Robert Prudhomme Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Cliff We have been told no bullet was recovered from the back wound. Does this make it true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) Cliff We have been told no bullet was recovered from the back wound. Does this make it true? No round recovered during the autopsy attended by FBI agents James Sibert and Frances O'Neill. They reported that the autopsists were "at a loss" to explain a wound of entrance, no exit, no bullet. Prior to the autopsy -- perhaps. Edited July 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 Cliff We have been told no bullet was recovered from the back wound. Does this make it true? No round recovered during the autopsy attended by FBI agents James Sibert and Frances O'Neill. They reported that the autopsists were "at a loss" to explain a wound of entrance, no exit, no bullet. Prior to the autopsy -- perhaps. Back on topic -- so Vince Bugliosi obviously never addressed the First Conspiracy Theory: From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: (quote on) 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. (quote off) From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: (quote on) 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What if the autopsy doctors had already been told what type of bullet had entered JFK's back, and this discussion about "ice bullets" and such was merely a show for the FBI agents and other witnesses present at the autopsy? Are you aware that the x-ray tech at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest, and when Custer and his assistant were not present, and that Custer believed an extremely limited number of people were present when these organs were removed? Did Sibert and O'Neil witness the removal of the chest organs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 What if the autopsy doctors had already been told what type of bullet had entered JFK's back, and this discussion about "ice bullets" and such was merely a show for the FBI agents and other witnesses present at the autopsy? No, I'd be embarrassed to think such a thing. The autopsists put on a little show? Researcher, please! Are you aware that the x-ray tech at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest, and when Custer and his assistant were not present, and that Custer believed an extremely limited number of people were present when these organs were removed? Did Sibert and O'Neil witness the removal of the chest organs? They didn't write it up if they did. I concede the point -- perhaps the round was removed prior to the autopsy witnessed by Sibert & O'Neill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 12, 2015 Share Posted July 12, 2015 (edited) I see in the index to Reclaiming History there is a reference to Gary Underhill on pg 559 of the endnotes on the CD. I don't know what happened to that bugger, but my copy of the CD is not at hand. What does Bugliosi say about Underhill, anybody? Edited July 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) What if the autopsy doctors had already been told what type of bullet had entered JFK's back, and this discussion about "ice bullets" and such was merely a show for the FBI agents and other witnesses present at the autopsy? No, I'd be embarrassed to think such a thing. The autopsists put on a little show? Researcher, please! Are you aware that the x-ray tech at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest, and when Custer and his assistant were not present, and that Custer believed an extremely limited number of people were present when these organs were removed? Did Sibert and O'Neil witness the removal of the chest organs? They didn't write it up if they did. I concede the point -- perhaps the round was removed prior to the autopsy witnessed by Sibert & O'Neill. Cliff I have a theory about the back wound, and the bullet that caused it. You see, I believe SA Sibert was on the right track when he phoned to find out about a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize". Unfortunately, he was taken in enough by Humes' act concerning the "shallow" back wound to be able, in his mind, to follow to a logical conclusion what effect a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize" would have in a wound. Such a bullet is called a "frangible" bullet. It is constructed usually of a copper alloy jacket with a core made from compressed powdered lead, in a heat process known as "sintering". If not sintered, the powdered lead (or other metal) can be bonded together with a glue. Whatever the method, the bullet is designed to enter soft tissue (or a skull) making only a small entrance wound. A lethal frangible bullet also has a hollow point on its nose, and this hollow point is key to making this bullet disintegrate after travelling only 2 or 3 inches in soft tissue. Once it enters semi- liquid tissue (lung, brain) the semi-liquid fills up the hollow point and, due to immense hydraulic pressure inside the nose caused by the velocity of the bullet, exerts an enormous pressure on the compressed powdered metal core. Long before the bullet can exit the other side of the chest (or skull), it will disintegrate into a cloud of metal powder that comes to an instant stop inside the wound. This sudden stop and transfer of 100% of the bullet's energy to surrounding tissue is completely devastating, and likely had the effect of breaking every pumonary artery in the top of JFK's right lung. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, it is because he likely was. He had not only just lost 50% of his breathing capacity with the collapse of his right lung, there was also likely blood quickly flowing through the bronchi into his left lung and impairing its ability to transfer oxygen. While a frangible bullet could be explained away, in a head wound, as a full metal jacket bullet that behaved oddly and broke up, such was not the case with the back wound. The long slender FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet is very stable, and capable of tremendous penetration in flesh. An FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet entering JFK's back at 2000 fps, at the level of T3, was more than capable of going through JFK (exiting midway down his sternum), the jump seat and Connally, and possibly having enough legs to still wound Kellerman. Edited July 13, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Such a frangible bullet would be an excellent choice for an assassination, if your shooters were good enough to only make head shots. Following total disintegration of the bullet, there is little left, save for a few pieces of copper jacket, to allow a forensics team to ID the bullet. Frangible bullets also have the advantage of disintegrating if they strike hard objects made of steel or concrete. This would have kept collateral damage to a minimum, as in the case of James Tague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I can cite the medical evidence showing JFK had a serious pulmonary condition in his right lung, known as a tension pneumothorax (collapsed lung), if anyone wishes to see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I know and like original sources. You do not because you do not do any original research. What a crock. If by "original", you mean "primary" sources, then, yes, I love those types of sources too -- "primary" ones, like the original investigations and the official Government follow-up investigations [e.g., DPD, WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission] and the "primary" witnesses involved in the case. But you, Jim, seem to like to THROW AWAY almost all of the "primary" source material. You find a reason (any reason) to toss all of that "primary" (first day) evidence right into the trash can (e.g., the guns, bullets, prints, fibers, paper bag, bullet shells, the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and lots more). You don't USE those primary sources and first-day evidence. You MISuse those things. Every last one of them. With Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a prime example of how you misuse (and totally mangle) the evidence in this case. You've done everything in your power to take that gun out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and even out of his hands at ANY point in time in the year 1963. You're so enamored with the silly idea that Oswald never touched Rifle C2766 that you are now even saying that Oswald never even ORDERED that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact that no reasonable and sensible person on the planet who has looked at the evidence can possibly deny. And yet Mr. DiEugenio denies it--and vehemently. What a crock. And what a joke you are. And that's just one example (among dozens) of how DiEugenio treats the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. There ought to be some kind of law against it. But I guess freedom of speech (and, in Jim's case, the freedom to look like a horse's hind quarters when he pretends that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake) overrides any hope I ever had of James DiEugenio being able to properly assess any of the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination. A 22-point reminder (in case anyone missed it).... The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact Well, except for the fact that there is no evidence of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book, Davey? Well, I didn't "sit down" with anyone during the writing of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", but I did "reach out" (which would be the more appropriate term) to a few people for help. (Or doesn't a "reach out" type of conversation count, Jim? Does it have to be a face-to-face "sit down" interview in order to qualify as "research"? ~shrug~) Anyway, I "reached out" via e-mail several times, as I recall, to two people in particular -- former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine and Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack. Both of those men were very helpful to me concerning various aspects of research I have done in the last few years. (See pages 65-66 and 414-415 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".) And I should point out that this "reaching out" to Blaine and Mack is something I did prior to helping Mel Ayton write the "BRD" book. But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. (Does that still count, Jim? Or am I disqualified on a technicality?) And there were several additional "reaching out" sessions that I have had with people like Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Jean Davison (three of the best JFK sources you could possibly hope to find, in my opinion) that I desperately wanted to include in the book, but due to space restrictions, there was a whole bunch of my stuff (more than 20,000 words, in fact) that had to be cut out of the manuscript. (Should I try to get "BRD 2" published?) Also.... Mel Ayton, the book's primary author, conducted several personal interviews. Each of which is sourced in the Notes & Sources section of the book. Also see: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-926.html#BRD-Editing But the reality is that the amount of JFK assassination material is so vast and so detailed via all of the previous investigations and documents and books (and, in particular, Vincent Bugliosi's monumental tome, in which almost any source imaginable can be extracted and cited from Vince's 2800 total pages), that it makes "original" sources (via "sit down" interviews with people) less necessary in the years 2014 and 2015 when compared to many years ago, especially in the pre-"Reclaiming History" years before 2007. I think it really boils down to this question: How does the author evaluate the existing evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases? And I think Mel Ayton and myself have properly and fairly evaluated the evidence in those two murder cases (plus the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby as well). A conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio will, of course, disagree with my last statement above. Jim thinks all of the evidence (or pretty close to all of it) should be tossed out the window. He thinks it's tainted evidence. I, however, could not disagree more strongly. In fact, I've always felt that the "Everything Is Fake" mindset of many conspiracy theorists is nothing but a cop-out and a convenient way for those CTers to summarily dismiss nearly everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the guilty party--no matter how much evidence they have to toss aside. Quoting wound ballistics investigator Larry Sturdivan.... "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of 'Keystone Kops', with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and 'evil geniuses', with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005) But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. Oh, well, that sure makes it a rock hard solid case. Yep, the final nail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not... A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy [DiEugenio] who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible. I mean, a guy [DiEugenio] who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? I just watched JFK again, amazing how much Garrison got right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 What if the autopsy doctors had already been told what type of bullet had entered JFK's back, and this discussion about "ice bullets" and such was merely a show for the FBI agents and other witnesses present at the autopsy? No, I'd be embarrassed to think such a thing. The autopsists put on a little show? Researcher, please! Are you aware that the x-ray tech at the autopsy, Jerrol Custer, testified to the ARRB that JFK's chest organs (lungs, heart) were removed prior to Custer taking x-rays of the chest, and when Custer and his assistant were not present, and that Custer believed an extremely limited number of people were present when these organs were removed? Did Sibert and O'Neil witness the removal of the chest organs? They didn't write it up if they did. I concede the point -- perhaps the round was removed prior to the autopsy witnessed by Sibert & O'Neill. Cliff I have a theory about the back wound, and the bullet that caused it. You see, I believe SA Sibert was on the right track when he phoned to find out about a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize". Unfortunately, he was taken in enough by Humes' act concerning the "shallow" back wound to be able, in his mind, to follow to a logical conclusion what effect a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize" would have in a wound. Such a bullet is called a "frangible" bullet. It is constructed usually of a copper alloy jacket with a core made from compressed powdered lead, in a heat process known as "sintering". If not sintered, the powdered lead (or other metal) can be bonded together with a glue. Whatever the method, the bullet is designed to enter soft tissue (or a skull) making only a small entrance wound. A lethal frangible bullet also has a hollow point on its nose, and this hollow point is key to making this bullet disintegrate after travelling only 2 or 3 inches in soft tissue. Once it enters semi- liquid tissue (lung, brain) the semi-liquid fills up the hollow point and, due to immense hydraulic pressure inside the nose caused by the velocity of the bullet, exerts an enormous pressure on the compressed powdered metal core. Long before the bullet can exit the other side of the chest (or skull), it will disintegrate into a cloud of metal powder that comes to an instant stop inside the wound. This sudden stop and transfer of 100% of the bullet's energy to surrounding tissue is completely devastating, and likely had the effect of breaking every pumonary artery in the top of JFK's right lung. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, it is because he likely was. He had not only just lost 50% of his breathing capacity with the collapse of his right lung, there was also likely blood quickly flowing through the bronchi into his left lung and impairing its ability to transfer oxygen. While a frangible bullet could be explained away, in a head wound, as a full metal jacket bullet that behaved oddly and broke up, such was not the case with the back wound. The long slender FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet is very stable, and capable of tremendous penetration in flesh. An FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet entering JFK's back at 2000 fps, at the level of T3, was more than capable of going through JFK (exiting midway down his sternum), the jump seat and Connally, and possibly having enough legs to still wound Kellerman. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, It's likely because he had been shot in the throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Hay Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 And yet another thread has been completely hijacked by Cliff Varnell and his same old shtick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) And yet another thread has been completely hijacked by Cliff Varnell and his same old shtick. You brought up the subject of the back wound , Martin. That you are incapable of discussing the physical facts of the case is YOUR problem. That you insist on ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the T3 back wound is telling. Raises the question of who's worse at the mis-info game -- David Von Pein or Martin Hay? Edited July 13, 2015 by Cliff Varnell 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