to the side of the conspiracy theorists? When there is no other documented instances of body alteration, or even photo alteration? What good has all this talk of alteration done us? It's sold a few books, and won a few converts, and driven the supposedly rational middle over to the other side. Almost every lone-nutter I come across says the evidence is on his side. When I start to argue the evidence they almost always back down. Why has the CT community let the lone-nutters get away with convincing their converts that they are the rational ones? Because this obsession with alteration is, at least on the surface, anti-rational and anti-science.

Pat, Ron, Jack, thank you for your contributions. I'm sure you've all spent a lot more time with this than I have. I am merely trying to explain what facts and testimony I have based my opinion on.

I do believe that I've read and examined just about all that has been readily available, and my layman's opinion is that an awful lot of unanswered questions remain before I will accept that all the related coincidences and cases of poor memory are the reason for the confusion regarding the questions related to the body and it's autopsy.

To me it's just not possible!

Photo and x-ray manipulation aside we still have all the questions related to the body and coffin itself which do not compute.

Why was the throat wound so different in Bethesda compared to Dallas?

Why was the body not received in the same coffin in Bethesda as it had been placed in, in Dallas?

How did the body get placed in a zip up plastic body bag, when it wasn't put into one in Dallas?

Why are there such different recollections regarding the head wounds on the body?

Why did the Dallas, Parkland BRAIN SURGEON recall seeing Cerebellum protruding from JFK's head, if the wound was above the right ear?

Cerebellum, see link below. It's that purple bit at the bottom of the brain......

Cerebellum

Edited March 29, 2006 by Antti Hynonen

[Ron Ecker]

Why was the body not received in the same coffin in Bethesda as it had been placed in, in Dallas?

How did the body get placed in a zip up plastic body bag, when it wasn't put into one in Dallas?

Why are there such different recollections regarding the head wounds on the body?

We know that there was a decoy ambulance and at least two caskets used. And we know that JFK's body was moved from one casket to the other, apparently on Air Force One. There is no other explanation for the information provided to the HSCA by Lt. Richard Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, Commanding General of the Military District of Washington, whose office handled all military ceremonial functions in DC.

Lipsey told the HSCA that he and General Wehle and an honor guard met the body at Andrew AFB and placed it in a hearse. This was obviously not the ambulance that met the Parkland casket on TV and in which Jackie rode with the Dallas casket to Bethesda. Lipsey's party received a casket on the other side of the plane. This secretly removed casket would have contained the body, as the ambulance in public view with Jackie would obviously have been the decoy ambulance. A decoy that is secret is not a decoy.

But Lipsey himself was in the dark as to what was going on. As he, Wehle, and the honor guard took helicopters to Bethesda to be there when the casket arrived, Lipsey thought that both ambulances were in the motorcade to Bethesda. He insisted in an interview by Lifton that there was only one casket, the one that he met at Andrews. He apparently thought Jackie was riding in an empty decoy ambulance, or in some other vehicle, which of course is not true. (I think Jackie was in the dark too, as I find it hard to believe that she would knowingly accompany an empty casket instead of the casket that contained her husband's body.)

Lipsey says that he helped unload the casket at the rear of Bethesda when it arrived. So we have yet another casket arrival at the rear of Bethesda besides the one that O'Neill and Sibert have told about, and the one that Dennis David has told about. Lipsey also insisted to Lifton that it was a regular big casket and not a shipping casket, but I question that for two reasons. One, if a second casket had been slipped aboard AF1, it would have logically been a more easily concealed shipping casket and not a big thing like the one supposedly containing the body. Second, it is clear from Lifton's account that Lipsey became upset with the line of questioning and became short with Lifton, and thus may have said "Yes" to end the discussion when Lifton asked if it was a regular casket and not a shipping casket.

In any case, a casket switch took place on AF1 (unless the body was already in a second casket that was sneaked aboard the plane, in which case a switch somehow occurred at Parkland), and the body was taken by a different route than the motorcade to Bethesda. If body alteration took place (and what other reason could there be for two caskets and for duping even Lipsey?), there was time to do some fast butchery either on AF1, in the ambulance ride between Andrews and Bethesda, or at some point (such as Walter Reed) in between.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Ron Ecker

[Pat Speer]

It's a lot easier to kill someone, even the President of the United States, than many would like us to believe.

Since Humes et al supposedly lied about the "surgery to the head", why not just have them lie about the wounds?

I'd be interested in seeing a list of EVERYONE who claims they saw the casket, when they say they saw it, what it supposedly looked like, and what Kennedy's body was wrapped in when it was removed. From what I've been able to gather, there is no consistent pattern to these memories. While one man will say he was in a shipping casket, the man right next to him at the time will say he was in a bronze casket. People's memories on relatively unimportant details just aren't very good. There were several Dealey witnesses who remembered Jackie wearing a white dress. Conjunction errors, conjunction errors, conjunction errors...

[Ron Ecker]

How many people have ever seen a shipping casket? I haven't. Yet more than one person saw what struck them as something other than the usual ceremonial casket, such as the expensive one that left Parkland.

And I'm not sure I would call the type of casket "a relatively unimportant detail." If someone brought in a casket that was to be opened and was to contain the President of the United States, I think I would be rather riveted and have a lasting impression of what that casket generally looked like, particularly if it was other than what one would expect to see a president lying in. I therefore attach significance to statements that it was a "cheap" or "shipping" casket (including the statement on a funeral home form that refers to the body being "in a shipping casket").