Jump to content
The Education Forum
Fred Litwin

Need single bullet theory diagram

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, James R Gordon said:

DVP...will also tell you that only one fragment was found and retrieved from Connally's hand. Actually, 4 lead fragments were retrieved. I have the NARA official picture of them.

I've never claimed that only one fragment was recovered from Governor Connally's wrist.

I've also posted on my website (and discussed) the NARA photo you mentioned (showing the four Connally fragments)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have visited the web page you referred to and as I expected it was all 26 Volume explanations.

1. You are aware that when Gregory removed the lead fragments - and it was fragments and lead fragments - he placed them into a 1oz medicine glass. I have no reason to doubt him I have identifies 5 individual items from the xray I have of Connally's arm.

2. For reasons I am still looking into the FBI only received one item: Q/C9

3. It is now fairly certain the original iten was brokern up into several smaller items. That can be supported if you look at a hi-res image of the edges of the pieces.

4. When the FBI tested the items they cleaned the item afterwards by scraping it - thereby reducing its weight.

5. I am still looking into the originnal weight of Q/C9. But when calculating the weight you need to also add what was scraped off to get an accurate figure.

6. I do not yet know the final weight but the weight you record on your web page is a joke. I have read reports that when the estimated combined weight is added to CE 399 the total is way above the maximum weight for a pristine bullet.

7. These are lead fragments. Yes the core of CE 399 is lead, but looking at the base of CE399 and Q/C9 I am at a loss to see how they could be part of each other.

James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

DVP, I just looked at the page you've linked to in an effort to embarrass James. it is clear from that page that is you who should be embarrassed. You use Bud's comments from another site to insult the members of this site, and make the oft-repeated but nevertheless long-discredited argument CT's just need to believe the SBT is false because they need to believe Oswald was a patsy. (This avoids that a high percentage of the CT's not active on the internet believe Oswald was a shooter. and that their doubts about the SBT have nothing to do with any supposed affection for Oswald.)

In any event, it is clear from this thread (and your link) that it is the SBT-pushers who can't let go of their core beliefs, and become abusive when pushed into a corner. Your quoting of the abuse of the members of this forum by others does not hide that you are pushing their position, and that it is you providing the abuse. And this at the same time you push such mind-bogglingly wrong positions such as CE 903 proving the viability of the SBT, when it does not, and other photos taken at that same re-enactment prove it to have been a deliberate deception.

And that, in any event, CE 903 and the re-enactment itself, was purported to have proved the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings, which even you acknowledge to have been inaccurate.

(I suppose you didn't think I'd notice that you ran for the river like Rapunzel with her hair on fire.)

After Thomas Kelley showed Specter a photo of the back wound, which proved the wound to be on the back, inches below the base of the neck, Specter had Kelley testify that the chalk mark used in the re-enactment was based on the Rydberg drawings (which showed the wound to be at the base of the neck), and then corrected Kelley when he said the wound was on the back. Specter then had Shaneyfelt testify that CE 903 supported this as well, and put into the Warren Report that this further supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. And this even though he had photos (which were then hidden in the archives) proving the the trajectory rod passed inches above the chalk mark.

Now, if a CT had behaved like this, you would quote your hero Bugliosi all day long about what a terrible person he was,. But since this was Specter, the creator of your beloved SBT, a myth central to your core values, you can't even bring yourself to look at the facts.

From Chapter 10 at patspeer.com:

 

Specter Fails The Lie Detector

When one reads Specter's post-Warren Commission comments on its investigation, unfortunately, his slipperiness becomes readily apparent. 

Let's start with an article on Specter by Gaeton Fonzi published in the August 1966 edition of Greater Philadelphia Magazine. Here, Specter aggressively defended his work for the Warren Commission. Fonzi maintained throughout the article, however, that many of the questions regarding Kennedy's autopsy could have been cleared up if Specter had viewed the autopsy photographs. When asked about this, and why he hadn't been more aggressive about viewing the photographs, for that matter, Specter is reported to have "appeared visibly disturbed" and to have stammered for awhile before responding "The commission decided not to press for the x-rays and photographs." According to Fonzi, Specter then became apologetic, and said "Have I dodged your question?...Yes' Ive dodged your question." He then gave a more detailed response: "The Commission considered whether the x-rays and photographs should be put into the record and should be examined by the Commission's staff and the Commission reached the conclusion that it was not necessary..."

Specter had thereby concealed that he had in fact been shown a photo of Kennedy's back wound by a member of the Secret Service, and that he'd opted not to report this to the commission. 

His silence served another purpose as well. At another point in the article, after discussing Warren Commission Exhibit 385, a Rydberg drawing depicting the path of the bullet through Kennedy's neck, in which the bullet enters at the base of Kennedy's neck, Fonzi asked Specter to explain why so many witnesses, including the FBI agents present at the autopsy, claimed this wound was in the shoulder. He then wrote "Specter says it's possible that the whole thing is just a matter of semantics. 'It's a question of whether you call this point shoulder, base of neck, or back. I would say it sure isn't the shoulder, though I can see how somebody might call it the shoulder.'"

Now, admittedly, it's not crystal clear that when Specter said "this point" he was pointing to the entrance location depicted in CE 385, but the implication seems clear. If this is so, moreover, it seems equally clear that Specter was blowing smoke, trying to convince Fonzi that the confusion over the wound's location could be purely semantics, when he knew for certain--from sneaking a peek at an autopsy photo--that the wound depicted at the base of the neck on CE 385 was really inches below on the shoulder. 

In late 2012, after the passing of both Fonzi and Specter, Fonzi's wife made the tapes of their interviews available to the public via the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. These tapes confirm Specter's dishonesty. In three separate interviews--in over two hours of discussion--Specter never once admits that he'd been shown a photo of Kennedy's back wound, or even that the wound was on Kennedy's back. When interviewed on 6-28-66, he told Fonzi "The bullet entered the back of the neck between two strap muscles." This, as we've seen, was baloney. But he goes further, embarking on the discussion of semantics Fonzi mentioned in his article, and then proceeding to describe it as a neck wound whenever possible, at least five times by my count.

Specter's deceptiveness, in fact, hits rock bottom in the second of these interviews. On 6-29-66, when discussing the single-bullet theory, the holes on the President's clothes, and the strange fact that Governor Connally's clothes were cleaned and pressed before being made available to the Commission, Specter asserted "The real question on the holes are the direction." He then injected "We didn't see the President; we didn't see the pictures." Fonzi hadn't asked the question, but Specter was volunteering that "we" didn't see the autopsy photos of the President, perhaps to conceal that "he" had, in fact, seen the one picture needed to determine the location of the President's back wound.

And that's not the most revealing of Specter's deceptions. Perhaps inadvertently, Fonzi's tapes offer real insight into Specter's mindset--not only that he was lying, but why he was lying. In his 6-29-66 interview with Fonzi, when discussing Edward Epstein's book Inquest, in which Epstein suggested the Warren Commission investigation had been a whitewash performed in the name of the national interest, the politician in Specter came out, and he played to the grandstands. He told Fonzi: "It was not my function to decide the national interest. It was not Lyndon Johnson's function to decide the national interest. The national interest is decided in a democratic society by the free flow of facts into the truth. And any time any individual sets himself up to decide what is justice or what is the national interest, he's kidding himself. I'm not about to follow anybody's orders on that. They want to run their Commission. tell a bunch of lies, let them go ahead and run their Commission. They can't ask me to work for them." Specter, to his mind, was independent, and beyond the corrupting influence of Washington.

Now compare that to what Specter told Fonzi in their final interview on 7-8-66. When discussing the Commission's decision not to inspect the autopsy photographs, Specter at first said "As assistant counsel for the Commission, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to make a public statement disagreeing with the conclusion of the Commission on this question." Then, when asked if he'd thought of resigning when the autopsy photos and x-rays were withheld, he responded: "The decision of the Commission that the photographs and x-rays were not necessary in order for the Commission to arrive at a conclusion was not an egregious abuse of their discretion in light of the fact that they had substantial evidence on this question from eyewitness reports, from the highly qualified autopsy surgeons who had personally observed the President's body, a detailed report of the characteristics of the wounds, and there were important countervailing considerations which led the Commission to its conclusion that the films were not necessary in the light of the question of taste and the stature of the young American president whose memory will be regarded in the light of a smiling, handsome, erect, president, as opposed to a mutilated corpse with half his head shot off." Specter was pretending, of course, that everything the Commission looked at would automatically become available to the public, which he knew to be untrue.

But he continued from there, and ultimately revealed more of himself than he possibly could have intended. He insisted "The President of the United States didn't want Arlen Specter to conduct the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, the President of the United States appointed the Commission to do that job..." So there it was--what in retrospect reads like a confession that he'd chickened out--that he'd had the opportunity to make a difference but was overwhelmed by the feeling he'd be out of line in doing so. He then continued "...and if the Commission had done anything improper or made any effort to suppress material evidence or to mislead the American public in any way, that is the area where any honest public servant would be called upon to search his conscience for his resignation, not on discretionary questions as to whether the Commission ought to have additional evidence on the same point."

Well, my God. Feel free to read that again. Specter suggested that it would have been wrong for him to help the Commission if he felt it was making a deliberate effort to mislead the public, but that it wasn't his place to raise a ruckus if the Commission was simply ignoring important evidence, as long as it was ADDITIONAL evidence, that they were free to ignore at their discretion. In other words, he was thinking like a junior partner, unwilling to argue with a senior partner. He knew the autopsy photo showed a bullet wound on Kennedy's back, not neck, but thought this photo but one piece of evidence, which the Commission would feel free to ignore. Fate looked him in the face and he blinked. He'd lawyered his way out of doing the right thing. 

That Specter was worried about Fonzi's article and had chosen to deceive him is further supported, moreover, by a far-friendlier article about the Warren Commission and the medical evidence published a few weeks later, by Joseph Daughen in the 8-28-66 Philadelphia Bulletin. Here, almost as an aside, Daughen asserted "in Dallas, a staff member who had expressed concern over the absence of the evidence was shown by a Secret Service agent a photograph purportedly representing the upper back of the President." Hmmm... Specter was interviewed for this article. Clearly, then, he had told Daughen of his viewing the photo in Dallas. Well, why hadn't he told this to Fonzi, when the commission's failure to view the photos was central to Fonzi's article?

Well, the thought occurs that that's it, right there. The viewing of the photos was central to Fonzi's article. If then-District Attorney Specter had told Fonzi he'd seen the photo then Fonzi would have insisted he describe what he saw. And Specter, presumably, was hoping to avoid that. (Notice how the compliant Daughen not only fails to name Specter as the staff member who'd viewed the photo of Kennedy's upper back, but fails to describe where the wound was in this photo.)

In any event, in the 10-10-66 edition of U.S. News & World Report, Specter finally admitted he'd been shown one of Kennedy's autopsy photos. He didn't exactly come clean, however. Nope, true to form, he side-stepped the fact the photo shown him by Kelley didn’t match the Rydberg drawings by claiming “It showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report” but that it had not been "technically authenticated." Well, of course it showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report. The autopsy report described a wound on Kennedy's back, and not at the base of his neck, where Specter had taken to pretending it had been. In the article, Specter then moaned that, should this wound have been on Kennedy's back below the level of his throat wound, as proposed by conspiracy theorist Edward J. Epstein, it would mean "the autopsy surgeons were perjurers, because the autopsy surgeons placed their hands on the Bible and swore to the truth of an official report where they had measured to a minute extent the precise location of the hole on the back of the President's neck, as measured from other specific points on the body of the President."

Well, once again, the Specter shift was in place. He defended the integrity of the doctors by claiming they'd be perjurers if the autopsy report was in error, when he almost certainly knew the problem was not with the autopsy report, but with the schematic drawings of Kennedy he--Arlen Specter--had asked them to create. To reiterate, the measurements taken by the "autopsy surgeons" suggested the wound to have been on Kennedy's back, at or below the level of the throat wound, and not on the "back of the President's neck," where both Specter and the "surgeons" had taken to saying it had been. The autopsy report, moreover, said nothing about the relative locations of the back wound and throat wound.

So why was Specter suggesting otherwise? Was he playing a sneaky lawyer trick, and leading his readers to assume something he knew to be untrue?

I'd bet the farm on it. He then insisted that "The photographs would, however, corroborate that which the autopsy surgeons testified to." Well, notice the language... If he meant to say that the autopsy photo he'd been shown depicted a wound at the base of Kennedy's neck, in the location suggested by the Rydberg drawings, then why didn't he just say so? And why, instead, did he claim that the autopsy surgeons testified to the accuracy of their measurements, and that the photographs corroborated these measurements? Was he trying to avoid saying that the Rydberg drawings were accurate--because he knew full well they were not?

Specter also discussed the strap muscles in this interview. He claimed that at the beginning of the autopsy the doctors found that "a finger could probe between two large strap muscles and penetrate to a very slight extent" a "hole at the base of the back of the neck." He then pushed what clearly wasn't true--that he got this information from somewhere other than his own fertile imagination. He related that the Warren Commission testimony of the "autopsy surgeons" had established "the path of the bullet through the President's neck, showing that it entered between two large strap muscles..."

His statements in the 11-25-66 issue of Life Magazine were equally curious. He said "Given the trajectory from the Book Depository window, the autopsy, about which I have no doubts, and the FBI report on the limousine; where, if it didn't hit Connally, did that bullet go?" Yes, you read that right. Specter claimed he had no doubts about the autopsy. Well, maybe he didn't. But his version of the autopsy--the one where the doctors found a path between two muscles on the back of Kennedy's neck--was not the real autopsy.

I'm being facetious, of course, which sounds a lot like the substance Specter was spreading. The autopsy photo he'd been shown--the one on the slide above--depicted a wound in Kennedy's upper back, at or below the level of his throat wound. The "trajectory from the Book Depository window,"  therefore, necessitated that either 1) Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when hit, or 2) the bullet creating this wound had curled upwards upon entry. The "autopsy" about which Specter had no doubts, however, had ruled out that the bullet had struck anything upon entry. The films of the assassination studied by Specter, furthermore, proved Kennedy wasn't leaning sharply forward when hit. So what was there to have doubts about? What, Specter, worry?

Let's recall here that in his 4-30-64 memo to J. Lee Rankin, Specter urged that the Rydberg drawings be compared to the autopsy photos, and specified:

"2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known."

Now let's do a quick replay. On 4-30-64, Specter admitted that he'd thought the trajectory in Rydberg drawing CE 385 too shallow to support the shooting scenario he'd proposed. Well, this is the same as his saying he thought the neck wound too low to support Kennedy and Connally being hit by the same bullet at the time he'd assumed they'd been hit. On 5-24-64, however, he was shown a photo of Kennedy's back, in which the wound was revealed to have been approximately two inches lower on Kennedy's back than in Rydberg drawing CE 385. This meant it was far too low to support the shooting scenario he'd proposed. So how did Specter respond to this challenge? Did he change his scenario? Nope. On 6-4-64 he took testimony from FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt in which Shaneyfelt purported that the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated the trajectory through Kennedy's neck in CE 385--the drawing which Specter now knew to be inaccurate. Specter then pushed this nonsense in the Warren Report. He then defended his work by telling Life Magazine he had no doubts about the autopsy, and that the trajectory from the sniper's nest--the trajectory he'd thought incompatible with CE 385, and would have to have thought thoroughly incompatible with the photo he'd been shown--contributed to his faith in his scenario.

Well, hello! Do I have to spell it out? Specter was L-Y-I-N-G!

An 11-26-66 UPI article (found in the Milwaukee Journal) was also given the Specter touch. Taking note of Dr. Boswell's recent claim the photos could dispel the controversy over the President's wounds, the article reported that "Specter said he had not seen the autopsy pictures" but that he had nevertheless conceded "If it keeps up, you may get a look at them." Note that Specter said he had not seen the "pictures" (plural), and that this allowed him to avoid admitting that he'd seen one "picture" (singular).

Specter did discuss his viewing the photo of Kennedy's back soon thereafter, however. In the January 14, 1967 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, he is quoted as claiming “It showed the back of a body with a bullet hole, apparently of entry, where the autopsy report said it was.” Well, there it is again. Notice the language... Notice how Specter once again steers clear of saying that he'd looked at a photo of the President's back, and that this photo showed a wound on the back of the president's neck, and confirmed the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings.

On 12-4-68, while debating author Josiah Thompson at the University of Pennsylvania, moreover, he repeated his tall-tale about the strap muscles. According to a transcript of this conference found in the Weisberg Archives, he told the students in attendance that the autopsy surgeons "testified that there was a path through the President's neck where the bullet passed between two large strap muscles, bruised the top of the pleural cavity, bruised the top of the right lung, sliced his trachea, and exited from the front of the throat." After describing the wounds, he then detailed that "We then sought to determine what would have been the velocity of a bullet entering the President's neck and exiting the President's neck." Well, my God. It entered the president's "neck," not back. This, clearly, was Specter's story, and he was sticking to it.

And stick to it he did. On 12-8-77, when testifying before the HSCA in executive session, Specter made at least seven separate references to a wound on the back of Kennedy's neck. Here they are:

 

"That conclusion was reached because of the evidence which showed that the bullet entered the back of the President's neck" HSCA vol.7 p.89

(When asked if he remains convinced CE 399 went through President Kennedy and Governor Connally "Yes, I am, the President's neck and the Governor." HSCA vol.7 p.90
 

"I don't think the single bullet theory, that is to say I do not think that they were struck by separate bullets with respect to the President's neck wounds and the wounds on Governor Connally, but I think they could have been struck by separate bullets, all fired by Oswald." HSCA vol.7 p.91
 
(On the autopsy doctors) "Their early speculation was that the bullet penetrated the back of President Kennedy's neck." HSCA vol.7 p.95 (This was, of course, not true.)

"They proceeded with the autopsy examination and found the path through the President's neck." HSCA vol.7 p. 96 (Yikes!)
 
"I was satisfied that the bullet which entered the back of the President's neck went all the way through and exited in front of his neck."HSCA vol.7 p.96
 
"I do know that the FBI report said that the first bullet hit the President's neck..." HSCA vol.7 p.99 (This, of course, was also nonsense. The FBI report said the wound was in the shoulder.)
 
In any event, Specter never once described this wound as being on Kennedy's back. This was remarkable, moreover, seeing as the HSCA had added two of Specter's old Warren Commission memos into his testimony...which made five separate references to this wound...as a wound on Kennedy's back.

Yes, it's true. Specter had routinely described this wound as a back wound prior to his being shown a photo confirming it to have been a back wound, and then claimed forevermore it was a neck wound, even to people who knew full well it was a back wound.

Well, that's about as red as a red flag can get.

That Specter wasn't exactly telling the truth, the whole truth, as he'd solemnly sworn to do, moreover, is confirmed by something left out of his testimony. When asked about one of the Warren Commission memos introduced during his testimony, in which he'd asserted "The Commission should determine with certainty" that "there are no major variations between the films and the artist's drawings", he explained that he'd believed "it was highly desirable for the X-rays and photographs to be viewed" at that time, in order "to corroborate the testimony of the autopsy surgeons." He then added "I was overruled on the request..."

Incredibly, he never admitted being shown the photo of Kennedy's back.

Nor was he ever asked about it... Apparently, Kenneth Klein, who'd conducted Specter's testimony, had failed to do his homework.

Or maybe there was more to it. Klein, born in Specter's home town of Philadelphia, had been hired to work for the HSCA by its original Chief Counsel, Richard Sprague, who'd worked for Specter in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. Many years later, for that matter, Klein went to work for Jenner and Block, the Chicago law firm of Specter's colleague on the Warren Commission, Albert Jenner.

And that's not the only curious tie between Specter and the committee. Specter's son, Shanin, just so happened to be Pennsylvania Congressman Robert Edgar's assistant on the committee. Edgar, while a liberal Democrat, was the Congressman from Pennsylvania's Seventh District, on the outskirts of Philadelphia, where the moderate Republican Specter had recently served as District Attorney, and was preparing a run for Governor. Edgar would proceed to author a dissent from the committee's report, in which he claimed its conclusion of a probable conspiracy was unjustified, and credited Specter's son Shanin and Warren Commission counsel David Belin for their assistance. 

Specter and Edgar traveled in the same circles and almost certainly knew each other.

Or maybe all this means nothing. In 1986, Edgar left congress to run against Specter for U.S. Senator.

(On November 8, 2013, Shanin Specter published an article on The Daily Beast website. While discussing his own relationship to his father's infamous single-bullet theory he admitted that Congressman Edgar had asked his father for help with the house select committee, and that Specter had volunteered his son--Shanin, the writer of the article--instead.)

In any event, if Klein and Edgar had been on a mission to protect Specter's reputation, they were not entirely successful...because something seriously shocking happened the next year-- something that should have marked the end of Specter's political career... On 9-7-78, Dr. Michael Baden, the spokesman for the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, testified that from studying the autopsy photos the panel had concluded Kennedy's torso wound to have been--cut to the sound of Specter saying "oh crap"--not only not on Kennedy's neck, where Specter had long claimed it to have been, but on his back below the level of his throat wound.

Congressman Edgar was present for this testimony. His assistant, Specter's son, Shanin, may also have been present. The questions asked Baden by--you guessed it, Kenneth Klein--had been prepared in advance. This suggests, then, that Klein knew well in advance that Baden was gonna undercut the foundation for Specter's single-bullet theory, and that Edgar--and almost certainly his assistant, Specter's son, Shanin--knew this as well.

Let's recall here that Specter had once suggested that if this wound were below Kennedy's throat wound, well, then the autopsy surgeons were guilty of perjury.

So...does Specter call a press conference after Baden's testimony, and demand Humes, Boswell, and Finck be indicted for perjury?

No, of course not.

And does Klein call Specter to the stand and ask him to explain why, for nearly 15 years, he'd been claiming the wound on Kennedy's back was a wound on the back of his neck?

No, of course not. 

And that's not even the worst of it. If Specter had at this time come forward and said "Wow, that wound really was on Kennedy's back; I apologize for any confusion caused by my earlier descriptions of the wound," he might have escaped with a smidgen of credibility.

But instead he doubled down.

Yep, in an unbelievably suspicious move, not only did Specter fail to specify in his subsequent statements and articles that the doctors had been mistaken about the back wound location depicted on the Rydberg drawings--or apologize for his own misleading statements about this wound's location--but he continued--up till his death--to make claims about its location that are demonstrably false... He continued to claim even that the bullet creating this wound entered between two strap muscles on the back of Kennedy's neck.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What a riot.

Davey is being wasted on about three different issues.  Then he says, well so what if I am off a bit in my angle of declination?  LOL:D

He cannot handle what that hand wound means.  Or Speer showing that Specter was a l-i-a-r.  

The critics need to show the Single Bullet Theory  was a Fantasy?   To most normal people, it shows itself to be a fantasy.  DVP and the WC nuts hang on to it like Linus and his blanket.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The autopsy pathologists lied about how much they knew about the throat wound while they were examining the body. The most liberal interpretation of the evidence would say that Humes et. al strongly suspected or even "assumed" that the tracheotomy had been made over a bullet hole representing an exit for the back wound, during the body examination, and failed to make the routine phone calls or perform the proper surgical procedures to solve these issues for some reason, and then subsequently lied or padded the story of the throat wound discovery to hide the embarrassment of not solving the forensic mystery of the decade by neglect by laziness, exhaustion, intimidation, stress at the time of the body examination.

The conservative interpretation of the evidence would suggest that Humes et. al made a phone call to Dr. Perry around midnight, during the body examination, learned about the throat, excavated the throat area, and then failed to report on any forensic findings found, with a cover story about themselves being ignorant of the throat wound until several hours later mid-day Saturday 11/23.

 

Third, or fourth, or seventeenth in place in terms of credibility is the official Humes story of being completely ignorant of the concept of a bullet wound in the throat until mid-day Saturday 11/23, long after the body was their responsibility.

 

DVP has never bothered to argue this. The old song and dance is more conformable.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Let me add one more point about DVP being skewered on this issue of the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Its this kind of battering that forced Wagner to retreat from this ludicrous concept.  In his book, although he supports the WR, he has abandoned the Magic Bullet concept.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Simple Fact --- JFK conspiracy theorists have NEVER (not once) offered up any kind of a valid and reasonable and sensible and believable alternative to the Warren Commission's Single-Bullet Theory....and they never will, since the SBT is the correct solution (by a mile)----with or without the awful Rydberg drawings.

It's easy to criticize something. Everything is always open to criticism. But when it comes to coming up with an explanation for what DID happen (if it wasn't the SBT), the CTers have NOTHING to offer. All they're able to come up with is: The SBT is BS! But I want to hear their "conspiracy" alternative, step by step and bullet by bullet.

And without a bullet exiting JFK's throat (and nearly 100% of Internet CTers don't think any bullet exited from Kennedy's throat), then the CTers have no choice but to offer up the proverbial "Two Bullets Entered JFK But Failed To Exit And Then Disappeared Or Were Dug Out By Evil Plotters" gambit. (Maybe that silly theory is the main reason I never hear any CTer offer up a detailed explanation of what happened. Because who would want to intentionally embarrass themselves by placing such lunacy on the table for anyone's consideration?)

And if anybody thinks that it's the LNer in the equation (meaning: DVP) who suffered the "embarrassment" at the hands of James R. Gordon and other assorted anti-SBTers in this 2015 discussion, then their denial is even more serious and advanced than even I had thought. Because that discussion illustrates---more than I've ever encountered before---the lengths to which some conspiracists will sink in order to avoid the "SBT" signs that exist in the Zapruder Film. 

The lame excuses I heard from various conspiracy theorists were legendary. I heard "Corrupt frames" and "Connally's merely turning to his left" and "It's only Nellie Connally's shadow that you're seeing". Anything to avoid having to admit that the film is showing John B. Connally reacting to a bullet hitting him at circa Z224. Classic Denial at its finest.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

CTers have NEVER offered up a valid and reasonable alternative to the SBT....and they never will, since the SBT is the correct solution (by a mile)----with or without the awful Rydberg drawings.

...

And without a bullet exiting JFK's throat (and nearly 100% of Internet CTers don't think any bullet exited from Kennedy's throat), then the CTers have no choice but to offer up the proverbial "Two Bullets Entered JFK But Failed To Exit And Then Disappeared Or Were Dug Out By Evil Plotters" gambit. (Maybe that silly theory is the main reason I never hear any CTer offer up a detailed explanation of what happened. Because who would want to intentionally embarrass themselves by placing such lunacy on the table for anyone's consideration?)

First Von Pein claims there are "NEVER" a valid and reasonable explanation then he performs a drive-by sneering at two obvious possibilities which are rooted in the historical record:

1)  The autopsists suspected JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which wouldn't leave any detectable metal in the body.

2) The FBI report on the autopsy refers to pre-autopsy surgery to the head -- raising the possibility the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

First Von Pein claims there are "NEVER" a valid and reasonable explanation then he performs a drive-by sneering at two obvious possibilities which are rooted in the historical record:

1)  The autopsists suspected JFK was hit with a high tech weapon which wouldn't leave any detectable metal in the body.

And JFK was hit by TWO such "high tech" missiles, eh Varnell? TWO of them which both vanished, while leaving virtually NO DAMAGE behind in Kennedy's body??

Might as well have used a sling shot. It'd be just as effective as these make-believe "high tech" disappearing bullets that Cliff is offering up.

Plus----why wasn't the HEAD SHOT a "high tech" round also? And the round that hit Connally's wrist? Those bullets left behind metal fragments. So the assassins used two different types of bullets, eh? All the while trying to "frame" a patsy (who owns a CARCANO) in the Book Depository??

Let's pause for the laughter to die down some.....

 

Quote

2) The FBI report on the autopsy refers to pre-autopsy surgery to the head -- raising the possibility the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy.

Cliff, of course, surely knows about the explanations given by former FBI agent James Sibert regarding the "surgery" remark made by Dr. Humes. Don't you, Cliff?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

"In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, [James] Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Cliff, of course, surely knows about the explanations given by former FBI agent James Sibert regarding the "surgery" remark made by Dr. Humes. Don't you, Cliff?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

"In a 1999 telephone conversation from his retirement home in Fort Myers, Florida, [James] Sibert told me that when the casket was opened in the autopsy room, "The president was wrapped in two sheets, one around his body, another sheet around his head." He said the sheet around the head was "soaked in blood," and when it was removed, Dr. Humes "almost immediately upon seeing the president's head—this was before the autopsy—remarked that the president had a tracheotomy and surgery of the head area." When I asked Sibert what Humes was referring to when he used the word surgery, he said, "He was referring to the large portion of the president's skull that was missing." When I asked him why he was so sure of this, he replied, "Well, if you were there, it couldn't have been more clear that that's what he was talking about. He said this as soon as he saw the president's head. He hadn't looked close-up for any evidence of surgery to the head when he said this. I'm positive that's what he was referring to."" -- Page 1060 of "Reclaiming History"

From William Matson Law's book In The Eye of History:

...

 

Quote

After introducing him to Debra, we gathered our belongings and walked out to the parking lot, where Sibert introduced us to his wife Ester. As we rode along I remarked on how glad I was to have the opportunity to talk to him in person about his recollections of the wounds on President Kennedy's body. Ester Sibert turned round to Debra and me and said, "You know, his brains were blown out of his head." I hope the surprise on my face didn't give too much away. "That was one of the questions I was going to ask," I replied.

...

Quote

Long will I remember riding in the back seat of the Siberts' car before Deb Conway and I conducted the interview, to have Mrs. Sibert turn around and say: "You know, his brains were blown out of his head!"—information that had, obviously, come from her husband. Sibert knows the implications of there being no brain in the cranium. He understands the impact of his words when he tells us that no honor guard was present at the entry of the casket, or there was no brain in the head when he first saw Kennedy's body, or that the autopsy pictures don't match his memories of how the body looked.

...
 

Quote

 

After I returned home from Florida, I sent Mr. Sibert a copy of Noel Twyman's book Bloody Treason (Laurel, 1997) (which, for me is the new cornerstone of the
literature on the assassination) as a token of thanks for granting us the opportunity to interview him. Twyman's book brings to the fore questions concerning the shipping casket versus the ornate display casket, body alteration, the forged X-ray and autopsy pictures, etc.

Weeks later, I called Jim, or Si as I now think of him, to see how he liked the book: "You tell Noel Twyman for me that his book is the best thing I've ever read on the assassination."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

And JFK was hit by TWO such "high tech" missiles, eh Cliff? TWO of them which both vanished, while leaving virtually NO DAMAGE behind in Kennedy's body??

They autopsists speculated -- with the body right in front of them -- that JFK was hit with a high tech round leaving no trace in the autopsy. 

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire into the existence of such weaponry.  Bugliosi wrote about it David, did you miss that part?

Quote

Might as well have used a sling shot. It'd be just as effective as these make-believe "high tech" disappearing bullets that Cliff is offering up.

First of all, it's not "make believe," second of all it's the theory of the autopsists.

Lone Nutters and CT Pet Theorists always ridicule the historical record when it comes to the physical facts of JFK's murder.

Ya'all need to do some homework.

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

Quote

Plus----why wasn't the HEAD SHOT a "high tech" round also?

They needed to frame a patsy with a rifle.

Quote

 

And the round that hit Connally's wrist? Thjose left behind metal fragments. So they used two different types of bullets, eh? All the while trying to "frame" a patsy (who owns a CARCANO) in the Book Depository??

Right, perhaps that's why they shot JFK in the head with a conventional weapon -- in order to frame the patsy.

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

...perhaps that's why they shot JFK in the head with a conventional weapon -- in order to frame the patsy. 

Don't tell me you actually believe the head shot WAS caused by Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano????!!!! I didn't think ANY Internet CTer believed such a thing!

(I'm going to faint.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Don't tell me you actually believe the head shot WAS caused by Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano????!!!! I didn't think ANY Internet CTer believed such a thing!

(I'm going to faint.)

Settle down, David.  I mentioned "conventional weapon" -- there are conventional rifles other than a Mannlicher (somehow it seems strange to have to point that out...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Settle down, David.  I mentioned "conventional weapon" -- there are conventional rifles other than a Mannlicher (somehow it seems strange to have to point that out...)

Yeah, that's what I thought, Cliff. I knew you didn't believe the fatal shot came from LHO's gun. Very few (if any) Internet CTers actually accept the truth about Oswald firing the fatal head shot. I was just playin' with your make-believe theories.

But it's nice to see a post from you, Cliff, that DOESN'T revolve around the shirt and coat. That's kinda refreshing. :)

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum for Cliff....

I guess, therefore, Cliff, that you must think the assassins who fired the "high tech" shots into JFK's throat and upper back were not even intending to kill President Kennedy with those two rifle shots, correct? And that's why they didn't aim at JFK's head with either of those shots, right? They merely wanted to wing him with TWO separate non-fatal blows to the upper body (and, as a bonus, they wanted to give the Secret Service a little bit of a heads-up about what was to come a few seconds later), is that it?

That was mighty nice of the "high tech" assassins to give Mr. Kennedy and the Secret Service a fighting chance that way.

Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

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

×