Jump to content
The Education Forum
Michael Hogan

Things Don't Add Up : A Novel of Kennedy Assassination Research

Recommended Posts

It follows, then, that Specter was trying to conceal not only that the autopsy photos proved the back wound was on the back, inches below its location in the Rydberg drawings already entered into evidence, but that the measurements similarly proved the Rydberg drawings to have been inaccurate.

This is just downright silly, Pat. Because the picture of Specter holding the metal rod in CE903 indicates that the back wound was in the back (not in the "neck"). And the WC published CE903, didn't they? And Specter HIMSELF even appears in that picture!

Plus, we know that the autopsy report was published in the WCR (including the "14 cm. from mastoid" measurements), and we know that Dr. Humes' testimony about the "14 cm." measurements was also published in the WC volumes. And anybody who reads those measurements can easily perform a simple measurement from their own "mastoid" (or a friend's mastoid) and easily be able to determine on their own that the wound was located in the upper back, not in the "neck".

So you have nowhere to go with this argument:

"Specter was trying to conceal not only that the autopsy photos proved the back wound was on the back, inches below its location in the Rydberg drawings already entered into evidence, but that the measurements similarly proved the Rydberg drawings to have been inaccurate." -- P. Speer

Face it, Pat: you're just looking desperately for an excuse to call Specter a xxxx. Even though we know (and can SEE, via CE903) that Specter was RIGHT about the placement of the upper-back wound.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSCA FPP unanimously proclaimed that the back wound was BELOW the throat wound.

And yet you'll fight that to the death...

Good point, Pat.

But let's face reality here -- At one time or another, everybody who researches this case picks and chooses the stuff that tends to support their general viewpoint. It's inevitable.

But doesn't it bother you (at all) that NO BULLETS were found inside JFK's body?

Please tell me--logically--how that's even remotely possible if TWO separate bullets entered JFK's back and throat and yet both bullets failed to exit the other side?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't start my research hating Specter. I still don't hate him.

It's just the facts, David.

The trajectory in CE 903 passes over the shoulder line.

The wound in CE 386 is above the shoulder line.

Specter published CE 903, and had Kelley testify the unseen chalk mark in the photo was based on CE 386.

This created the illusion the chalk mark--and back wound--was above the shoulder line.

And we can conclude this was on purpose because

1. No photos of the chalk mark, which was based on the autopsy photo and measurements, were entered into evidence.

2. Boswell, and then Humes, under pressure from Johnson's Justice Department, subsequently claimed the autopsy photos supported the accuracy of CE 386.

It's as clear as day, yet you can't see it.

David Copperfield would love you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's some inconsistency and some definite inaccuracy with respect to the testimony of Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley. And there's certainly plenty of reason for everybody (CTers and LNers alike) to gripe about the horrible Rydberg drawings. No doubt about that.

But Kelley also said that the chalk was based on the hole in the President's coat.

Now, how can we possibly even begin to reconcile this mess? Kelley is telling us that the ONE and only chalk mark was being based on BOTH CE386 AND on the hole in JFK's jacket--which is a hole that is located well BELOW the place where the bullet hole appears in CE386.

So, quite obviously, that chalk mark could not POSSIBLY have been based on BOTH of those things in tandem. (Otherwise, there would have been TWO chalk marks of entry on the back of the JFK stand-in.)

And--again--the reader of this testimony can easily figure this out too. Just look at the coat (which was also published as a Commission exhibit--CE393), and compare the hole in the coat with the Rydberg drawing in CE386.

So there's obviously something inaccurate with at least ONE of these items that Kelley says the chalk mark was based on.

But my main point is still a good and valid one (at least IMO) -- In the final analysis (i.e., in CE903), the WC and Specter got things RIGHT. (Bearing in mind the "margin of error" that necessarily needs to be included in the WC's trajectory work on the SBT, due to the "bracketing" of frames the WC worked with--Z210 to Z225.)

Want to dance some more on this, Pat? Or would you like to sit the next one out?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, Arlen Specter wasn't a doctor, but James Humes was. And so was Pierre Finck, and so was J. Boswell. And Humes, Finck, and Boswell said the bullet transited. And ALL NINE members of the HSCA's FPP said the bullet transited.

That's TWELVE doctors right there who said the bullet went through JFK's body.

They're ALL liars (or boobs)? ALL 12?

Now, I've got a choice here:

Believe some guy named Bob Prudhomme....or accept the conclusions of TWELVE professional pathologists (who certainly know a LITTLE something about anatomy).

Now, Bob, if you were in my shoes -- who should I believe?

Not one of these men ever drew a diagram showing how the bullet made it through the neck, past the transverse process, vertebra, and blood vessels.

Gee, why was that, David?

Do you really think they thought this unimportant?

As far as twelve doctors agreeing on something, blah blah blah...I'm sure you're well aware that Big Tobacco had dozens if not hundreds of qualified doctors on their payroll ready and willing to say there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer.

Now, why was that?

Because the opinions of a few isolated doctors doesn't necessarily mean all that much.

And we know this because YOU have told us so...

The HSCA FPP unanimously proclaimed that the back wound was BELOW the throat wound.

And yet you'll fight that to the death...

Mr. Speer

Please accept my sincere apologies for having doubted your integrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSCA FPP unanimously proclaimed that the back wound was BELOW the throat wound.

And yet you'll fight that to the death...

Good point, Pat.

But let's face reality here -- At one time or another, everybody who researches this case picks and chooses the stuff that tends to support their general viewpoint. It's inevitable.

But doesn't it bother you (at all) that NO BULLETS were found inside JFK's body?

Please tell me--logically--how that's even remotely possible if TWO separate bullets entered JFK's back and throat and yet both bullets failed to exit the other side?

Finally, a few questions about the murder of John F. Kennedy!

How refreshing. It's rare to have a discussion about the actual murder of JFK.

Very good question, David -- what happened to the bullets which created the back and throat wounds?

We know from the location of the bullet holes in JFK's clothes (along with a mountain of eye-witness and verified medical evidence) that the back wound was at T3.

That location is too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

So we have two wounds of entrance, no exits and no bullets recovered during the autopsy.

What does the historical record show, David? What plausible explanation did Humes, Boswell and Finck entertain with the body right in front of them?

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

The doctors speculated that JFK was struck with high tech weaponry -- rounds that did not show up on x-ray.

The FBI men took the notion seriously enough to call the FBI Lab.

If the FBI had been on the up-and-up its' agents would have been swarming Ft. Detrick, MD within hours.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/html/ChurchV1_0006a.htm

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How refreshing. It's rare to have a discussion about the actual murder of JFK.

Oh, yeah! You're right! For the last two days, Pat Speer and I (along with my CIA-sponsored imposter in Australia) have been discussing the benefits of modern farm implements for today's farmers.

Sorry for the derailment.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The HSCA FPP unanimously proclaimed that the back wound was BELOW the throat wound.

And yet you'll fight that to the death...

Good point, Pat.

But let's face reality here -- At one time or another, everybody who researches this case picks and chooses the stuff that tends to support their general viewpoint. It's inevitable.

But doesn't it bother you (at all) that NO BULLETS were found inside JFK's body?

Please tell me--logically--how that's even remotely possible if TWO separate bullets entered JFK's back and throat and yet both bullets failed to exit the other side?

Finally, a few questions about the murder of John F. Kennedy!

How refreshing. It's rare to have a discussion about the actual murder of JFK.

Very good question, David -- what happened to the bullets which created the back and throat wounds?

We know from the location of the bullet holes in JFK's clothes (along with a mountain of eye-witness and verified medical evidence) that the back wound was at T3.

That location is too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

So we have two wounds of entrance, no exits and no bullets recovered during the autopsy.

What does the historical record show, David? What plausible explanation did Humes, Boswell and Finck entertain with the body right in front of them?

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

The doctors speculated that JFK was struck with high tech weaponry -- rounds that did not show up on x-ray.

The FBI men took the notion seriously enough to call the FBI Lab.

If the FBI had been on the up-and-up its' agents would have been swarming Ft. Detrick, MD within hours.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/html/ChurchV1_0006a.htm

Mr. Varnell

Would it be stretching the imagination too far to think the throat wound was caused by a bullet or bone fragment from the head wound? I believe Dr. Perry originally described the throat wound as being 3-5 mm and only later changed it to 5-6 mm. As you may know, the 6.5 Carcano is loaded with a bullet that is 6.8 mm (.268") in diameter.

Also, the mortician, Thomas Robinson, while describing JFK's face as appearing undamaged, did say in an interview that he believed all of the facial bones to be broken plus he described two minute shrapnel exit wounds in JFK's face that he filled with wax. I think there is a very good chance something was propelled downward from JFK's cranium and exited at the throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following graphic was prepared for me by James Gordon. In our discussion I cited the HSCA analysis of the neck x-ray noting an airpocket overlaying the T1 and C7 transverse processes, and James kindly supplied the graphic illustrating this trajectory.

The natural trajectory from T1 back to C7 continues to the entrance wound between the 3rd and 4th trach rings.

C7T1_2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Varnell

Would it be stretching the imagination too far to think the throat wound was caused by a bullet or bone fragment from the head wound?

Indeed it would. JFK started reacting to throat trauma circa Z200 as per the Z film and the testimony of Nellie Connally and several others.

I think it strains credulity to assert that a man reacts to a wound 6 seconds before receiving it.

Besides, more than a half-dozen people at Parkland described the wound as an entrance.

I believe Dr. Perry originally described the throat wound as being 3-5 mm and only later changed it to 5-6 mm. As you may know, the 6.5 Carcano is loaded with a bullet that is 6.8 mm (.268") in diameter.

Also, the mortician, Thomas Robinson, while describing JFK's face as appearing undamaged, did say in an interview that he believed all of the facial bones to be broken plus he described two minute shrapnel exit wounds in JFK's face that he filled with wax. I think there is a very good chance something was propelled downward from JFK's cranium and exited at the throat.

And that accounts for his grabbing at his throat 6 seconds earlier...how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How refreshing. It's rare to have a discussion about the actual murder of JFK.

Oh, yeah! You're right! For the last two days, Pat Speer and I (along with my CIA-sponsored imposter in Australia) have been discussing the benefits of modern farm implements for today's farmers.

Sorry for the derailment.

I was praising your choice of questions, David. Why are you reacting so defensively?

Most discussions on this forum and others involve the cover-up of the JFK assassination, not the actual murder.

I notice that you have no substantive response to my post, David. Duly noted, sir. Thanks for the silent assent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that you have no substantive response to my post, David. Duly noted, sir. Thanks for the silent assent.

I rarely feel the need to continue to respond to your constant posts about the clothing holes, et al.

Silliness deserves to be ignored.

Just ask Ralph Cinque.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was praising your choice of questions, David. Why are you reacting so defensively?

Because you were implying that the discussion that Pat and I were having was somehow not "a discussion about the actual murder of JFK".

What do you think it was then, Cliff? A debate about the best car wax?

No, I wasn't singling out your discussion with Pat.

Because you are a lone-assassin advocate, David, you are incapable of discussing JFK's actual murder unless you ask the very question that you asked: what happened to the bullets which caused the throat and back wounds?

Again, I notice that you have no rebuttal to my argument.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Varnell

Would it be stretching the imagination too far to think the throat wound was caused by a bullet or bone fragment from the head wound?

Indeed it would. JFK started reacting to throat trauma circa Z200 as per the Z film and the testimony of Nellie Connally and several others.

I think it strains credulity to assert that a man reacts to a wound 6 seconds before receiving it.

Besides, more than a half-dozen people at Parkland described the wound as an entrance.

I believe Dr. Perry originally described the throat wound as being 3-5 mm and only later changed it to 5-6 mm. As you may know, the 6.5 Carcano is loaded with a bullet that is 6.8 mm (.268") in diameter.

Also, the mortician, Thomas Robinson, while describing JFK's face as appearing undamaged, did say in an interview that he believed all of the facial bones to be broken plus he described two minute shrapnel exit wounds in JFK's face that he filled with wax. I think there is a very good chance something was propelled downward from JFK's cranium and exited at the throat.

And that accounts for his grabbing at his throat 6 seconds earlier...how?

Mr. Varnell

With all due respect, JFK was never actually seen grabbing his throat. His fists were balled up and raised to the level of his throat but, he did not actually grab at his throat. Also, Nellie Connally stated that there was no blood, at this point in time, to be seen on JFK. Considering that there are seven jugular veins and two carotid arteries close together in this region of the neck, the lack of blood itself should cause us to doubt if the wound in the throat was present immediately following the first shot. It goes without saying, of curse, that blood from a throat wound would have shown up very clearly on JFK's white shirt.

If we believe JFK was struck at the level of T3, or if we believe he was struck at the level of C7, we should be investigating what nerves leave the spinal column at these points and if hitting one of them can cause a spasmodic effect that would make a man raise his arms in this fashion.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Varnell

Would it be stretching the imagination too far to think the throat wound was caused by a bullet or bone fragment from the head wound?

Indeed it would. JFK started reacting to throat trauma circa Z200 as per the Z film and the testimony of Nellie Connally and several others.

I think it strains credulity to assert that a man reacts to a wound 6 seconds before receiving it.

Besides, more than a half-dozen people at Parkland described the wound as an entrance.

I believe Dr. Perry originally described the throat wound as being 3-5 mm and only later changed it to 5-6 mm. As you may know, the 6.5 Carcano is loaded with a bullet that is 6.8 mm (.268") in diameter.

Also, the mortician, Thomas Robinson, while describing JFK's face as appearing undamaged, did say in an interview that he believed all of the facial bones to be broken plus he described two minute shrapnel exit wounds in JFK's face that he filled with wax. I think there is a very good chance something was propelled downward from JFK's cranium and exited at the throat.

And that accounts for his grabbing at his throat 6 seconds earlier...how?

Mr. Varnell

With all due respect, JFK was never actually seen grabbing his throat.

WC testimony of Linda Willis:

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots, as the motorcade came past you there?

Miss 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 his throat, and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot went.

WC testimony of Clint Hill:

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's automobile as it turned left off of Houston onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: 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...

WC testimony of Nellie Connally:

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; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance, no cry.

I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on his face, and

he just sort of slumped down.

Besides, I don't know about you, but I can see him grabbing at his throat with his left index finger. It might be more precise to say he was grabbing at his tie.

His fists were balled up and raised to the level of his throat but, he did not actually grab at his throat.

His left index finger remained extended. It appears as if JFK developed paralysis about two seconds after being hit in the throat.

In his testimony before the Church Committee in 1975, weapons developer Charles Sensensey described a blood soluble dart designed to incapacitate guard dogs in a couple of seconds.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

Also, Nellie Connally stated that there was no blood, at this point in time, to be seen on JFK.

Indeed! This fact is inconsistent with a first-shot/kill-shot scenario. This fact is consistent with JFK having been first struck with high tech weaponry, a paralytic.

They didn't want the guard dogs bleeding, either.

Considering that there are seven jugular veins and two carotid arteries close together in this region of the neck, the lack of blood itself should cause us to doubt if the wound in the throat was present immediately following the first shot. It goes without saying, of curse, that blood from a throat wound would have shown up very clearly on JFK's white shirt.

You assume a strike by conventional firearms. No such assumption can be made.

If we believe JFK was struck at the level of T3, or if we believe he was struck at the level of C7, we should be investigating what nerves leave the spinal column at these points and if hitting one of them can cause a spasmodic effect that would make a man raise his arms in this fashion.

JFK wasn't hit in the spine. There was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes.

Occams Razor -- what the most plausible explanation for a man acting as if he's seized up with physical paralysis?

The man has, indeed, seized up paralyzed.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...