A Criticism of DVP

[Robert Prudhomme]

Look, Cliff, I have never tried to pass off any of my theories as undisputable fact. Why don't you do me a big favour and just ignore my posts from now on, if they upset you so much? God knows you won't be missed.

[Cliff Varnell]

Look, Cliff, I have never tried to pass off any of my theories as undisputable fact. Why don't you do me a big favour and just ignore my posts from now on, if they upset you so much? God knows you won't be missed.

No problem, Robert, your posts don't upset me at all.

So allow me to proceed:

Why didn't this back wound round show up on x-ray?

[Robert Prudhomme]

What a stupid question. No one is arguing the existence of a wound in JFK's back.

[Kenneth Drew]

Robert, I've always heard that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. I don't necessarily agree, but sometimes it does help bring out other points. First, note that Cliff said: "Why didn't this back wound round show up on x-ray?" I'm pointing out the word 'round' in there. So I don't think Cliff was questioning if there was a back wound, just what happened to the bullet. I would ask that same question, but give my answer as 'probably disappeared during autopsy or modification of the body prior to the autopsy'. I wouldn't argue the case either way.

[Cliff Varnell]

What a stupid question. No one is arguing the existence of a wound in JFK's back.

Robert, I've always heard that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. I don't necessarily agree, but sometimes it does help bring out other points. First, note that Cliff said: "Why didn't this back wound round show up on x-ray?" I'm pointing out the word 'round' in there. So I don't think Cliff was questioning if there was a back wound, just what happened to the bullet. I would ask that same question, but give my answer as 'probably disappeared during autopsy or modification of the body prior to the autopsy'. I wouldn't argue the case either way.

Kenneth, that's what I'm trying to boil this down to.

Since there is a reference to pre-autopsy surgery in the FBI autopsy report, the possibility certainly exists that the round was removed prior.

But the same thing had to happen with the throat wound.

Two rounds that don't exit and don't show up on x-ray.

Two defective rounds removed prior to the autopsy?

A lot of moveable parts to that one...Keystone Konspirators?

Edited May 30, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

In a deposition to the ARRB in the 1990's Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy, testified that JFK's thoracic organs (heart and lungs) were removed prior to him x-raying JFK's chest. He also stated he was not present when the organs were removed and that there was a very limited number of people present for this evisceration.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

Another thing claimed by Jerrol Custer was that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

[Cliff Varnell]

In a deposition to the ARRB in the 1990's Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician on duty at Bethesda the night of JFK's autopsy, testified that JFK's thoracic organs (heart and lungs) were removed prior to him x-raying JFK's chest. He also stated he was not present when the organs were removed and that there was a very limited number of people present for this evisceration.

That leaves open the possibility the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy.

Which makes us take a harder look at the Secret Service and the military men who handled the casket/s and the body.

And/or the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy when they speculated about exotic rounds that "dissolve after contact."

Makes us take a harder look at the Staff Support Group within the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft. Detrick.

Either way, a proper investigation moves forward,,,in my book, at any rate...

[Cliff Varnell]

Another thing claimed by Jerrol Custer was that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

From the HSCA anaylsis of the cervical x-ray:

<quote>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.<quote off>

[Kenneth Drew]

Another thing claimed by Jerrol Custer was that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

From the HSCA anaylsis of the cervical x-ray:

<quote>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.<quote off>

Cliff, I think you summed it up well. Clearly he was shot in the back, from the angle, probably from high up on a building on Houston street. The bullet disappeared therefore there can be no proof of what firearm it was fired from or who fired the weapon. Some of the evidence(some fragments) indicates it might have been with a bullet similar to what Robert has said. He was also hit with some type of bullet in the throat from the front. No evidence of where that round went to, or ended up or what ever happened to it. It just disappeard.

[Ron Ecker]

Let's say the bullets that caused the back wound and throat wound were removed before autopsy. (That seems to me the most likely explanation, given Humes's reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head as noted in the FBI report, i.e. the body was altered.) What would be the purpose of removing the bullets? Seems to me the logical explanation would be that the bullets were not fired from the patsy's brand of rifle. And this removal only became necessary when the lone-nut scenario was hastily put into effect. Otherwise there would been no need to alter the body at all. The official story would have been the true one: JFK was ambushed by a team of shooters. (The fiction would have been it was a team sent by Castro.) In sum, there is IMO a logical and likely explanation to this bullet mystery.

Edited May 30, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's say the bullets that caused the back wound and throat wound were removed before autopsy. (That seems to me the most likely explanation, given Humes's reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head as noted in the FBI report, i.e. the body was altered.) What would be the purpose of removing the bullets? Seems to me the logical explanation would be that the bullets were not fired from the patsy's brand of rifle. And this removal only became necessary when the lone-nut scenario was hastily put into effect. Otherwise there would been no need to alter the body at all. The official story would have been the true one: JFK was ambushed by a team of shooters. (The fiction would have been it was a team sent by Castro.) In sum, there is IMO a logical and likely explanation to this bullet mystery.

What weighs against its likelihood for me are the two defective rounds.

What are the odds of firing two conventional rounds, hit nothing but soft tissue, and neither exit?

[Kenneth Drew]

Let's say the bullets that caused the back wound and throat wound were removed before autopsy. (That seems to me the most likely explanation, given Humes's reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head as noted in the FBI report, i.e. the body was altered.) What would be the purpose of removing the bullets? Seems to me the logical explanation would be that the bullets were not fired from the patsy's brand of rifle. And this removal only became necessary when the lone-nut scenario was hastily put into effect. Otherwise there would been no need to alter the body at all. The official story would have been the true one: JFK was ambushed by a team of shooters. (The fiction would have been it was a team sent by Castro.) In sum, there is IMO a logical and likely explanation to this bullet mystery.

What weighs against its likelihood for me are the two defective rounds.

What are the odds of firing two conventional rounds, hit nothing but soft tissue, and neither exit?

You are referring to the back shot that went no where and the throat shot? yes and that would also be from 2 different shooters. Would seem like odds would be against it

[Robert Prudhomme]

Another thing claimed by Jerrol Custer was that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

From the HSCA anaylsis of the cervical x-ray:

<quote>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.<quote off>

Custer was speaking of far more than two fragments.

[Cliff Varnell]

Another thing claimed by Jerrol Custer was that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

From the HSCA anaylsis of the cervical x-ray:

<quote>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.<quote off>

Custer was speaking of far more than two fragments.

At C3/C4...a result of the head shot/s, I'd reckon.