David Josephs Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 James.... First off... thanks so much for that wonderful image... I had never seen it that clearly.... Do you have the entire page like that as well as the face sheet? I was hoping to hear more from you regarding what Kellerman says is a small round entrance wound "to the right of the ear"... unless he is looking at an upside down photo... to the right of the right ear at the hairline is the right temple. Maybe that's why there is no exhibit. ?? No, not saying this is a back entry... only that there are numerous accounts for wounds in places that were never "officially" recorded. The right temple hole being one of them... the lower neck entracne wound MAY be another. I am saying that a shot to the lower neck as LIPSEY described would be more likely to create a fragment that exists the throat. I am NOT connecting these three wounds (back, lung, throat) with this low entrance or the WCR or HSCA entrances - imo these wounds are not connected... If a shot was fired from the South Knoll (high to low) to the neck... it could have been the cause for the pleural bruise... but to be honest... the autopsy doctors saying so does not hold alot of weight... and since we have no idea if we are looking at authentic autopsy images/x-rays... who knows... In terms of the damage done by a fragment exiting... since we do not know the condition of the path between the skull and throat with any certainty... how can you say it is impossible? Between that explanation and a shot to the throat with ammo that is so small as to leave a 3-5mm hole... Millimeters? Or the Ice dart / flechette pistol... and the fact that Rankin and the WC is exposed to an autopsy that offers the fragment conclusion... we just can't know. In terms of those that saw or didn't see the hole... I can dismiss it not being seen prior to the table due to the size and location of the wound. But can we at least agree that PERRY would have NEVER cut that wound resulting in it looking like that. and you make an interesting point about the top and bottom... we CAN see the bottom of the circle but that would not be half of a 5mm hole as it is much larger than that. and it seems to me that the bottom of this half circle, if the original wound, is much lower on JFK that you suggest. So where are we James? You believe the throat wound was a shot of a regular small calibre bullet with no bullet related to the wound unless 1) it was the wound that transits and blows out the right occipitol - what we see on Z is a fabrication of the wound 2) it lodged just past the pleural cavity creating the hole and bruise and subsequently was removed and has disappeared to history 3) it was an exit wound from a fragment of bone - which shot and how is as mysterious as where the bullet is in your scenario.. 4) melting ice darts with paralyzing toxins... With regards to SBT - that game never started... so I see no need to worry about disproving that which has never been proven Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion. Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck. Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances? Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Cliff... the evidence from the moment jfk left DP is suspect. I do not argue your points, which may be valid... I just dont see the dart gun thing broken out in DP. That's cool. The autopsists saw it before they were dragooned into the cover-up, and the neck x-ray and the Zap corroborate the conclusion. On that basis I'd say it is the most likely scenario. The fibers in the shirt were moving outward yet had no bullet related material on them while the coat and shirt on the back do. You say dart (which pushes IN), I say bone from a shot to his head... It was the FBI lab which claimed to find traces of copper in the back of the clothing. I'd say the FBI lab has no credibility in this case whatsoever. I think you underestimate the PAIN JFK would be in related to his back and ANY disruption. I've had L4/5 surgery... a very bad back such as JFK's could create extreme pain for him. Loosening his tie so as to breathe... I was a poker dealer for 25 years, lots of bending over the table, with a few periods of severe back pain. My experience, and what I observe in other people, is that when we feel pain in a particular area of the body we instinctively reach for that area. JFK didn't reach for his back, he reached for his throat. And I don't see how back pain would cause his left index finger to freeze in a pointing position. David, it's a matter of consistency in the evidence. A guy reaching for his throat is consistent with a guy feeling pain in his throat. A guy acting paralyzed is consistent with a guy actually being paralyzed. Can there be other explanations? Sure, but what is the explanation most consistent with the event? Cliff, it's a matter of interpretation of said evidence and the authenticity related to it. You "not seeing how" anything occurs is really not a rebuttal... you have no idea how deep the back bullet might have gone and which nerves it might have damaged. You're not a doctor and cannot possibly understand what is involved anatomically with the way his hands, arms and body moved after being shot... I am more than willing to revisit the film and the sequence and keep an open mind... if he had the motor skills to try and untie his tie... why not use them to get down and out of the way... unless the toxin starts to work and he is frozen... which indeed is what we seem to see. I am putting together a frame by frame collage... give me some time and let's see what it shows Cheers DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Cliff... please help me see where JFK is ever touching his tie or his throat as you claim. It must happen before he disappears within frame I agree that he is virtually motionless thru these frames... Perry tells us the wound was still oozing blood... so much for the coagulation toxin... plus, if you view the stablized Zfilm in realplayer... you can see him being pushed forward and up just before the arms come up... If he was hit at 190 as you say... I see nothing that is not consistent with that conclusion... then what we see at 224 is the backwound while JC is getting hit with a different shot almost on top of each other.... edit: I have to add that by z260 or so - if he was hit at 190 - we should see blood in that area... there is none. Edited April 20, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 (edited) Cliff... please help me see where JFK is ever touching his tie or his throat as you claim. It must happen before he disappears within frame. Follow his left index finger. Seems quite active in the area of the throat, does it not? I agree that he is virtually motionless thru these frames... Perry tells us the wound was still oozing blood... so much for the coagulation toxin... First shot (throat) -- paralytic. Second shot (back) -- toxin. plus, if you view the stablized Zfilm in realplayer... you can see him being pushed forward and up just before the arms come up... If you compare the last photo taken before he was hit -- Hugh Betzner's 3rd photo, taken at Z186 -- with the first photo taken after he was hit -- Phil Willis' 5th photo, taken at Z202 -- we see JFK knocked to the left, consistent with a shot from the right front. JFK sat upright at Z186: JFK leaning to the left at Z202: Betzner said he heard a shot right after he took his photo; Willis said he took his 5th photo in a startle response to gunfire. I think Gil Jesus got it exactly correct -- JFK was trying to cough up the round that entered his throat, accounting for the action you describe. He raised his hands up to aid in this attempt to dislodge what he felt in his throat. If he was hit at 190 as you say... What I may or may not say has nothing to do with it, David. It's what the people who were there said and what their photographs show. Betzner and Willis help establish circa Z190 as the first shot, and JFK's obvious movement to his left is consistent with a shot from the right front that did not exit and transferred all its momentum to JFK. I see nothing that is not consistent with that conclusion... then what we see at 224 is the backwound while JC is getting hit with a different shot almost on top of each other.... The official report and contemporaneous notes of SS SA Glen Bennett contradict such a conclusion.: "I heard what sounded like a fire-cracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area/and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible. At the moment I looked at the back of the President, I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President's head." The physical and photographic evidence corroborate Bennett's account. The holes in JFK's clothing are 4 inches below the bottom of the collar -- Bennett nailed the back wound location. The Willis 5 photo shows Bennett looking to his right, as per his statement, and the Altgens 6 photo (Z255) shows Bennett with blurred facial features, consistent with someone's head in motion, also consistent with Bennett's description of his actions. On the basis of this corroborated testimony I'd put the back shot post Z255. DJ: edit: I have to add that by z260 or so - if he was hit at 190 - we should see blood in that area... there is none. Why should we see blood? Nellie Connally had the best view of JFK and she didn't see any blood. David, it just seems to me, with all due respect, that you've "married" a conclusion and you're trying to get the evidence to fit that conclusion. Edited April 20, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Cliff... I can say the same thing about your "marriage"... you will not even entertain other options... them not seeing blood is indicative of there not being any blood since there was not wound until after the headshot... Coughing up the bullet... no options for the shot timing/frames other than what you conclude... Cliff, there is just as much evidence for the other scenarios as there is for yours.... I do not see his finger moving about... please post I do not see him touching his tie... please post I do not see anything looking like a cough... please post I do not agree with your ability to determine LEAN from those angles... nor does his slight movements within the limo constitute a definite reaction to a shot... We are close in many areas... there were more than 3 shots, CIA technology has a probablility of use, and alot of what you say makes perfect sense.... As you have in your signature block... Salandria was right and we are playing into those hands with this discussion. I respect your POV while not necessarily agreeing with it entirely. Not dissecting the throat/back wound was almost as criminal as stealing the body... and leaves us discussing minutia which is unproveable... only acceptable with a reasonable doubt... imo. Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 21, 2012 Author Share Posted April 21, 2012 (edited) David, Yes I do have page 1. Here it is:- I was hoping to hear more from you regarding what Kellerman says is a small round entrance wound "to the right of the ear"... unless he is looking at an upside down photo... to the right of the right ear at the hairline is the right temple. I went back over Kellerman’s testimony. In WCH:2 P. 81 he appears to be describing the head damage created by the “flap.” He says in that area the skull bone had been “removed.” He is actually wrong. The skull bone is still present, it has just folded over. With regard to the back wound he places it exactly where Humes places it in CE 386: in the “muscle between the shoulder and the neck.” With regard to the throat wound he says it was underneath the tie. He says he knows that because he read in it Dr. Clark’s report. All Clark says is that the throat wound is in “lower third of the anterior neck” WCR P. 217. That is where Humes places it in CE385. He defines that position as being between trachea rings 3 & 4. Maybe that's why there is no exhibit. ?? No, not saying this is a back entry... only that there are numerous accounts for wounds in places that were never "officially" recorded. The right temple hole being one of them... the lower neck entrance wound MAY be another. I am saying that a shot to the lower neck as LIPSEY described would be more likely to create a fragment that exists the throat. I went over Richard Lipsey’s account. He says nothing that is of any help. All he says is that the neck wound is in “ the lower throat area.” So where is that? And if he means trachea rings 3 & 4 we are back to the autopsy report. I am NOT connecting these three wounds (back, lung, throat) with this low entrance or the WCR or HSCA entrances - imo these wounds are not connected... If a shot was fired from the South Knoll (high to low) to the neck... it could have been the cause for the pleural bruise... but to be honest... the autopsy doctors saying so does not hold a lot of weight... and since we have no idea if we are looking at authentic autopsy images/x-rays... who knows... If you are deciding to dismiss the autopsy report pictures and x-rays, what have you left to support any argument you wish to make. I accept that Humes was wrong to burn his first report. I am sure in that report he had decided the throat wound was just a result of a tracheotomy. He knew that could not stand and so he re-drafted it with conclusion that this wound was an exit one. So yes I admit in that sense he fabricated that element of the report. But I have no reason to suggest he fabricated everything else in his report. I accept his report for what it is. Dr. Mantik has closely studied the photos over a series of visits and appears to consider them authentic. True he does have some questions on the x-rays, but even he is not throwing all the x-rays out. In terms of the damage done by a fragment exiting... since we do not know the condition of the path between the skull and throat with any certainty... how can you say it is impossible? In 2D imagery, there can be ambiguity as to what we are seeing. In the 3D model a realistic image of missile pathways. Why I say “impossible” to your pathways out the throat is that in order to exit at trachea rings 3 & 4 the missile/fragment has to make trajectory changes that are not realistic and there is nothing in that area of the body that could account for such a change in direction. In the example where the fragment breaks through the floor of the skull, the angle change must be somewhere in the region of 120º. That is why I say it is impossible. Have a go yourself and see if you can find a trajectory that allows an exit through the throat. Between that explanation and a shot to the throat with ammo that is so small as to leave a 3-5mm hole... Millimeters? Or the Ice dart / flechette pistol... and the fact that Rankin and the WC is exposed to an autopsy that offers the fragment conclusion... we just can't know. In terms of those that saw or didn't see the hole... I can dismiss it not being seen prior to the table due to the size and location of the wound. But can we at least agree that PERRY would have NEVER cut that wound resulting in it looking like that. and you make an interesting point about the top and bottom... we CAN see the bottom of the circle but that would not be half of a 5mm hole as it is much larger than that. and it seems to me that the bottom of this half circle, if the original wound, is much lower on JFK that you suggest. No, that is the point I am making. In BE3, “Stare of Death” image, JFK's head is bent back slightly. I agree, just looking at that image it is difficult to be certain exactly where this wound is. However the crease marks are like geographical markers that define position on the body. They have not change between 7:30 am when the Fort Worth image was taken and 7:30 pm when the autopsy images were taken. It does not matter what position the head is in, you can trace these land marks on the body and plot exactly where the wound was on the body. These crease marks define the outer neck in a similar way that the trachea rings define the inner neck. Having defined the point of the of the upper wound it is fairly simple to transfer that location to the Fort Worth picture. My problem is that, as yet, I do not have a clear enough image of these lines that is without ambiguity. When I do have then I can definitively place the entrance wound on the flesh of the body as opposed to the trachea rings. So where are we James? You believe the throat wound was a shot of a regular small calibre bullet with no bullet related to the wound unless 1) it was the wound that transits and blows out the right occipitol - what we see on Z is a fabrication of the wound 2) it lodged just past the pleural cavity creating the hole and bruise and subsequently was removed and has disappeared to history 3) it was an exit wound from a fragment of bone - which shot and how is as mysterious as where the bullet is in your scenario.. 4) melting ice darts with paralyzing toxins... I am not sure where I am on this issue, except to say I don’t think it was an exit wound. There are far too many difficulties and unexplained issues to credibly accept that it was an exit wound. The absence of a bullet is a real puzzle. I am not adverse to the idea of a dart etc. I have some difficulty with bullet removal, but I am not totally against it. After all it fits the situation as to why no bullet. I believe that the back wound and the throat wounds are separate wounds that are not connected. And yes, there are serious concerns with both wounds because for neither wound is there a bullet. With regards to SBT - that game never started... so I see no need to worry about disproving that which has never been proven Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion. Assume first of all that the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President, with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described, and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck. Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances? Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound. Really, David you are not using Specter’s SBT speech to support the exit theory, are you? All the Perry is saying is that given these criteria, yes it could be an exit wound. If I remember Perry’s testimony correctly he never says it was definitely an exit wound. He says it could be and exit wound. He never outright rejects his initial statement from the 22nd. James. Edited April 21, 2012 by James R Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Starting at the bottom and working up... I only use the Specter tautology as an example as to why the SBT was never a THEORY at all but a reversed engineered conclusion shoved down our throats. There was no other possibility to those who see that sound in the ER at Parkland... JFK was shot, that looked like a bullet hole from the front. Now unles Cliff is right, there would be no reason to fire a tiny caliber weapon at JFK that would leave a mark... for WHAT PURPOSE? So the toxin idea gains strength as the only reason a frontal, non-lethal shot would be taken... Unless the throat wound creates the rear occipitol blowout. which is what was thought by some initially. Bullets will never be found. Which leads me to my point about the evidence... I don't need to find a trajectory... is it not possible fragments bounced around and off of other bone and themselves... That we do not have a dissected neck, and xrays that cannot be proven authentic but CAN be proven as copies... so how can you say what we do or do not know about that area of the body? Basing our conclusions on data that is highly suspect only leads to speculation and theories - which are fine... but let's agree that without all the puzzle pieces we will not know what the final picture looked like. Lipsey says what he says... Gen Wehle was his superior... many of those who attended the autopsy were not recorded .... and I believe he says more than just that James... http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/eop_entry/eop.htm In fact he drew the location on a face sheet - scroll down most the way and you will see it... It's exactly where I said he said it was.... "We next asked Lipsey to recap his description of the wounds. He described thes. as follows:(1) one bullet entered the back of the headand exited resulting in part of the face andhead being blown away;(2) another bullet entered at the top of the neck (rear) which exited in the front portion of the neck; and(3) another bullet entered at the bottom of theneck (rear) or high in the back which did notexit".(Hsca 18/1/78 interview) My point of bringing up Kellerman is to illustrate that so many physical realities were overlooked at the autopsy.. or at least in the final autopsy report... Cheers DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Cliff... I can say the same thing about your "marriage"... I'm not married to Flechette. We're just going steady. you will not even entertain other options... I will not entertain any theory based on the claim that -- "All the witnesses got it wrong." This is just the same BS told by Lone Nutters for decades, and frankly such claims make my blood boil. The first day witness of 11/22 -- at Dealey Plaza, Parkland, Bethesda -- are brave, heroic Americans who've told the truth in the face of official hostility. They've been maligned, disputed, smeared, ignored and dismissed by witting agents of the cover-up, and a horde of unwitting armchair pet theorists. I despise this kind of witness bashing, and my chief function on this Forum is to champion these truly patriotic Americans. So, no, I'm not going to entertain any theory based on bashing the competence/honesty of a couple of dozen people -- the back wound and throat wound witnesses. them not seeing blood is indicative of there not being any blood since there was not wound until after the headshot... Or JFK was struck by a round that didn't produce much blood, in order to prevent detection. You suggest JFK reacted to a shot in his back by reaching for his throat, right? As the purveyor of this seemingly ridiculous notion, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide a medical basis for such a conclusion. Coughing up the bullet... no options for the shot timing/frames other than what you conclude... I defer to the consensus witness testimony, the photographic evidence, the physical evidence (clothing holes), and the neck x-ray -- JFK was shot in the throat from the front circa Z190. You can cite no credible evidence to the contrary. Richard Lipsey? The guy you appear to regard as some kind of infallible God? He may or may not have been at the autopsy; he didn't directly participate in the autopsy; he admits he was "fuzzy" on certain details. And yet you elevate this guy over the 16 people who testified to the low back wound? Sorry David, consensus testimony by 16 people with superior views of the body trump the testimony of 1 witness who was, at best, a passive observer from a distance.. Cliff, there is just as much evidence for the other scenarios as there is for yours.... Other than Lipsey you've got nothing but an improperly prepared final autopsy report and improperly prepared autopsy photos for which there is no chain of possession. In other words, your theory is based on thin air. What is the medical basis for concluding that a gun shot in the back causes intense throat pain? Nothing, just some rationalization you've made up. What does the neck x-ray show? Oh, that's "inauthentic", right? Why? Because it destroys your pet theory? I do not see his finger moving about... please post If you don't want to observe the obvious movement of his left index finger in the frames you posted, I can't force you to do so. This is especially apparent on the second row of the frames you posted. I do not see him touching his tie... please post See above. I do not see anything looking like a cough... please post Gil Jesus did a great job on this. You should watch it sometime. I do not agree with your ability to determine LEAN from those angles... In order to adjust the Willis photo to the horizon line, John Hunt rotated the as-published Willis 5 photo 3.1 degrees to the left. So it is a certainty that JFK was leaning to the left at Z202. nor does his slight movements within the limo constitute a definite reaction to a shot... So raising his arms up and grabbing at his throat were not reactions to a shot? A reaction to a shallow back wound? Don't you see how weak these claims are, David? Other than Lispey and Kellerman, are there ANY witnesses who told the truth, according to you? We are close in many areas... Not in the area I regard as the most important. No sir. I despise witness bashing with a black passion, and that's all I see you doing here, David. Take Glen Bennett. The Willis 5 photo shows him turned to the right, just as he wrote in his official report. He said he turned to face the front and saw "the Boss" shot in the back about 4 inches down from the shoulder. The Altgens 6 photo shows him still turned slightly to the right, with his features blurred as if his head were in motion. He nailed the back wound location, which was 4 inches below the bottom of the clothing collars. He wrote this up in his notes a couple hours after the assassination, BEFORE anyone other than Diana Bowron even knew about the back wound. But according to your analysis, David, Bennett got it wrong. But how could he? Either it went down the way he said it did, or he's the luckiest xxxx in the history of liars. Do you really think Bennett just made it all up? Then what incredible luck to have nailed the back wound location perfectly even though he never saw it (according to you) and at the time of his notes no one outside Bowron even knew about it! Bollocks! Edited April 23, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) First off Cliff... if you've read my posts for any period of time, you know that I firmly believe that the witnesses trump the physical evidence in this case due to the dubious path these items of evidence travel. What you don't seemto be floowing thru upon is that those the LOOKED said it appeared to be a small bullet entrance wound. They did not dissect it other than to create the tracheotomy and Perry notices some very specific things... Perry also DOES specific things to the strap muscles on the right side of JFK's neck... Our crack autopsy doc Humes tells us unequivicably that the bruise on the lung AND STRAP MUSCLES occured at the time of the shots, and NOT during the procedures... this among so many other items is just plain wrong... So to be honest Cliff... I give great weight to what the Parkland witnesses said... All I keep saying is that an ice dart and/or paralyzing toxins MAY NOT BE THE ONLY FIT TO THE EVIDENCE. Telling the truth, Cliff, and being correct are two completely different things.... the cursory exam JFK received was enough to identify certain features and overlooked others. Do you believe that Perry made the trach cut we see in the photos from Bethesda? I've look at the video again... sorry, but the few frames in which Gil claims he is pulling his tie and coughing up a bullet seem as silly to me as Greer firing a shot. So in Altgens he'd be holding his tie in his left hand... Cliff - I do not see it the way Gil describes... I see WHAT he is saying, I simply disagree with his conclusion. I've never claimeded that all the witnesses were wrong... it MAY have been a bullet hole... yet since there was never a complete examination of that area of the body, we are speculating... the witnesses support it being a very small cailber bullet - that, imo would have been removed prior to the autopsy.. and resulted in that grossly enlarged hole in his neck. Another question then Cliff... how much weight do you give the medical evidence - how much authenticity? Most of it does not support how a particle trail is left inches above what would have been the agreed upon entrance, how the entire right side of his skull, face is shown to be gone yet is obviously not ... yet you can pick out enough to rely upon to affirm that conflusion? I do not see how - given these conflicts - and maybe explains why these xrays stop at his chin.... Edited April 23, 2012 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) First off Cliff... if you've read my posts for any period of time, you know that I firmly believe that the witnesses trump the physical evidence in this case due to the dubious path these items of evidence travel. What you don't seemto be floowing thru upon is that those the LOOKED said it appeared to be a small bullet entrance wound. Yeah, that's my point. And...? They did not dissect it other than to create the tracheotomy and Perry notices some very specific things... Perry also DOES specific things to the strap muscles on the right side of JFK's neck... Our crack autopsy doc Humes tells us unequivicably that the bruise on the lung AND STRAP MUSCLES occured at the time of the shots, and NOT during the procedures... this among so many other items is just plain wrong... Humes wasn't a trained "autopsy doc", and once the cover-up kicked into full effect his remarks have no credibility. What he said that was recorded by Sibert-O'Neill -- this is before the cover-up took full effect -- does have credibility. So to be honest Cliff... I give great weight to what the Parkland witnesses said... In regard to the throat entrance wound? I have seen no such respect from you, David. All I keep saying is that an ice dart and/or paralyzing toxins MAY NOT BE THE ONLY FIT TO THE EVIDENCE. I didn't say it was the ONLY fit. I said it fits the MOST evidence of any scenario -- given JFK's evident paralysis and the minor damage shown on the neck x-ray. To say nothing of the FACT that this scenario was favored by the autopsists BEFORE the official start of the cover-up, i.e., the introduction of the Magic Bullet. Telling the truth, Cliff, and being correct are two completely different things.... the cursory exam JFK received was enough to identify certain features and overlooked others. Do you believe that Perry made the trach cut we see in the photos from Bethesda? The photos from Bethesda were not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol, and there is no chain of possession for them. Ergo, they have no weight whatsoever as evidence. I've look at the video again... sorry, but the few frames in which Gil claims he is pulling his tie and coughing up a bullet seem as silly to me as Greer firing a shot. You posted a series of frames. In the top row, 4th frame from the left, JFK's left index finger makes an appearance. On the second row of frames his left index finger OBVIOUSLY was moving. Are you honestly telling me you can't see that?? So in Altgens he'd be holding his tie in his left hand... By what alchemy of logic do you arrive at that conclusion? Let's review some of the witness testimony: Linda Willis, who was in an excellent position on the south side of Elm, to the WC (emphasis added): Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there? Ms. Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed at his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went. Clint Hill to the WC (emphasis added) "We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9...Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left..." Hill was positioned behind JFK, so he could not specify what part of the body JFK was grabbing at. But from the Zap and the testimony of Willis and Nellie Connally we know it was his neck. Nellie before the WC -- at least Specter understood what the testimony was! (emphasis added): Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President as he had both hands at his neck. Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing over gripping your own neck? Mrs. Connally: Yes... Cliff - I do not see it the way Gil describes... I see WHAT he is saying, I simply disagree with his conclusion. His conclusion is corroborated by the witnesses, and by the Zapruder frames you posted which show JFK with an active left index finger. If you don't want to see any of this, you are certainly entitled not to see it. But to say its silly when the witnesses indicate the very same thing...well, that's just...silly. I've never claimeded that all the witnesses were wrong... it MAY have been a bullet hole... There is NO other possibility. Your fragment-from-the-headshot nonsense is totally unsupported by the witness testimony, the photographic evidence, and the neck x-ray. It's one of the most absurd pet theories promoted anywhere in the case -- and that's saying a lot! yet since there was never a complete examination of that area of the body, we are speculating... No, it isn't speculation. JFK was clearly struck circa Z190 and immediately reached for his throat. Your nonsense about reaction to the back wound is medically unsupportable. the witnesses support it being a very small cailber bullet - that, imo would have been removed prior to the autopsy.. and resulted in that grossly enlarged hole in his neck. That is a possibility I acknowledged from the outset. In fact, for a long time I thought that was the best explanation. But the more I studied the issue the more it was apparent that the blood soluble round scenario fit a greater body of evidence. Another question then Cliff... how much weight do you give the medical evidence - how much authenticity? As I never get tired of saying -- there are two (2) kinds of medical evidence in this case: 1) evidence which was prepared/maintained according to the appropriate, professional protocols, and 2) evidence which was NOT prepared/maintained according to the appropriate, professional protocols. In the first group we find: the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, Burkley's death certificate, the Sibert-O'Neill report on the autopsy, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, the neck x-ray. In the second group we find: the final autopsy report, the autopsy photos, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen, and ANYTHING related to the head wound(s) given the FACT that pre-autopsy surgery to the head was indicated in the S-O report. The properly prepared evidence is abundantly corroborated by the witness statements, the Dealey photographic evidence, and the clothing evidence. The improperly prepared/maintained evidence is at odds with the witness statements, the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, and the holes in the clothing. It's really a no-brainer. Most of it does not support how a particle trail is left inches above what would have been the agreed upon entrance, how the entire right side of his skull, face is shown to be gone yet is obviously not ... yet you can pick out enough to rely upon to affirm that conflusion? Excuse me? It'll be a cold day in hell before I get into a discussion of that nature concerning the head wound(s). Edited April 23, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Cliff - you make a passionate and interesting case - yet you do not convince... What you believe to be the BEST explanation - the one that fits how you look at the evidence - included reactions and assumptions I simple do not agree with. I have not and will not go any farther than that on any personal basis... On the basis of evidence, I still believe reactions related to JFK hands cannot be attributed to anything specific enough to say he was coughing up a bullet and loosing his tie... I have no problem with you doing so and your continued attempts ar rephrasing the same words, the same evidence... I GET IT Cliff... I just don't agree with you. In a civilized world people shake hands and agree to disagree... hopefully you will not drop down the rabbit hole just cause I disagree... My not being able to convince you is also no indication of my belief level or understanding of the evidence... I just disagree with that being the BEST match to the evidence, as I see it... and one of the less likely scenarios given the objective. Peace DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 Cliff - you make a passionate and interesting case - yet you do not convince... What you believe to be the BEST explanation - the one that fits how you look at the evidence - included reactions and assumptions I simple do not agree with. I have not and will not go any farther than that on any personal basis... On the basis of evidence, I still believe reactions related to JFK hands cannot be attributed to anything specific enough to say he was coughing up a bullet and loosing his tie... Maybe not, but I don't see how it can be disputed that he was shot in the throat with something at that point. I have no problem with you doing so and your continued attempts ar rephrasing the same words, the same evidence... I GET IT Cliff... I just don't agree with you. In a civilized world people shake hands and agree to disagree... hopefully you will not drop down the rabbit hole just cause I disagree... My not being able to convince you is also no indication of my belief level or understanding of the evidence... I just disagree with that being the BEST match to the evidence, as I see it... I'd say it matches the MOST evidence, since it accounts for JFK's paralysis, the minor damage on the x-ray, and the speculations of the autopsists before the cover-up fully commenced.. But hey, it doesn't make you a bad guy just because you don't agree, right? and one of the less likely scenarios given the objective. Peace DJ Scorpions paralyze their victims before moving in for the kill. Why not presidential assassins? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted April 24, 2012 Author Share Posted April 24, 2012 David, my comments are in red. Starting at the bottom and working up... I only use the Specter tautology as an example as to why the SBT was never a THEORY at all but a reversed engineered conclusion shoved down our throats. Well that may be what you intended, however it did not read like that. One of the points you were making in that post, as well as the previous post, was that the neck wound was a wound of exit. You had also been using Roy Kellerman as one witness who supported that position. It therefore appeared to me that you were using Kellerman’s reply as support for the idea that the neck wound was an exit wound. There was no other possibility to those who see that sound in the ER at Parkland... JFK was shot, that looked like a bullet hole from the front. Now unles Cliff is right, there would be no reason to fire a tiny caliber weapon at JFK that would leave a mark... for WHAT PURPOSE? So the toxin idea gains strength as the only reason a frontal, non-lethal shot would be taken... I am sorry, I have no idea what you are saying here. “Those who see that sound in the ER at Parkland”???? As I understand what Cliff is saying, the notion of that kind of weapon is suggested because there was no missile discovered in the body. What therefore could account for such a wound and leave no trace. Unless the throat wound creates the rear occipitol blowout. which is what was thought by some initially. You really ought to know better than make such an illogical point. In such an argument, for the throat wound to cause the occipital wound in the head the line of trajectory would have the shooter firing from a position lower than JFK’s seated position in the car. Are you now suggesting the gunman was in the sewer drains, for that is the only position I can think of that would allow such trajectory. Bullets will never be found. Which leads me to my point about the evidence... I don't need to find a trajectory... is it not possible fragments bounced around and off of other bone and themselves... Two points here. First, examining wounds from the point of view of trajectories allows you to understand how a wound could occur and understand where the gunman would have to be to be able to inflict such a wound. The whole reason I have been able to argue that the SBT is impossible is because of the complexities of the internal trajectory within the neck. I have pointed out that were the entrance point and exit point as stated by the Warren Commission or indeed Dale Myers, a bullet traveling that path through the neck would cause massive injury. And that is why the SBT is impossible, because such injuries never happened. Second, the autopsy makes clear that there was no damage to the bone structure in the neck and chest area. The only bone damage was in the head area. It is the autopsy report that prohibits SBT supporters from suggesting that the reason the bullet escaped damaging major organs in the neck was that it was deflected from its path by striking a bone. I concur that the autopsy had many deficiencies, however not all of it is invalid. What is invalid is how the findings of the Commission used the autopsy report to support the SBT. It was the Commission that decided to link the back and throat wound. It was the Commission that forced that conclusion on all its witnesses. Yes, there is a difference between the views of Parkland and Bethesda with regard to the head wound. That is what led David Lifton to suggest that something had to have happened to the body between these two places. That we do not have a dissected neck, and xrays that cannot be proven authentic but CAN be proven as copies... so how can you say what we do or do not know about that area of the body? Basing our conclusions on data that is highly suspect only leads to speculation and theories - which are fine... but let's agree that without all the puzzle pieces we will not know what the final picture looked like. We know a great deal from documents like: the Sibbert and O’Neil report; the autopsy images; the X-rays (areas of the x-rays may have questions about them but not the total x-ray); the Boswell drawings; and yes, much of the the autopsy report itself. It is my contention that these documents are not suspect. And that is before we look at testimony. Lipsey says what he says... Gen Wehle was his superior... many of those who attended the autopsy were not recorded .... and I believe he says more than just that James... http://www.paulseato...p_entry/eop.htm In fact he drew the location on a face sheet - scroll down most the way and you will see it... It's exactly where I said he said it was.... "We next asked Lipsey to recap his description of the wounds. He described thes. as follows:(1) one bullet entered the back of the headand exited resulting in part of the face and head being blown away; The problem here is that none of the “face” was blown away!!!! (2) another bullet entered at the top of the neck (rear) which exited in the front portion of the neck; Parkland were clear that the neck wound was one of entrance. As a trauma hospital they were used to seeing such wounds. Their judgment was made before any theories was constructed. However, suppose they were wrong there is no way bullet traveling through this trajectory could avoid damaging major arteries. There are just too many of them in its path. In addition to that this bullet has to bruise the top of the lung, and that is not possible because the lung is positioned much lower that CE385 would have us believe. In addition to that this bullet has also got to bruise the right strap muscle. Now how is a bullet going to do all that?? and(3) another bullet entered at the bottom of theneck (rear) or high in the back which did notexit".(Hsca 18/1/78 interview) That is meaningless. Although I am critical of Humes placing of the back wound, at least he gave a specific reference. Dr. Berkley also gave a specific reference. The jacket and shirt also give a specific reference. Lipsey’s reference is meaningless. It tells us nothing. James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) GV: Answers in red. CV: response in dark blue Cliff Varnell: "They had the capacity to paralyze a target before the kill shot -- to insure a kill shot, to avoid the possibility that a non-lethal first shot might cause JFK to duck down. JFK seized up paralyzed in about 2 seconds, utterly consistent with known testing by the CIA. They had the capacity to fire a blood soluble toxin with the second shot. These capacities existed. It's a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't use the technology available to them?" Cliff, I'll give you two reasons which I find very convincing. 1) Why try to shoot the President in the neck - purposely - with something that will not kill him? Glenn, he was shot in the throat with something that didn't kill him! Yes, but that's only as a result of another bullet taking care of that, before the first one may well have. I don't follow you. How could there be a shot before the first shot? Perhaps I should have added in my first posting that I don't agree with your basic assumption of why we see JFK act the way he did, after being hit the first time. You describe this as him being "paralyzed". Perhaps this is an agreeable description. However, the conclusion that his actions - or lack of actions - was the result of some kind of toxin entering his body, is highly speculative. What you cannot deny is that this was the informed speculation of the autopsists the night of the autopsy. I didn't come up with this scenario -- the people who examined the body did. What we can agree on, surely, is that JFK had been hit in his neck by a bullet. I don't know exactly what makes you conclude that his apparently "paralyzed" reaction must have had something to do with a toxin of some kind? It has nothing to do with anything I've concluded, Glenn. It was what the autopsists concluded as a likely explanation for two entrance wounds with no corresponding exits. If they had been able to watch the Zapruder film that night, they would have found powerful corroboration in the fact that JFK appears to have seized up paralyzed in a couple of seconds. This scenario explains the shallow back wound -- which the autopsists probed, after all -- and the minor damage in the neck. So it is well grounded speculation indeed, and fits more of the evidence than any other. As you stated, Jackie said he looked quizzical. Who wouldn't look quizzical? Somebody who just had a 6.5mm FMJ rip thru their neck -- I think the look would be agony. And there would be blood spurting out all over the place. Just a few seconds after something completely incomprehensible happened to him, and his brain had just begun to processing what was going on? What's "incomprehensible" about getting shot with a conventional round, which is what you're driving at, right? JFK was an ex-military man. If he'd been hit with a standard bullet I'm sure it would have been quite comprehensible. Being struck with a much smaller caliber flechette is another matter. The sensation, and possibly pain, that JFK must surely have felt from this shot should of course have been completely unexplainable to him. Not if it was a standard round. And "possibly pain"? Ever talk to someone who's been shot? Hurts like hell. "Quizzical" is consistent with something unusual. His hands came up to his throat as the result of a reflex response, not as a result of a processed thought. Right. People instinctively reach for the area that's been struck. Linda Willis and Clint Hill had excellent views of JFK, both described him as as making grabbing motions, which is what we see in the Zap. He was using his left index finger to grab at the area of his throat. But the neck x-ray shows only minor damage. This is all consistent with the autopsists scenario of a blood soluble round, not a standard round. After this reaction his only movement was that he fell over slightly forward and towards his left, Jackie. Newton, that is. Your descritpion of "his only movement" is consistent with the analysis that he was paralyzed. Who's Newton? I don't know what it is that you would have expected him to do here, in these few seconds after he was hit - to not conclude that he was injected with some kind of toxin? Stand up? Lay down? Take cover, somehow? Say something? Or what? I'd expect an ex-military man shot with a standard round to hit the deck, take cover, yes. Indeed. That would have been the worst-case scenario in a first-shot/kill-shot strategy -- a wounded JFK taking cover. Why take the chance when they had the technology to paralyze him first? I believe that JFK was completely overwhelmed by the sensation of the hit and that he also was just beginning to register all kinds of totally unknown sensations that he was unable to comprehend. Could he swallow, for example? Had the pain of the hit begun register? Was he able to breath properly? Personally I don't believe that JFK in the few seconds before the head shot ended it all, understood the situation; that he'd been hit. Fine. This is consistent with the flechette scenario. People with military experience who are shot with standard rounds wouldn't be likely to find the situation incomprehensible. JFK talked all the time about how easy it would be for him to get shot. I think his brain was in turbo mode to sort out all strange and never before felt signals his body was sending him. And that yes, he had begun to feel the pain. Nellie Connally, who got a glance of him after the first hit, described his eyes as "empty and frightened". Possibly his left hand fist is an indication of this. In my view, as a response to what was going on inside of him, not because he was thinking of what exactly had happened or what might happen. Fine. All consistent with him being shot with something unusual. Cliff, I don't have the answers to all of this. But no matter how I turn the stones here, I cannot see that President Kennedy's reaction would have had to have anything to do with a toxin. You just did a fine job of describing paralysis -- lack of movement, lack of comprehension. How is this such a leap given what you've stipulated? Another matter is that toxins are traceable. Not when a military hostile to Kennedy controls the autopsy! Not only in the sense that it existed, but also possibly where it came from; was manufactured. Why risk that with the questions that would follow? The military controlled the autopsy; the FBI controlled the investigation. It was guaranteed that no questions would follow. Was there a toxicology report included with the autopsy? Not that I'm aware of... So therefor, yes, he was hit with a bullet that didn't kill him. And why would they fire a first shot that didn't kill him? And why was there only minor damage in the neck? Why didn't blood spurt out all over the place? The flechette scenario accounts for these questions; the standard round scenario does not. But in my view, it might well have as I believe it was a standard bullet. The doctors at Parkland suggested that there could be no guarantee that JFK would have survived the neck hit. It may well have turned out fatal. Could you provide a citation for that? And what would have killed him -- the bruised lung tip? Hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process? The air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes? Nothing fatal in any of that, surely. If someone was going to take a shot at JFK, why not just aim for the President's head with a standard bullet and the likelihood is very strong that it would all be game over? They didn't want to go to the gas chamber if the first shot failed to kill JFK. Well, Cliff, do you really think that anyone who would have been caught and convicted for being part of the alleged assassination team at DPD would not get the death sentence? I doubt it. Glenn, would you risk your life on a "very strong likelihood" that the first shot was a kill shot when you had the capacity to paralyze the target first? That is a question which I believe no shooter would have had any possibility of answer during the shooting. How would anyone be able to decide whether a hit had been fatal or not, in the few seconds they had to decide this? The first hit wasn't intended to be fatal. All they had to do was achieve subcutaneous penetration anywhere on the body. I'm sure they had spotters... Which is confirmed by what the doctors said about the neck shot, "it may have been fatal". See above First-shot/kill shot was not a 100% proposition. With a blood soluble paralytic a strike anywhere on the body is successful -- this could not be assumed with a standard round. And the damage shown on the neck x-ray was utterly inconsistent with a standard round. The shallow wound in the back was utterly inconsistent with a standard round. Well, there's hardly consensus about that. There are those who say the shallow wound was consistent with a defective bullet. But two defective bullets? And what happened to them? Pre-autopsy removal? Fine. We have an alternative scenario -- JFK was struck in the back and the throat with defective rounds which were removed prior to the autopsy. But this scenario doesn't explain JFK's evident paralysis in the limo, and frankly the notion that the first two shots by a professional hit team would prove to be defective is a real stretch. The only "theory" I advance here is that the back shot -- the second shot -- was a toxin. OK. Cliff. Fair enough. Because they wanted no shots from in front to be visible? Come on, Cliff? This couldn't be the reason? No, that's not the reason. The purpose was to render the target paralyzed. What do we see in the Zapruder film? JFK seizing up paralyzed in a little over two seconds. See above for my view on this. I like your description of JFK after the first shot -- no movement, incomprehension. Fits the flechette scenario like a glove! Furthermore, the neck is a smaller target and thus more difficult to hit, right? Especially on a moving target. Why risk this? They didn't need to hit him in the neck -- anywhere on his body would have worked. You've got a source for this toxin, and that it existed in 1963? You bet. http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt Here you present the argument I made above -- why risk a dicey first-shot/kill-shot when you MUST score a direct hit on the head of a moving target? The risk for a blood soluble round was nil. The risks of a failed first-shot/kill-shot were enormous. Well, I see it the other way around. Two guns with standard ammunition, instead of one, would raise the chances of success by at least 50%. No matter how you slice it. That's still not a 100% guarantee. And what are the chances of the ammunition being defective? Because I take it you don't expect those two seconds to still be that short amount of time (which as I understand your theory, is an absolute requirement) if this toxin originated in, say, his chest? First of all, it's not my theory -- it was the theory of the guys who actually handled the body on 11/22/63. This scenario was so compelling to them that FBI SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such weaponry. Did you read this? http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt A shot to the chest would work as well as a shot to the throat. GV: 2) I also find it extremely hard to believe that if there were more than a single shooter, one of them would be taking all those enormous risks involved in an endevour like this one - without having the capacity to actually to do the job, which was to kill JFK? I don't follow you. The shooters firing the blood soluble rounds weren't taking any more of a risk than anyone else. The idea behind using a paralytic was to reduce the risk for everyone. OK. At least now I do understand your argument for this. But we look at this very differently. In my view, it reduces the chances of success, it does not raise them. How does paralyzing a target first reduce the chances for success? Scorpions are quite successful with this strategy, after all. GV: You've got to admit that this idea is somewhat far fetched...? The autopsists didn't think it was far-fetched. The FBI men at the autopsy didn't think it was far-fetched. It isn't far-fetched when you consider the minor damage to the throat the shot caused; it isn't far-fetched when you consider the fact that the back wound was shallow; and it isn't far-fetched when you consider the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in a little over two seconds. Yes, I'm aware of that. But I'd like to see those photos that Robert Knudsen testified about to the HSCA. Where he basically stated that he had been part of developing and thus seen photos from the autopsy of metal probes through JFKs body, one of them through the neck. If this is true, it certainly supports the notion that a single bullet went through JFKs neck. Where does Knudsen say the probes went all the way thru the neck? The back wound was probed and no lane of transit was found. I'm not a medical expert, Cliff, (but I am now trying to dig deeper in to the medical evidence, fwiw) and the number of contradictory statements from the autopsists and what Sibert stated in that report, is remarkable. And it isn't far-fetched when you consider the historical fact that such weaponry was tested on humans by the Central Intelligence Agency. I guess most of this comes down to whether one believe that a single bullet pierced Kennedy's neck or not. Such would be a matter of true belief impervious to the physical evidence (the holes in the clothes are too low), consensus witness testimony (16 people describing or depicting a wound in the back too low), and 3 properly prepared contemporaneous documents describing a wound too low (the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI report on the autopsy). Glenn, turn your head to the right and glance down on the top of your right shoulder-line. Pay attention to the movement of your shirt as your raise your right arm to wave like JFK in the motorcade. Please observe that, as you raise your arm, the fabric of your shirt will INDENT along the shoulder-line. This universal phenomenon destroys the SBT. Edited April 24, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Hocking Posted April 24, 2012 Share Posted April 24, 2012 A few possible inferences based on information in this thread: 1. Small throat entry wound may have been caused by blood soluble paralytic round (or flechette). 2. Shallow Lower Back entry (4" below shoulder) wound may also have been caused by a blood soluble paralytic. 3. Strap muscle damage could be the consequence of #1 above. 4. Bruised Rt. Lung Tip could be the consequence of #2 above. 5. Z Film supports this possibility, showing JFK sitting relatively upright and stationary when the final (real) bullets hit Connally and JFK. It makes sense that if paralyzing the target is a priority, a team might use a backup (two shooters) to make sure the objective is accomplished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now