The Warren Commission

[Guest Tom Scully]

Ford changed the writing of it, among other things, raising the back wound to a neck wound, since he knew it was BS anyway.

Something that conspiracy zealots like DiEugenio always totally ignore when discussing the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory is Warren Commission Exhibit 903, which is a photo that proves for all time that the Warren Commission (including Mr. Ford) did not need JFK's upper-back wound to be "moved" up into the neck of the President.

And the above statement is a fact regardless of any changing of the wording associated with the location of the back wound that was done by Gerald Ford.

CE903 has the wound in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck". And, furthermore, any "raising" of the wound up into the neck wouldn't have strengthened the WC's SBT, it would have destroyed it.

I wonder why more CTers haven't figured this one out yet? I guess they're still too much in love with the idea that Gerry Ford did something sinister and underhanded, even though by taking just one quick glance at CE903, we can see that the SBT works perfectly with the wound just where it is in the autopsy photo -- the upper back, not the neck.

And, yes, I have seen the "opposite angle" pictures of Specter holding his pointer too, and have commented on those pictures HERE.

http://jfk-archives....n-of-ce903.html

The arrogance of your tone is eclipsed only by your avoidance of accounting for all the elements of the fairy tale you buy into and heavily promote. Dr. Perry and Jimmy Breslin sacrificed their integrity for this 180 degrees, recantation.

At least account for their lie in your presentation, especially considering your tone!

Edited June 12, 2012 by Tom Scully

[Glenn Viklund]

To Jim Di Eugenio:

Another thing, and this is a little bit more serious:

Quit lumping me in with DVP, McAdams, Reitzes or anybody else that has floored you..right? Please do those people the favor of recognizing the fact that I am not in their league - I haven't spent, I believe, half as much time on the JFK assassination.

By no means does that prevent me from nail you once in a while. And even though that's not the issue it's quite a lot of fun...

Edited June 12, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Pat Speer]

GV:The WC - as an entity - wanted to see those photos. Earl Warren himself though, made an agreement with the Kennedys that he was gone be the only one to see them. This was just another peculiarity of those times (I believe) ; nothing of this was based in law, constitution or such. It was all about the Royal Family of the US

The above shows once and for all who this guy is.

The WC had these exhibits. Rankin's transcript proves it. His talk with McCloy proves it. The Kennedys had nothing to do with them having the exhibits or not. They were in the possession of the Secret Service until 1965. That is when RFK requested the deed of gift arrangement, which is after the Report was issued.

As I suspected, GV is another McAdams. All the way.

He has no credibility.

Bye Bye.

Glenn is not another McAdams.

He's wrong about the Kennedys, however. And Jim is right. Although Specter told the doctors Bobby didn't want them to look at the autopsy photos, Katzenbach told the HSCA he spoke to Bobby about them, and Bobby told him they should do whatever was needed. Specter, in fact. wrote a memo to Rankin in which he said the SS told him Bobby would do nothing to prevent them from looking at the photos. Or something to that extent. Warren then looked at them himself, and forbade anyone else from looking at them.

One look at the back wound photo should have proved to him the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate, and that the SBT was questionable. It follows then that Warren and Specter (who saw the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment) were the two men working for the commission most likely to have doubts about its conclusions.

And yet they were two of its biggest defenders. Go figure.

If anyone working for the commission secretly thought it was a conspiracy, and played along to help fool the others, my money would be on one of those two.

[Glenn Viklund]

GV:The WC - as an entity - wanted to see those photos. Earl Warren himself though, made an agreement with the Kennedys that he was gone be the only one to see them. This was just another peculiarity of those times (I believe) ; nothing of this was based in law, constitution or such. It was all about the Royal Family of the US

The above shows once and for all who this guy is.

The WC had these exhibits. Rankin's transcript proves it. His talk with McCloy proves it. The Kennedys had nothing to do with them having the exhibits or not. They were in the possession of the Secret Service until 1965. That is when RFK requested the deed of gift arrangement, which is after the Report was issued.

As I suspected, GV is another McAdams. All the way.

He has no credibility.

Bye Bye.

Glenn is not another McAdams.

He's wrong about the Kennedys, however. And Jim is right. Although Specter told the doctors Bobby didn't want them to look at the autopsy photos, Katzenbach told the HSCA he spoke to Bobby about them, and Bobby told him they should do whatever was needed. Specter, in fact. wrote a memo to Rankin in which he said the SS told him Bobby would do nothing to prevent them from looking at the photos. Or something to that extent. Warren then looked at them himself, and forbade anyone else from looking at them.

One look at the back wound photo should have proved to him the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate, and that the SBT was questionable. It follows then that Warren and Specter (who saw the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment) were the two men working for the commission most likely to have doubts about its conclusions.

And yet they were two of its biggest defenders. Go figure.

If anyone working for the commission secretly thought it was a conspiracy, and played along to help fool the others, my money would be on one of those two.

I stand corrected, Again, thanks Pat.

[Glenn Viklund]

To Pat Speer:

If you find the time; please have a look at my positions about the WC as I've expressed them (part of them, I hope this goes way further) in this thread. I'd like your input on my views.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Pat Speer]

At the first staff conference on January 20, 1964, Melvin Eisenberg took a memo about what Earl Warren told them.

He told them the circumstances under which he accepted the job. Warren admitted he had declined the position on grounds the Supreme Court should not be involved in such things. Johnson then called him in. Johnson then said "rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. [if LBJ told him this, it was left out of other renditions by LBJ and Warren.] Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives. No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility. The President convinced him that his was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles." (italics added.)

"The Chief Justice then discussed the role of the Commission. He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth whatever that might be."

Belin always quoted the last nine words. Leaving out the previous hundred or so. But this complies with what Liebeler told Odio. That they had orders to cover up anything which pointed to a conspiracy.

I guess, in all his voracious reading on the WC, Pat missed this document.

No, Jim, I've read the document. The "general principle" it refers to is not the principle of not lying or covering up murders, as you seem to imply, but Warren's strong belief--general principle--that members of the Supreme Court should not sit on Presidential or international panels, of any sort.

Now, that said, the document is indeed a damning one. As noted, Eisenberg says Warren said Johnson asked him to help squelch rumors of his involvement. Thus, Johnson, in effect, was appointing a panel to clear himself. Warren NEVER admits this in any of his books or interviews. He only talks about the rumors of Russian involvement.

And yet it's plain as day that Warren--a man presumed to be a communist by much of the American populace--would be the LAST person Johnson would want telling the American people there was no Russian involvement. And that Warren's real purpose was to clear Johnson in the eyes of the American left.

Warren's failure to admit this, in my opinion, suggests he knew his hands were dirty, even if he honestly believed Oswald acted alone.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Pat Speer

[James R Gordon]

David,

You said:

“Something that conspiracy zealots like DiEugenio always totally ignore when discussing the issue of the Single-Bullet Theory is Warren Commission Exhibit 903, which is a photo that proves for all time that the Warren Commission (including Mr. Ford) did not need JFK's upper-back wound to be "moved" up into the neck of the President.”

Well there is another side to that argument and it is this. Something that supporters of the Single-Bullet Theory always totally ignore is what would happen had this “bullet” actually traversed the area of the upper back and chest area as described by the placing of your entry and exit points.

Are you aware that CE 903, is not what Commander Humes stated the trajectory of this bullet was. CE 386 describes his trajectory. The difference (and the reason for that difference) is the avoidance of major damage to the arteries, veins but most of all, the Lung.

In CE 386 the entry point is above Costa IR, and thereby well above the position of the lung. In CE 903 the entry point is somewhere between Vertebrae 3 and 2 and directly behind the upper third of the lung.

The importance of that is that the only trajectory this bullet could take to get to the neck exit point is through the lung. Not only would the lung have collapsed, it would have also been severely damaged.

Understandably, and quite rightly, JFK researchers have seriously criticized Humes for these three drawings. But Humes had a reason for each of them. The reason for CE 386 was that he knew what would happen had he placed the entry point where CE 903 has it placed. CE 386 was the only entry point where Humes could argue that the SBT would not cause significant damage to JFK’s upper chest area.

Of course that raises all sorts of other problems, but that is not the issue here.

The issue here is very simple. If it is your position that the entry point is, as described by CE 903, then the damage caused to JFK at that point [Z224 – Z225] might well have endangered his life there and then….even before the head shot.

The Achilles heel of the SBT is not the arguments about where the entry and exit points are on the bodies of JFK and JBC (that you seem so preoccupied with) it is the ignoring of the inevitable damage that had to be caused as a consequence of the required internal trajectory through JFK’s neck consequent on where you have placed the external trajectory points.

James.

[David Von Pein]

A quick checklist of SBT facts:

1.) The upper lobe of JFK's right lung was bruised by the passage of a bullet. That's a concrete fact. But the lung was not penetrated. Nor was the pleura cavity. It was only bruised by the passage of the missile as well. What caused the bruising of these areas in JFK's body if it wasn't the passage of ONE single high-speed bullet traversing the tissues of his upper body?

2.) JFK had a bullet entry hole in his upper back (with an abrasion collar) located 14 cm. below the tip of his right mastoid process.

3.) JFK had a bullet hole of exit in the lower portion of his throat (per the autopsy report and per Dr. Humes, a point on which he never wavered, as far as I am aware).

4.) No bullets were found in JFK's body at his autopsy.

5.) John Connally had a wound of entry in the upper-right part of his back.

6.) The Zapruder Film shows JFK and JBC reacting at virtually an identical time to external stimulus (as indicated nicely by the toggling Z-Film clip below). What is causing the distressed look on John Connally's face at Z225-Z226 if he hasn't yet been hit by a bullet? And, even more importantly, what is causing Connally's right arm to fly up into the air at exactly the same time JFK's right arm is heading northward at Z226 if it wasn't a rifle bullet?

Given the above facts, tell me again how the SBT is an impossibility.

The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the most logical scenario to explain the victims' wounds. Any other scenario raises far more questions and leaves many more things unresolved than does the SBT -- beginning with the $64,000 question that no conspiracist has ever been able to logically answer (and they never will) -- If JFK was really hit by separate bullets in the back AND throat, then where did those two bullets go after entering (but never exiting) his body?

Arlen Specter would like a reasonable answer to that last question too. I fear he'll never get it. Because no such reasonable answer exists.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Edited June 12, 2012 by David Von Pein

[James R Gordon]

David,

The problem with your series of six “facts”, is that they make no attempt to deal with the reality of the human body.

I accept point 1. “1.) The upper lobe of JFK's right lung was bruised by the passage of a bullet. That's a concrete fact. But the lung was not penetrated. Nor was the pleura cavity. It was only bruised by the passage of the missile as well.”

From the work I have been doing on this issue, the bruising was probably caused the pressures and force of the bullet passing near by.

However, although I quoted CE 385 in my previous post, CE 385 is a distorted document that hides the reality of the position of the lung in the body. The real position is as shown below. I have no intention of skewing this thread with all my points of view. If you want to see why I state CE 385 is a distorted document you will see my evidence the “Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt5.”

What you see above is the actual position of the human lung in the body, as opposed to where Commander Humes placed it in CE 385.

Now where CE 385 is relevant is that it shows the only position as where the entry point must be. And why, because any lower would cause damage to the lung and as you state it was not damaged.

And here is where your problem is, as well those who support the SBT, a point any lower in the body such as, CE 903, places the entry wound lower than CE 385. And why is that important? It places the wound below Costa IR [ whereas CE 385 places the entry above it ] and therefore requires the bullet to pass through the lung. In the image below the yellow dot is roughly where CE 903 places the wound and as you can see that now requires the bullet to pass through the lung.

This is the difference between “theory” and “reality”.

I have no dispute about points 2 – 4. I agree they are issues.

Another problem you, and other SBT supporters, is to confuse the wounds of JFK and JBC. For the wounds of JBC to be relevant to the SBT theory then first and foremost the wounds on JFK must first and foremost support the criteria of the SBT. It is only when the wound to JFK support the SBT that the wounds to JBC are relevant.

And your problem is that the wounds to JFK do not support the SBT. Yes, you can fix, as Dale Myers has done, a trajectory from the TSBD to the back of JFK. You can also create a trajectory, as Dale Myers has also done, between the back wound and the throat wound. But what he, and all other have done and I suspect you are also doing, is to ignore what happens when the bullet had to pass through JFK’s upper chest area.

Between the TSBD and JFK’s back there are no obstacles. Inside the upper chest area is a veritable minefield of obstacles.

If your position is that the entry point is as described in CE 903, then you have placed the bullet roughly where that yellow dot is. In doing that the lung has got to be pierced, there is no other trajectory the bullet can take. Only CE 385 escapes that, but then it leaves open where did the back wound come from. Everything looks fine as explained by Dale Myers, but he, and it also appears, to me, that you are also not dealing with the reality of what would have had to happen if such a bullet entered the body, as described by CE 903.

You ask:

“Given the above facts, tell me again how the SBT is an impossibility.”

It is an impossibility for a variety of reasons, but the most compelling for me is that had a bullet entered as described by CE 903, then not only would the lung be damaged but on the bullet’s travel towards the throat it would have been bound to pierce the jugular vein which is in the bullet’s direct route towards Trachea rings 3&4.

That is the difference between theory and the reality of the position of organs in the upper chest area of the human body.

James.

[Peter McGuire]

1.) Because of the CIA's BS story about Oswald and Kostikov in Mexico City, LBJ intimidated the hell out of Warren. Therefore at the first meeting, this guy did not really want to do anything regarding an inquiry at all. He just wanted to forestall World War III.

This is, as you say Jim, basic stuff - that the plan had this feature built into it; that a cover - up was assured because of Oswald ties to Russia and Cuba. Of course that information had to be witheld from the public when the Lone Nut cover was used. Nevertheless, we must know why Warren did what he did, and the multiple layers this conspiracy had, not just the two contradicting plans noted here to really understand the complexity of this conspiracy.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Peter McGuire

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold:

A quick checklist of SBT facts:

1.) The upper lobe of JFK's right lung was bruised by the passage of a bullet. That's a concrete fact.

This is not a fact, concrete or otherwise. No one knows what caused the bruising.

But the lung was not penetrated. Nor was the pleura cavity. It was only bruised by the passage of the missile as well. What caused the bruising of these areas in JFK's body if it wasn't the passage of ONE single high-speed bullet traversing the tissues of his upper body?

If you'd actually researched this, you'd have found that lung is the tissue in the body LEAST likely to bruise as a result of the passage of a bullet, and that the lung bruises in gunshot wounds are often connected to an impact on an overlying bone. The bruise on Kennedy's lung was reported to have been in the shape of an upside-down pyramid. This denotes an impact on the first rib at the top of the lung, and not the passage of a bullet from front to back without impacting bone. Do some reading. You'll see that I'm right.

2.) JFK had a bullet entry hole in his upper back (with an abrasion collar) located 14 cm. below the tip of his right mastoid process.

That's right. Do some measurements on a person Kennedy's size. This places the wound at or slightly below the level of the throat wound when the body is in the anatomic position. This was the conclusion of the last government body to look into this: the HSCA FPP.

3.) JFK had a bullet hole of exit in the lower portion of his throat (per the autopsy report and per Dr. Humes, a point on which he never wavered, as far as I am aware).

4.) No bullets were found in JFK's body at his autopsy.

5.) John Connally had a wound of entry in the upper-right part of his back.

6.) The Zapruder Film shows JFK and JBC reacting at virtually an identical time to external stimulus (as indicated nicely by the toggling Z-Film clip below). What is causing the distressed look on John Connally's face at Z225-Z226 if he hasn't yet been hit by a bullet? And, even more importantly, what is causing Connally's right arm to fly up into the air at exactly the same time JFK's right arm is heading northward at Z226 if it wasn't a rifle bullet?

Perhaps JFK is reacting to the shot impacting him BEFORE he went behind the sign...more than a second before. That Kennedy was hit at this time was a conclusion of the HSCA photographic panel, and even Connally himself, when first viewing the film. It's amazing how this impact became impact non grata to single-assassin theorists once they realized it destroyed their theory.

Given the above facts, tell me again how the SBT is an impossibility.

Since what you gave us weren't facts, or were misleading, your argument is without merit.

The Single-Bullet Theory is by far the most logical scenario to explain the victims' wounds.

Really? Then why did so few of the doctors observing Kennedy's wounds buy into it? You write "single bullet theory" as if it claims merely that A bullet hit both men, when it claims that a particular bullet--a nearly pristine bullet--hit both men. When that bullet is added into the picture, very few doctors have ever said the single-bullet theory is the likely solution, only that is possible. When one takes into account that wound ballistics men like Olivier and Sturdivan had to play games to make it seem as though the bullet in question might slow down to the degree necessary to emerge unscathed, for that matter, it's pretty clear that the scientific evidence does not support the single-bullet theory, but that it has been made to appear so.

Any other scenario raises far more questions and leaves many more things unresolved than does the SBT

SO? Since when is the fear of having an unresolved question a legitimate reason for embracing something at odds with the evidence?

-- beginning with the $64,000 question that no conspiracist has ever been able to logically answer (and they never will) -- If JFK was really hit by separate bullets in the back AND throat, then where did those two bullets go after entering (but never exiting) his body?

Sorry, you lose. Here's the logical answer: WE DON'T KNOW. YOU have invented that these bullets never exited his body. YOU don't know this. Need I remind you that the FBI and Secret Service concluded that Kennedy and Connally were hit by THREE separate bullets, even though only one and a half were recovered. They concluded, then, that one and a half bullets impacting within the limo were never found, including the entire bullet striking Connally. And they were probably correct to do so. it's not unusual at all for bullets to go un-recovered, and here was a a large crime scene (Dealey Plaza) that was never actually inspected, and another one (the limo), that was first inspected (and partially cleaned) by men NEVER reporting what they saw or found, and never being asked to testify as to what they saw or found.

Arlen Specter would like a reasonable answer to that last question too. I fear he'll never get it. Because no such reasonable answer exists.

Arlen Specter knew the SBT was questionable the moment he looked at the photo of the back wound. And has been blowing smoke ever since.

http://Single-Bullet...ry.blogspot.com

Edited June 12, 2012 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Okay, Pat:

If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy?

Key words: "Most reasonable explanation".

I'd like to see if your explanation is more "reasonable" than the SBT.

Edited June 12, 2012 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

1.) Because of the CIA's BS story about Oswald and Kostikov in Mexico City, LBJ intimidated the hell out of Warren. Therefore at the first meeting, this guy did not really want to do anything regarding an inquiry at all. He just wanted to forestall World War III.

This is, as you say Jim, basic stuff - that the plan had this feature built into it; that a cover - up was assured because of Oswald ties to Russia and Cuba. Of course that information had to be witheld from the public when the Lone Nut cover was used. Nevertheless, we must know why Warren did what he did, and the multiple layers this conspiracy had, not just the two contradicting plans noted here to really understand the complexity of this conspiracy.

Peter

I have read recently on this forum that Warren was compromised somehow.

Something to do with Mexico?. It may have been Atlee Phillips I will check

[Ian Kingsbury]

Thank you Mr Simkin!

After the death of John F. Kennedy in 1963 his deputy, Lyndon B. Johnson, was appointed president. He immediately set up a commission to "ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy." Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say."

[Terry Adams]

"Rankin hired a stand in to pose as the stenographer". Jim/Glenn, from an unashamedly self admitted amateur, would you tell me where this info came from? To think that they would do this to a U.S. Senator of Russell's stature is extremely sad. So, understanding that I am nit picking here, It's just that I would like to read further about this action. It seems that I do remember a promise of a statement required by Russel that there should be some parts of the findings (primarily, the single bullet theory), which was never done.