Jump to content


Spartacus

Cover-Up of the Medical Evidence


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#31 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,643 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 07 June 2006 - 04:19 AM

Shanklin was riding his agents very hard. Making mistakes would not be favourable. If there had been confusion other documents would exist clarifying. Likely those are the documents we would be seeing.We're not.

On the other hand, in looking for contemporary armed forces use of the words, missile, fragment, bullet and particles appear somewhat interchangeable.

http://history.amedd.../chapter3.1.htm

"There remains, as the correct explanation of the explosive cavity, what early workers called the accelerated particle theory. This view regards the energy of the bullet as being transferred to the soft tissue in front and to each side, thus imparting momentum to these tissue particles, so that they rapidly move away from the bullet path, thus acting like "secondary missiles." Once set in motion, the "inertia of the fluid particles" continues its motion, and a large space or cavity is left behind. As Stevenson puts it, the bullet causes damage not only by crushing and attrition of tissue directly but also indirectly by the fluids moving away from its path........ballistics. Callender and French12 and Callender13 used Plasticine as a model for tissues and studied especially the yaw of bullets and the relation of wound damage to the power delivered. They introduced more modern methods of measuring velocities and also obtained records of the pressure changes during the passage of a bullet through Plasticine.
Black, Burns, and Zuckerman14 have described the enormous damage done by minute fragments of metal from bombbursts. These fragments move with velocities far higher than those of ordinary rifle bullets. Using the spark shadowgraph method and steel spheres, weighing only 53 mg., they were able to imitate the destructive effect of bomb splinters and obtained spark shadow outlines of rabbit legs during passage of the missile. These shadowgrams indicated a large swelling due to the cavity within."

#32 Pat Speer

Pat Speer

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,374 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 June 2006 - 06:36 AM

John, you're absolutely right. In wound ballistics, the word "missile" is used quite frequently in place of "fragment" or "projectile." As far as Belmont saying the bullet was behind the ear, I did a lot of thinking on this issue a few years back and came to the decision it was just typical FBI sloppiness. The large fragment seen on the x-rays and recovered at the autopsy was behind Kennedy's EYE, not EAR. In the heat of the investigation, many mistakes were made. Read any FBI memo of the first few weeks and one will find a number of mistakes. A WEEK after the assassination Hoover told LBJ that if Connally hadn't turned he wouldn't have been hit, implying the second shot came from the front and was intended for Kennedy. There were simply too many facts for the Feebies to absorb all at once. Consequently, they got a lot wrong.

As far as the KGB, the KGB Assassination Files DVD demonstrates that the KGB thought Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. They simply didn't think Oswald was capable of pulling it off on his own.

#33 John Hunt

John Hunt

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 07 June 2006 - 11:05 PM

2. The one-page FBI HQ document dated November 22, 1963 is a potential "smoking gun" document which may indicate another major aspect of the medical coverup in the assassination. In the first paragraph, it mentions a "bullet lodged behind the President's ear" which the FBI was planning on obtaining. You will note that this was written while the autopsy was ongoing;


Doug and all,

A color scan I made of that document is featured in my essay, The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet, which can be found here:

http://www.jfklancer...nt/mystery.html




John Hunt

#34 Ron Ecker

Ron Ecker

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,188 posts

Posted 11 June 2006 - 08:55 PM

To believe that FBI agents would allow themselves to sign that document if it did not specifically state what item(s) had been transferred is absurd.

Sure, they can lay the blame on an unidentified clerk, as if that really proves that no "missile" had been recovered that night.


They didn't blame the clerk. Sibert states in the Law book that the receipt "was made by the navy and we received it from them. A navy corpsman typed it up" (p. 216). Sibert told the ARRB, "This receipt was prepared by Navy personnel. I think a Navy corpsman typed it up. And this terminology is U.S. Navy about 'missile.' Now, had I been preparing or making out a receipt and giving it to them, I would have said 'fragments' there" (Sibert deposition, pp. 89-90).

That's the best explanation for why the FBI agents signed it: the Navy wrote it using its terminology. This also explains why the navy corpsman, Chief Petty Officer Chester H. Boyers, typed it that way. Boyers stated in a HSCA affidavit that the receipt was "in error" about a missile. He didn't say why he typed it that way anyhow, but the reason is obvious: a naval superior wrote it and gave it to him to type. Boyers didn't tell his superior that he was "in error."

Since the receipt was to be sent to Capt. Stover, it would be my guess is that Capt. Stover is the person who wrote it and gave it to Boyers to type.

Boyers BTW was also involved (apparently innocently) in the two-brain escapade that has been exposed by Doug Horne. As Doug knows, Boyers told the HSCA that he prepared tissue slides of the brain on December 2 (the second brain exam).

#35 John Dolva

John Dolva

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 10,643 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:remembering the two towers of 13,000 children that fall down, dying of starvation, preventable diseases, lack of clean water and basic health needs every 1 1/2 hours 24/7/365...
    9/11? Bah...
    ...Viva Che'...
    living in a nice world

Posted 12 June 2006 - 02:11 AM

I raised the issue re missile definition not because I don't want it to be a bullet, and the precise wording is of the intent to recover 'a bullet' and not a suspected bullet... and of course a bullet would also be called a missile. I was just curious to see what answers would be to what seems to me an obvious objection that would have to be dealt with sooner or later. So why not now.
Where would this bullet be fired from in order for it to be behind the ear. And where IS behind the ear. There are some drastic 'head plane' changes happening on the area of the head that could be called 'behind the ear'. And the internal bone structure of the skull is changing a lot in that area as well, so there could be a lot of clues about trajectory there if looked at correctly.

#36 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,098 posts

Posted 26 July 2006 - 05:05 PM

Associated Press, JFK Documents Raise Questions (9th November, 1998 )

Three military pathologists agree they conducted an autopsy of Kennedy's entire body at Bethesda immediately after it was flown back from Dallas. But the doctors offer conflicting recollections about the timing of a subsequent brain exam.

Two doctors, J. Thornton Boswell and James Humes, told the review board that the brain exam occurred two or three days after Kennedy's death. Initially, Humes told the Warren Commission that he, Boswell and a third pathologist, Dr. Pierre Finck, were present when the brain was examined. But when he testified to the review board in 1996, Humes did not list Finck among those present. Boswell maintains Finck was not there.

On the other hand, Finck says the brain exam did not occur until much later. In a memo he wrote to his commanding officer 14 months after Kennedy was assassinated, Finck said Humes did not call him until Nov. 29, 1963 - seven days after Kennedy's death - to say it was time to examine the brain. In the memo, Finck said all three pathologists examined the brain together and that "color and black-and-white photographs are taken by the U.S. Navy photographer."

The conflicting testimony caused Douglas Horne, chief analyst for military records, to conclude in a 32-page memo that two separate brain exams may have been conducted, "contrary to the official record as it has been presented to the American people."

"If true, Dr. Finck's account of a brain exam separate and distinct from the first one would mean that Drs. Humes and Boswell were present at two different brain exams," he writes.

Humes was ill and could not be interviewed. In a telephone interview, Boswell reiterated that the brain was examined at the initial autopsy of the body and only once more at a separate brain exam a few day later.

"I doubt very much that we would have called him (Finck) back over for that," Boswell said.

Boswell added that the only photos of the brain were taken at the autopsy.

This conflicts with testimony the board obtained from Navy photographer John Stringer, who said he took pictures of the brain two or three days after the autopsy. Stringer also testified that official photos of the brain preserved at the archives do not match those he remembers taking. He cites discrepancies in the angles from which they were shot and the type of film used.

In addition, former FBI Agent Francis O'Neill Jr., who watched doctors remove Kennedy's brain the night he died, told the review board that the archives' photos do not resemble what he saw. "I did not recall it (the brain) being that large," O'Neill said.

Throughout the years, doctors who treated Kennedy in Dallas said his head wound was about the size of a large egg at the back of the head, behind his right ear. The Dallas doctors told reporters then that they believed Kennedy was shot from the front -- a belief that conflicted with the Warren Commission's later conclusion of a single shooter firing from behind.

Humes, chief pathologist for the autopsy at Bethesda, agreed there was a wound to the right rear of Kennedy's head, but he told the board that it was a small entry wound, not an egg-sized exit wound. In contrast to observations in Dallas, Humes said there also was massive damage to the top of Kennedy's skull and right side forward of the ear.

#37 Karl Kinaski

Karl Kinaski

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austria

Posted 16 July 2008 - 09:31 AM

Doug Horne wrote:

-There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally “false picture” of what happened):

-photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe);

-gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or

-a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler’s funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera.

I tend toward suspecting the third option above.


I agree...put the reason for reconstructing the head by Mr. Stroble, was IMO another one: Back in 1963 it was not unusual to show an open coffin to the public.
According to a Schlesinger jr interview, on Saturday morning
(23.11.1963)Jackie K sent Robert McNamara and Schlesinger jr.(who were
with her) to the
coffin (which just arrived at the Withe house) to have a close look at
her dead husband, because she wanted to know, if it was possible to show an
open coffin to those who wanted to pay their last respect to JFK.
McNamara and Schlesinger did so, and they said to Jackie, that her husbands face looked
rather unnatural and waxy, and the widow decided to keep the coffin
closed.

#38 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 July 2008 - 03:39 AM

Doug Horne wrote:

-There are 3 possible reasons why the back of the head appears intact in the autopsy photos (of course, it was not intact and the photos depict an intentionally "false picture" of what happened):

-photographic forgery (to which I do not subscribe);

-gross manipulation of the scalp (from elsewhere on the head) by the doctors, so as to fool the camera; or

-a partial reconstruction of the back of the head by Mr. Stroble, the Gawler's funeral home technician, a the direction of the pathologists, so as to fool the camera.

I tend toward suspecting the third option above.


I agree...put the reason for reconstructing the head by Mr. Stroble, was IMO another one: Back in 1963 it was not unusual to show an open coffin to the public.
According to a Schlesinger jr interview, on Saturday morning
(23.11.1963)Jackie K sent Robert McNamara and Schlesinger jr.(who were
with her) to the
coffin (which just arrived at the Withe house) to have a close look at
her dead husband, because she wanted to know, if it was possible to show an
open coffin to those who wanted to pay their last respect to JFK.
McNamara and Schlesinger did so, and they said to Jackie, that her husbands face looked
rather unnatural and waxy, and the widow decided to keep the coffin
closed.




Thanks for bringing this up again Karl, maybe we can persuade Doug to come back and answer some questions.

I think Doug Horne would be one of the most important witnesses before the Congressional Oversight Hearings on the JFK Act, if they ever happen, and I hope he's found a publisher for his book.

BK

#39 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,146 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2009 - 02:27 AM

I believe that Doug Horne’s presentation includes some of the most important evidence that has come out on the case in recent years. As someone has said, it should be headline news, but it isn’t. I have send this presentation to all the journalists I know. I hope other members will do the same.

The presentation raises important questions. Who else knows about alteration of the head wounds? Who was the photographer who took the second batch of pictures? Was it William Pitzer and could that experience be linked with his death? As Allan Eaglesham has pointed out: “He (Pitzer) is reported to have been in uniform on the afternoon of his death. An important meeting? A meeting linked with transfer of JFK-autopsy-related materials to the National Archives early the following week?”






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users