Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

[Thomas Graves]

Weldon says that Barb and co made the mistake of calling her a nurse. Is this correct? Weldon never called her a nurse.

Nathaniel,

BFD. (Big Fledermaus Deal)

--Tommy

Edited January 15, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Weldon says that Barb and co made the mistake of calling her a nurse. Is this correct? Weldon never called her a nurse.

Nathaniel,

BFD. (Big Fledermaus Deal)

--Tommy

----

Tom if you listen to the interviews that mistake falls into a pattern all of which seem to belittle the windshield research. I am currently using the Richard Dudman angle to provoke awareness on the web site of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and am interested in the relative merits of each side of the windshield discourse.

I am sorry for saying discourse.

I have not taken sides on the windshield, because it can be unhealthy for insects and posters on this forum. I am merely trying to see what the consensus view of the windshield is. And whether that consensus is justified. As I said, the doc to nurse change might not be significant out of context, but in the context of the interview if fits a pattern. The reverse mistake is hard to imagine.

[Thomas Graves]

Weldon says that Barb and co made the mistake of calling her a nurse. Is this correct? Weldon never called her a nurse.

Nathaniel,

BFD. (Big Fledermaus Deal)

--Tommy

----

Tom if you listen to the interviews that mistake falls into a pattern all of which seem to belittle the windshield research. I am currently using the Richard Dudman angle to provoke awareness on the web site of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, and am interested in the relative merits of each side of the windshield discourse.

I am sorry for saying discourse.

I have not taken sides on the windshield, because it can be unhealthy for insects and posters on this forum. I am merely trying to see what the consensus view of the windshield is. And whether that consensus is justified. As I said, the doc to nurse change might not be significant out of context, but in the context of the interview if fits a pattern. The reverse mistake is hard to imagine.

Nathaniel,

Thanks for the informative and well written reply. I wish everyone on the Forum could write as clearly and logically as you do.

I can understand your being concerned with the (Glanges) nurse vs. doctor (or medical student) issue.

I am more concerned about the fact that the people who witnessed a through-and-through hole in the windshield disagree as to which part of the windshield (high or low) the bullet hole was situated!

To me, it is symptomatic of all of the conflicting testimony in this complex and frustrating case.

--Tommy

Edited January 15, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Post #60, page 4 of this thread, Josiah Thompson to Pamela Brown:

"You were referenced in our piece. We pointed out that you described Evalea Glanges as "a nursing student at Parkland Hospital." Is that true? Doug Weldon interviewied her in 1999 and said she was in 1963 a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School and later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Forth Worth. Could you clear up the confusion? Was Evalea Glanges a "nursing student" or a "medical student" in 1963 at Parkland Hospital?

Josiah Thompson"

Post #64, also page 4 of this thread, Pamela Brown responded:

"It was my understanding that Evalea Glanges was a nursing student; as Weldon interviewed her, he would have the specifics. The article at my site was posted prior to his interview. I will be updating it. I am not sure what difference this makes, unless a nursing student is even less credible than a med student who became successful?"

It was a simple error based on misinformation from another researcher. Glanges was a medical student, not a nurse. It was pointed out, it was discussed, it was acknowledged and corrected. Medical student vs nurse has no bearing on anything. It was a simple error....that should not have happened ... but, nonetheless, a simple error that had nothing to do with our evaluation of the evidence that there was or was not a through and through hole in the windshield.

'Nuf said ... by me at least. :-)

[Thomas Graves]

Post #60, page 4 of this thread, Josiah Thompson to Pamela Brown:

"You were referenced in our piece. We pointed out that you described Evalea Glanges as "a nursing student at Parkland Hospital." Is that true? Doug Weldon interviewied her in 1999 and said she was in 1963 a second-year medical student at Southwestern Medical School and later became Chairperson of the Department of Surgery at John Peter Smith Hospital in Forth Worth. Could you clear up the confusion? Was Evalea Glanges a "nursing student" or a "medical student" in 1963 at Parkland Hospital?

Josiah Thompson"

Post #64, also page 4 of this thread, Pamela Brown responded:

"It was my understanding that Evalea Glanges was a nursing student; as Weldon interviewed her, he would have the specifics. The article at my site was posted prior to his interview. I will be updating it. I am not sure what difference this makes, unless a nursing student is even less credible than a med student who became successful?"

It was a simple error based on misinformation from another researcher. Glanges was a medical student, not a nurse. It was pointed out, it was discussed, it was acknowledged and corrected. Medical student vs nurse has no bearing on anything. It was a simple error....that should not have happened ... but, nonetheless, a simple error that had nothing to do with our evaluation of the evidence that there was or was not a through and through hole in the windshield.

'Nuf said ... by me at least. :-)

(emphasis added by T. Graves)

I agree. I would think that a second year nursing student would be, by definition, a highly observant person who is blessed with a good memory, much like a second year medical student. Therefore, the boo-boo is insignificant when considered in the context of observing a bullet hole in a windshield, unless a medical student would be better at determining whether it was an entrance or an exit hole. You know, physics and conchoidal fractures in vitreous materials and all that.

Regarding the windshield, I assume it was made of standard "laminated safety glass". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laminated_glass

Informative text and photos of bullet holes in laminated glass and tempered glass:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ipC6mEYh-qMC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22laminated+glass%22+%22bullet+hole%22&source=bl&ots=Ak0-wOjG_J&sig=eX1vM0Z0fLzwn2QLBzgxbdBjrHg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-G8TT86FMuiZiAKlleHGDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22laminated%20glass%22%20%22bullet%20hole%22&f=false

--Tommy

Edited January 16, 2012 by Thomas Graves

[Bernice Moore]

Weldon says that Barb and co made the mistake of calling her a nurse. Is this correct? Weldon never called her a nurse.

correct doug always referred to her within the research as Dr.Glanges that i ever saw..b

[David Lifton]

Cliff,

If I remember correctly, Josiah postualted, in "Six Seconds In Dallas," that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. I don't think he was ever an advocate of a frontal entrance throat wound. But then, I'm sure he could explain his own views better.

Don,

If you are familiar with the WC executive session transcripts, then you know a frag coming out the throat was being discussed ... near the end of January 1964. Seems they still had some things that needed to be figured out on the autopsy ... which is baloney, of course, if the autopsy report had actually been signed and delivered the weekend of the assassination. That's the tip off, imo, that the autopsy report we know and love as "the" autopsy report, was *not* the one signed, sealed and delivered that weekend in November.

It's the January 27th session. Here's a link to the pages where this is discussed by Rankin and pals:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=69

And, of course, as late as April 1964, memos from the Zfilm conferences stated they expected to report three shots/three hits ... a stray bullet (Tague) and the SBT had not yet been born.

Barb :-)

Barb:

I believe your interpretation of the data is incorrect--i.e., that in January, 1964, "they" still had not finalized the autopsy conclusion (assuming this is what you were trying to convey).

The most important evidence to the contrary--i.e., that the autopsy conclusion re the neck trajectory had been finalized considerably earlier than January, 1964-- is to be found in a critially important story about the autopsy published on December 12, 1963, by reporter Bill Burrus, in the Dallas Times-Herald. It is that story which holds the key to the fact that the autopsy conclusions were "finalized" (my words) considerably earlier than the January, 1964 Executive Session, which seems to have become an important time-marker, because of Rankin's comments.

So now let's return to the "autopsy story" published on page one of the Dallas Times-Herald on Thursday, December 12.

Burrus' story ran under the headline "KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK". It carried a "Bethesda, Md." dateline, and was sourced to "a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital." (See Best Evidence, Chapter 7, where this is discussed in detail).

The lead read: "President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet. . .exited through his throat, a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital revealed Thursday [Dec. 12, 1963 --dsl]". Burrus' story marked the first time, in print, and (supposedly) based on the Bethesda autopsy (and not an FBI report "about" the autopsy) that President Kennedy had a rear entry wound (in the back, or shoulder, or base of the neck--choose your language). The story noted that "It was a surprising disclosure that President Kennedy had been shot in the back," adding that "the wound had not bled externally and doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital [had] missed it in their 22 minutes sof futility--trying to save the President's life."

The story then noted the controversy caused by the wound at the front of JFK's throat: "Most worldwise press and medical reports have described the neck wound as one which entered there . . "

The Burrus story then went on to provide a rather accurate description of where this rear entry was located, and it was deidedly different--i.e., considerably higher--from the location reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill ("below the shoulders" --see p. 4, S and O report). In his "exclusive," published on December 12, Burrus reported that the entry was located "above President Kennedy's right scapula--commonly called the shoulder blade." The Navy autopsy report (CE 387) uses almost identical language, describing the wound location as "just above the upper border of the scapula." This near-congruence of language makes it clear that Burrus' source had accurate information about what was contained in the "still unannounced" Navy autopsy report.

The Burrus story was not run on the wire service, because Burrus would not reveal the source. (More on how I know that, in just a minute).

Going back now to what the FBI agents observed (and wrote): The Sibert and O'Neill FBI report --dated 11/26/63, and based on what the two FBI agents had witnessed at the Bethesda autopsy--described the location of the rear entry wound as being "below the shoulders".

Clearly: the location described by Sibert and O'Neill ("below the shoulders") is decidedly different than the location specified in the Navy autopsy report "just above the upper border of the scapula"--which is nearly identical to the description published by Burrus on 12/12/63: "above President Kennedy's right scapula--commonly called the shoulder blade."

So, it woiuld appear, Burrus "got it right"--that is, his source was dealing with the true autopsy report.

Now, as to the paper trail(s): The actual Navy autopsy report, was transmitted to the Warren Commissionon 12/20/63 by Secret Service Chief Rowley, via a transmittal document signed signed by Chief Rowley. It was designated "Commission Document ["CD"] 77 and was published as CE 387, starting on page 978 of Volume 16). That same Navy autopsy report was sent by the Secret Service to the Warren Commission on December 23, 1963.]

But here, in my opinion is the source of much confusion (and some of this comes from Bill Burrus himself - -I had an extensive in-person interview with him in March, 1978):

On December 18, five days before the Navy autopsy report arrived at the FBI, the Washington Post's Nate Haseltine was being pressured by his superiors to write an "autopsy story." After all,the Burrus story--referenced to the "still unannounced" Bethesda autopsy report--had already run in the Dallas Times-Herald, and the Post wanted to carry something equally authoritative.

So Haseltine telephoned Burrus, and asked him for his source. Burrus, who had promised confidentiality, declined to give him the source. Haseltine bore in on Burrus very hard, but Burrus wouldn't budge. The result: Haseltine was left to fend for himself (so to speak) and come up with a story. So, on December 18, he came up with a hybrid story: borrowing some of the language from the Burrus story, but diverging from the Burrus story when it came to the exact location of the rear entry wound, and the cause of the throat wound. Burrus--who had an excellent source--accurately reported that the "still unannounced" Navy autopsy report stated that the bullet which entered just above the shoulder blade, that it then traveled on a forward trajectory and exited via the wound at the front of the throat, which Dr. Perry had identified (on 11/22/63) as an entrance wound. However, Haseltine, who was in touch with an FBI source (IMHO), decided not to believe Burrus at this point. So instead, he believed an FBI source who told him that the wound at the front of the throat was a fragment of the head shot. (Personally, I don't think that's a partiuclar viable hypothesis, since President Kennedy, in life, was reacting to the wound at the front of his throat some five seconds earlier--but that's another matter). Anyway, Haseltine's article was published in the Washington Post on December 18, and received widespread publication on the wire-servies--which infuriated Burrus, fwiw. The result was the wide dissemination of a story which claimed that (a) the bullet hit low on the back of the body "below the shoulders", and was "embedded" in the shoulder area; and (b ) that the wound at the front of the throat was the result of a fragment of the head shot. As far as I can see, there was never any "prior Navy autopsy report" which made these statements; imho, they are the result of Haseltine scrambling to put together an "autopsy story," and not having the kind of source that Burrus had.

In Best Evidence (published in January, 1981), I addressed the matter of Bill Burrus' December 12, 1963 story, and how accurate it proved to be. In a footnote at the bottom of a page in Chapter 7, I wrote: "In 1978 I learned that Burrus' information indeed came from the navy autopsy report, but was not given to him by a Bethesda pathologist.." The citation for that statement reads: "Interview with Bill Burrus, March, 1978." Indeed, I had a one-on-one meeting with Burrus that went on for several hours on March 27, 1978, in which I learned the full circumstances of the genesis of this most unusual "autopsy" story, and just who the source was. I will be dealing with that, in some detail, in Final Charade. Understanding the genesis of the Burrus story is fundamental to understanding the true timeline of the evolution of the Navy autopsy report, which provided the legal foundation for the Warren Report.

DSL

12/9/13; 10:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Edited December 10, 2013 by David Lifton

[Ray Mitcham]

David, did you notice the comment of Humes to the ARRB.

"Page 66

Mr Gunn “Dr Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?

Humes “I didn’t look at my watch if I even had a watch on, but I guess it was 6.45 or 7 o’clock, something like that, approximately.

[David Lifton]

David, did you notice the comment of Humes to the ARRB.

"Page 66

Mr Gunn “Dr Humes, when did you first see the body of President Kennedy?

Humes “I didn’t look at my watch if I even had a watch on, but I guess it was 6.45 or 7 o’clock, something like that, approximately.

(pardon the much-delayed response {!} ). . .

Yes, I did.

And of course its very significant.

By 1996, Jeremy Gunn knew all about the games that Humes played with facts, his expertise with language. Assisted by Doug Horne, who prepared many of the questions, he asked a carefully phrased question which was like a dart aimed right at the heart of the matter.

Humes, always mindful (I believe) that he could --conceivably--face legal charges if he lied, fudged a small amount (perhaps); but essentially told the truth.

"6:45 pm or 7 o'clock" . . .

At 6:45, the Dallas coffin was still in the naval ambulance, which was on Wisconsin Avenue, and heading towards Bethesda, where it arrived at 6:53 or 6:55, depending on whether you go with the time in the SS report or the Washington Star. (See Ch 16 of B.E.)

By 7 o'clock, the Dallas coffin was sitting in the naval ambulance, now parked out in front. Jacqueline Kennedy and RFK had exited the ambulance and had entered Bethesda.

At 7:12 (as I recall. . could be off by a few minutes). . Admiral Calvin Galloway entered the ambulance and drove off. (See Ch 16, B.E.; reported by the Washington Post, as I recollect).

Thence followed the "ambulance chase" - - see Chapter 16 of Best Evidence, based on my interviews with the MDW tri-service casket team.

Finally, keep in mind that Dennis David --who witnessed the offload of the shipping casket from the black hearse at the back--told me that the shipping casket arrived "a good 20 minutes" before the arrival of the naval ambulance at the front, which he witnessed, because (after its arrival) he went to the front, and was upstairs, on the 2nd floor, and could witness the arrival of the naval ambulance

Finally (part 2) - the Boyajian report (which was "discovered" by the ARRB** and was publicized in its public releases, and then extensively discussed in Doug Horne's 5-volume book) states that the body (meaning the shipping casket which contained the body) was delivered at 6:35 p.m.

** See "Footnote" at the tail end of this post

So--concerning the "arrival time"-- the account of Dennis David and Boyajian are consistent with one another; and both are certainly consistent with Humes' ARRB testimony that the time he first "saw" the body "was 6:45 or 7 o'clock, something like that, approximately."

DSL

7/29/15 - 4:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

** FOOTNOTE: The Boyajian report was first made public by the ARRB, through the good efforts of Doug Horne.It is a vital historical document, and provides strong support--if not complete validation--of the account of Dennis David, who was a "legal lynchpin" of Best Evidence and was the subject of Chapter 25 of Best Evidence. Dennis David--students of the assassination will recall--knew that the body was delivered at the morgue loading dock (at the back of Bethesda) some 20 minutes before the arrival of the naval ambulance carrying Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy and the Dallas coffin (which was empty) at the front. My discovery of Dennis David on July 2, 1979 changed the entire structure of the ending of Best Evidence. Besides Chapter 25, Dennis David can be seen--on video--in Best Evidence: The Research Video, now available on the Internet.

But back to the Boyajian document, which has proved to be so important; because there is a not-so-nice back-story about its discovery.

The Back Story:

This terribly critical document was in fact discovered some 18 months before the ARRB was notified of its existence.

It was discovered by a JFK researcher who--for purely personal reasons--withheld the document from me for well over a year; and in fact, delayed so long that its use in cross examining FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill was seriously compromised. This same researcher, during this period, maintained a pseudo relationship with me (i.e., was in superficial contact with me, while holding --that is, "withholding"--a vital "missing piece" of the chain-of-possession puzzle, which this researcher well knew would validate a critical part of my book). During this same period, this researcher also had contact --some of it in person, in Washington--with ARRB staff, advising them not to pay attention to me or to Best Evidence, as I had nothing to offer (!). The deliberate withholding of the Boyajian document for about a year and a half--by a JFK researcher who remained in touch with me, and who fully understood its importance, i.e., that it strongly supported (if not definitively validated) the account of Dennis David (Chapter 25 of Best Evidence) --will be discussed in another writing. It is a stunning example of a lack of ethics and collegiality in the JFK research community.

Edited July 30, 2015 by David Lifton

[Paul Trejo]

On 7/5/2009 at 8:28 AM, J. Raymond Carroll said:

My compliments to everyone involved in this study. If we now take it as a fact that the windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, do the authors of this study believe that the damage was definitely caused by a bullet or bullet fragment?

If so, does the damage tell us anything about what direction such a bullet or fragment came from? I ask that because if the damage was caused by a ricochet, I am not sure if the damage itself could tell us anything about the original source/direction of the bullet.

Raymond,

Insofar as the JFK windshield was damaged FROM THE INSIDE, it could never have been damaged by a full bullet, IMHO -- it had to be a bullet fragment.  If it had been a full bullet, it would have made a clean hole and traveled for up to a full mile or until it hit something else.   We have no evidence of that.  It had to be a bullet fragment.

As for a ricochet -- to ricochet a bullet needs something to ricochet from.  We would have evidence of that -- but there is no such evidence.

The question now becomes -- which of the bullets contributed that fragment?   

The likelihood -- by my reading -- is that the windshield mark was made by a bullet fragment that emerged from JFK's neck, also causing a nick in JFK's necktie.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Micah Mileto]

On 12/10/2013 at 1:29 AM, David Lifton said:

Barb:

I believe your interpretation of the data is incorrect--i.e., that in January, 1964, "they" still had not finalized the autopsy conclusion (assuming this is what you were trying to convey).

The most important evidence to the contrary--i.e., that the autopsy conclusion re the neck trajectory had been finalized considerably earlier than January, 1964-- is to be found in a critially important story about the autopsy published on December 12, 1963, by reporter Bill Burrus, in the Dallas Times-Herald. It is that story which holds the key to the fact that the autopsy conclusions were "finalized" (my words) considerably earlier than the January, 1964 Executive Session, which seems to have become an important time-marker, because of Rankin's comments.

So now let's return to the "autopsy story" published on page one of the Dallas Times-Herald on Thursday, December 12.

Burrus' story ran under the headline "KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK". It carried a "Bethesda, Md." dateline, and was sourced to "a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital." (See Best Evidence, Chapter 7, where this is discussed in detail).

The lead read: "President Kennedy was shot in the back and the bullet. . .exited through his throat, a still unannounced autopsy report from the U.S. Naval Hospital revealed Thursday [Dec. 12, 1963 --dsl]". Burrus' story marked the first time, in print, and (supposedly) based on the Bethesda autopsy (and not an FBI report "about" the autopsy) that President Kennedy had a rear entry wound (in the back, or shoulder, or base of the neck--choose your language). The story noted that "It was a surprising disclosure that President Kennedy had been shot in the back," adding that "the wound had not bled externally and doctors at Parkland Memorial Hospital [had] missed it in their 22 minutes sof futility--trying to save the President's life."

The story then noted the controversy caused by the wound at the front of JFK's throat: "Most worldwise press and medical reports have described the neck wound as one which entered there . . "

The Burrus story then went on to provide a rather accurate description of where this rear entry was located, and it was deidedly different--i.e., considerably higher--from the location reported by FBI Agents Sibert and O'Neill ("below the shoulders" --see p. 4, S and O report). In his "exclusive," published on December 12, Burrus reported that the entry was located "above President Kennedy's right scapula--commonly called the shoulder blade." The Navy autopsy report (CE 387) uses almost identical language, describing the wound location as "just above the upper border of the scapula." This near-congruence of language makes it clear that Burrus' source had accurate information about what was contained in the "still unannounced" Navy autopsy report.

The Burrus story was not run on the wire service, because Burrus would not reveal the source. (More on how I know that, in just a minute).

Going back now to what the FBI agents observed (and wrote): The Sibert and O'Neill FBI report --dated 11/26/63, and based on what the two FBI agents had witnessed at the Bethesda autopsy--described the location of the rear entry wound as being "below the shoulders".

Clearly: the location described by Sibert and O'Neill ("below the shoulders") is decidedly different than the location specified in the Navy autopsy report "just above the upper border of the scapula"--which is nearly identical to the description published by Burrus on 12/12/63: "above President Kennedy's right scapula--commonly called the shoulder blade."

So, it woiuld appear, Burrus "got it right"--that is, his source was dealing with the true autopsy report.

Now, as to the paper trail(s): The actual Navy autopsy report, was transmitted to the Warren Commissionon 12/20/63 by Secret Service Chief Rowley, via a transmittal document signed signed by Chief Rowley. It was designated "Commission Document ["CD"] 77 and was published as CE 387, starting on page 978 of Volume 16). That same Navy autopsy report was sent by the Secret Service to the Warren Commission on December 23, 1963.]

But here, in my opinion is the source of much confusion (and some of this comes from Bill Burrus himself - -I had an extensive in-person interview with him in March, 1978):

On December 18, five days before the Navy autopsy report arrived at the FBI, the Washington Post's Nate Haseltine was being pressured by his superiors to write an "autopsy story." After all,the Burrus story--referenced to the "still unannounced" Bethesda autopsy report--had already run in the Dallas Times-Herald, and the Post wanted to carry something equally authoritative.

So Haseltine telephoned Burrus, and asked him for his source. Burrus, who had promised confidentiality, declined to give him the source. Haseltine bore in on Burrus very hard, but Burrus wouldn't budge. The result: Haseltine was left to fend for himself (so to speak) and come up with a story. So, on December 18, he came up with a hybrid story: borrowing some of the language from the Burrus story, but diverging from the Burrus story when it came to the exact location of the rear entry wound, and the cause of the throat wound. Burrus--who had an excellent source--accurately reported that the "still unannounced" Navy autopsy report stated that the bullet which entered just above the shoulder blade, that it then traveled on a forward trajectory and exited via the wound at the front of the throat, which Dr. Perry had identified (on 11/22/63) as an entrance wound. However, Haseltine, who was in touch with an FBI source (IMHO), decided not to believe Burrus at this point. So instead, he believed an FBI source who told him that the wound at the front of the throat was a fragment of the head shot. (Personally, I don't think that's a partiuclar viable hypothesis, since President Kennedy, in life, was reacting to the wound at the front of his throat some five seconds earlier--but that's another matter). Anyway, Haseltine's article was published in the Washington Post on December 18, and received widespread publication on the wire-servies--which infuriated Burrus, fwiw. The result was the wide dissemination of a story which claimed that (a) the bullet hit low on the back of the body "below the shoulders", and was "embedded" in the shoulder area; and (b ) that the wound at the front of the throat was the result of a fragment of the head shot. As far as I can see, there was never any "prior Navy autopsy report" which made these statements; imho, they are the result of Haseltine scrambling to put together an "autopsy story," and not having the kind of source that Burrus had.

In Best Evidence (published in January, 1981), I addressed the matter of Bill Burrus' December 12, 1963 story, and how accurate it proved to be. In a footnote at the bottom of a page in Chapter 7, I wrote: "In 1978 I learned that Burrus' information indeed came from the navy autopsy report, but was not given to him by a Bethesda pathologist.." The citation for that statement reads: "Interview with Bill Burrus, March, 1978." Indeed, I had a one-on-one meeting with Burrus that went on for several hours on March 27, 1978, in which I learned the full circumstances of the genesis of this most unusual "autopsy" story, and just who the source was. I will be dealing with that, in some detail, in Final Charade. Understanding the genesis of the Burrus story is fundamental to understanding the true timeline of the evolution of the Navy autopsy report, which provided the legal foundation for the Warren Report.

DSL

12/9/13; 10:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

Anybody got newspaper clippings of these?

December 12, 1963, Dallas Times-Herald, by Bill Burrus

December 18, 1963, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, by Richard Dudman

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Micah Mileto said:

Anybody got newspaper clippings of these?

December 12, 1963, Dallas Times-Herald, by Bill Burrus

December 18, 1963, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, by Richard Dudman

 

 

Maybe there will be a copy of the articles in Final Charade.   

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Maybe there will be a copy of the articles in Final Charade.   

I ain't got Final Charade time 😎

[Chris Bristow]

On July 5, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Paul Rigby said:

This is unusually funny, for the pictures Hunt presents - taken a mere quarter century apart, but hey-ho - are plainly not the same. As the man said, "cracks don't go away" - but they did in this case!

As for prefering the testimony of the body snatchers of the SS to disinterested observers like Stavis Ellis, what can one say?

And as to the broader question of what this very lengthy nonsense is all about, here's a very plausible explanation:

Fred T. Newcomb & Perry Adams, “The Fifth Shot,” from Chapter 3, “Execution,” within Murder From Within (Santa Barbara, Calif.: Probe, 1974)

(1) Zapruder frame number 330.

(2) Charles Roberts, op. cit., p. 17.

(3) Ellis, loc. cit.

(4) Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 26. ‘FBI report, dated July 17, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 472-474.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 27. ‘Letter from the FBI to the Commission, dated August 12, 1964, concerning investigation into curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 475-477.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29-30. ‘Charts prepared by Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt showing locations of curb mark on Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, pp. 478-480.

Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “’Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 34. ‘Piece of curb containing lead markings removed from Main Street in Dallas,’” in Hearings, v. 21, p. 482.

According to Shaneyfelt, “These metal smears [on the curb] were spectographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony. No copper was found. The absence of copper precludes the possibility that the mark on the curbing section was made by an unmutilated military full metal-jacketed bullet such as the bullet from Governor Connally’s stretcher.” [Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt, “Testimony of Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt [dated Sept. 1, 1964],” in Hearings, v. 15, p. 700.

I am not alluding to fakery but those photos don't match!. The two top cracks are about 43 degrees apart in the HSCA and almost 65 degrees in the White House garage photo. Adjusting  for perspective can spread the HSCA angle out to match the other but then several other cracks are way off.  The Garage photo was taken from the front and if the HSCA photo was taken from inside the limo it might explain this. Can someone tell me the source of the HSCA image?

[Micah Mileto]

[deleted]

Edited November 7, 2018 by Micah Mileto