Ray Mitcham Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 Ron , Father Huber who gave the President the last rites, said that JFk's eyes were closed. Which makes me wonder whether eyes can reopen after death for some reason. interesting view on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 29, 2018 Share Posted July 29, 2018 The Fox 5 backofthehead autopsy photo is a definite fugazi, probably stareofdeath as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article "Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report" by Richard H. Levine https://archive.org/stream/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/Autopsy JFK JTB 08#page/n0/mode/2up [...] In an interview yesterday, Dr. Boswell also discussed other aspects of the autopsy and the wounds that have led to a host of theories about the shooting, and speculation about the number of bullets and the number of assassins. He said there was absolutely no doubt that the controversial neck and throat wound were caused by a bullet that entered the base of President Kennedy's neck, passed completely through the neck and exited from the throat. Writers claiming a second assassin was involved in Dallas on November 22, 1963, suggest the President was shot in the neck by someone located in front of the presidential limousine. [...] In an interview at his home in Bethesda, Dr. Boswell, who is now retired from the Navy and in private practice, recounted details of the entire autopsy. His remarks, in several instances, dealt with key matters that are central to the theories of those critics who believe that more than one person killed the President. Among the important points he made were these: 1. All of the shots that struck the President came from behind him. 2. The President was struck by two bullets, one of which hit him in the head and disintegrated, the other of which passed through his neck. 3. There was no other bullet wound. [...] Dr. Boswell said that the President's body was subjected to a thorough examination. All marks and scars, were noted, including old surgical scars and surgical cuts made that day by Dallas doctors trying to save his life. The pathologists had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas. [...] Wound Not Evident The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy, Dr. Boswell said, because of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas. He said the wound in the back of the neck was noticed when the body was turned over. It was a new discovery. According to the Warren Commission testimony, Dallas physicians did not make a thorough examination of the President at first because of the evident seriousness of the massive head wound and the necessity of immediate emergency procedures. They believed the throat wound was an entrance wound and never did turn the body over to look for back wounds, even after the President died. Dr. Boswell said that the tracheotomy incision was examined and extensive trauma was noted on one side. When the wound in the back of the neck was discovered and probed, by finger and by metal surgical probe, no bullet could be located. He said that the probing was to a depth of about 4 or 5 centimeters. Complete X-Rays At this point, according to Dr. Boswell, complete x-rays of the entire body were ordered in an effort to locate the bullet. Dr. Boswell recalled that either he or one of the other pathologists made a remark to the effect that the bullet might have worked its way back out of the entrance wound. "This was a very transient thought," he said, adding that he had never seen a case in which this had happened and therefore did not give this possibility much weight. What was more probable, he said, was the possibility of the bullet’s being in some remote area of the body. He said that medical literature recounts many examples of wildly erratic paths taken by bullets that ricochet through the body, glancing from bones and slipping along muscle planes. As an example, he mentioned a case he examined where a bullet that entered the victim’s chest was located in a lower leg. The doctor said that retrieval of bullets, as well as the determination of their paths, is extremely important in all forensic autopsies because of the legal necessity of linking wounds, bullets, weapons and assailants. Dr. Boswell said the x-rays were immediately examined by all three pathologists as well as by the radiologist who took them. He said the presence of bullets in an x-ray is unmistakable because of the capacity of metal lo block the rays. He said there was no bullet in the body, although "minute particles" could be discerned the head. Dr. Boswell said he is “absolutely” convinced that all of these particles came from the bullet that struck the President’s head. Bullet In Stretcher Around this time, according to the FBI report, the FBI observers informed Dr. Humes that a bullet had been recovered from a stretcher in the Dallas hospital. Dr. Boswell said that the autopsy was resumed after the examination of the x-rays, the pathologists assuming that, unlikely as it seemed, the bullet had exited from the same hole it entered. He said that the autopsy proceeded routinely. According to the autopsy report, and confirmed by Dr. Boswell, the internal examination revealed a bruise in the apex, or uppermost tip, of the right lung. There was also a bruise of the parietal, pleura, the membrane that lines the lung cage. Dr. Boswell said be and his colleagues decided that the bullet had not made a superficial wound after all, but had passed above the area of the bruise. He said that neither the parietal pleura nor the lung cage were disrupted, indicating that the lung cage had not been pierced. "We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly," Dr. Boswell said. He said that a telephone call made to the hospital in Dallas by Dr. Humes the following morning merely confirmed what was already a certainty to the pathologists - that there was a bullet wound in the President's neck at the point of the tracheotomy incision. Dr. Boswell said it was impossible to determine during autopsy if the throat wound was one of entry or exit because of the incision. Determination Unnecessary This determination was unnecessary, he said, since the wound in the back of the neck was determined by observation and microscopic examination one of entry, and because the path of the bullet was determined by the bruise marks in marks in the lung area. [...] The FBI account of the autopsy is dated November 26, four days after the examination. It refers to a back wound, but this, according to Dr. Boswell, can be a laymen's observation of an area just below the shoulder line that, to a physician, is still the neck region. Mote disturbingly, it recounts the incident during which the exit wound was undiscovered and leaves, unchanged, a statement in which Dr. Humes concluded the bullet had worked itself cut of the same hole it had entered. Story Left Unchanged Dr. Boswell said that, at the time, he paid no attention to the presence of the FBI agents but that he can only conclude that they either did not understand what later took place, or else left before the lung contusions were discovered. Boswell contradicts the party line held by Humes and Sibert & O'Neill. See earlier when Boswell talked to the HSCA and he literally changed his story in mid-interview. Edited July 30, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The complete 1992 JAMA interview with Dr. James Humes can be found HERE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited July 31, 2018 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, David Von Pein said: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The complete 1992 JAMA interview with Dr. James Humes can be found HERE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Dissecting the neck was totally unnecessary and would have been criminal? It's criminal to the American People that it wasn't done. Since their was no exit wound. For this frontal shot. Edited July 31, 2018 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 29 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: "Dissecting the neck was totally unnecessary and would have been criminal? It's criminal to the American People that it wasn't done. Since their was no exit wound. For this frontal shot. Mic drop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, David Von Pein said: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The complete 1992 JAMA interview with Dr. James Humes can be found HERE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Two phone calls. First happened Friday night. Friday night would've been the time the autopsy pathologists were still examining the body. 3/25/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Oliver Perry https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35#relPageId=26&tab=page Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you have occasion to talk via the telephone with Dr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital? Dr. PERRY. I did. Mr. SPECTER. And will you relate the circumstances of the calls indicating first the time when they occurred. Dr. PERRY. Dr. Humes called me twice on Friday afternoon, separated by about 30-minute intervals, as I recall. The first one, I. somehow think I recall the first one must have been around 1500 hours, but I’m not real sure about that; I’m not positive of that at all, actually. Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been Saturday morning? Dr. PERRY. Saturday morning-was it? It’s possible. I remember talking with him twice. I was thinking it was shortly thereafter. Mr. SPECTER. Well, the record will show. Dr. PERRY. Oh, sure, it was Saturday morning-yes. Mr. SPECTER. What made you change your view of that? Dr. PERRY. You mean Friday? Mr. SPECTER. Did some specific recollection occur to you which changed your view from Friday to Saturday? Dr. PERRY. No, I was trying to place where I was at that time-Friday afternoon, and at that particular time, when I paused to think about it, I was actually up in the operating suite at that time, when I thought that he called initially. I seem to remember it being Friday, for some reason. Mr. SPECTER. Where were you when you received those calls? Dr. PERRY. I was in the Administrator’s office here when he called. Mr. SPECTER. And what did he ask you, if anything? Dr. PERRY. He inquired about, initially, about the reasons for my doing a tracheotomy, and I replied, as I have to you, during this procedure, that there was a wound in the lower anterior third of the neck, which was exuding blood and was indicative of a possible tracheal injury underlying, and I did the tracheotomy through a transverse incision made through that mound, and I described to him the right lateral injury to the trachea and the completion of the operation. He subsequently called back-at that time he told me, of course, that he could not talk to me about any of it and asked that I keep it in confidence, which I did, and he subsequently called back and inquired about the chest tubes, and why they were placed and I replied in part as I have here. It was somewhat more detailed. After having talked to Drs. Baxter and Peters and I identified them as having placed it in the second interspace, anteriorly, in the midclavicular line, in the right hemithorax, he asked me at that time if we had made any wounds in the back. I told him that I had not examined the back nor had I knowledge of any wounds of the back. 3/30/1964 Warren Commission Testimony of Dr. Malcolm Perry https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=388&tab=page , https://web.archive.org/web/20170702234109/http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Perry, did you have occasion to discuss your observations with Comdr. James J. Humes of the Bethesda Naval Hospital? Dr. PERRY. Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER. When did that conversation occur? Dr. PERRY. My knowledge as to the exact accuracy of it is obviously in doubt. I was under the initial impression that I talked to him on Friday, but I understand it was on Saturday. I didn't recall exactly when. Mr. SPECTER. Do you have an independent recollection at this moment as to whether it was on Friday or Saturday? Dr. PERRY. No, sir; I have thought about it again and the events surrounding that weekend were very kaleidoscopic, and I talked with Dr. Humes on two occasions, separated by a very short interval of, I think it was, 30 minutes or an hour or so, it could have been a little longer. Mr. SPECTER. What was the medium of your conversation? Dr. PERRY. Over the telephone. Mr. SPECTER. Did he identify himself to you as Dr. Humes of Bethesda? Dr. PERRY. He did. Mr. SPECTER. Would you state as specifically as you can recollect the conversation that you first had with him? Dr. PERRY. He advised me that he could not discuss with me the findings of necropsy, that he had a few questions he would like to clarify. The initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy. Since I had made the incision directly through the wound in the neck, it made it difficult for them to ascertain the exact nature of this wound. Of course, that did not occur to me at the time. I did what appeared to me to be medically expedient. And when I informed him that there was a wound there and I suspected an underlying wound of the trachea and even perhaps of the great vessels he advised me that he thought this action was correct and he said he could not relate to me any of the other findings. Mr. SPECTER. Would you relate to me in lay language what necropsy is? Dr. PERRY. Autopsy, postmortem examination. Mr. SPECTER. What was the content of the second conversation which you had with Comdr. Humes, please? Dr. PERRY. The second conversation was in regard to the placement of the chest tubes for drainage of the chest cavity. And I related to him, as I have to you, the indications that prompted me to advise that this be done at that time. 1/11/1978 Perry-Purdy HSCA Interview ARRB MD 58: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md58.pdf , https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=322#relPageId=9&tab=page FLANAGAN: Dr. Perry, could you go over and describe the conversations that you subsequently had after treating the President at Parkland with Dr. Humes, the surgeon who performed the autopsy? PERRY: Yeah. This won't be too accurate, Mark, because I found out, interestingly enough, that later I had my dates a little bit fouled up. They called me twice and I couldn't remember -- I didn't write it down. I've learned to keep better records since then, but -- and I didn't remember exactly when they called me and about what, but I was called twice back from Bethesda. And the conversation of the first one, as I recall, and I need, I should go back and look at my testimony in my notes here and I haven't done that, I guess, I should have to find out exactly what we're talking about on that first one. But we discussed the thing and I told him about the tracheostomy wound and told him that I had cut right through the small wound in the neck. And Dr. Humes at that time had described that they had had a little difficulty tying up that posterior entrance wound -- as allegedly to be an entrance wound, I shouldn't get in this hot water -- that posterior wound with the -- couldn't find out where it went. And they surmised that during the cardiac massage and everything that perhaps the bullet had fallen out -- which seemed like a very unlikely event to me, to say the least. But at any rate, when I told him that there was a wound in the anterior neck, lower third, he said: "That explains it:" I believe that was the exclamation that he used -- because that tied together their findings with mine. Now there was a second call about the chest tubes, I think. And I believe that was the next day. I'm not sure of that. Maybe they called me twice that morning. PURDY: At one point in your testimony, to help clear it up with you, you said that the calls came about 30 minutes apart. PERRY: Was it twice in the same morning? It's possible. There should be something in the record of that. They had a record of it, Andy, and I just don't remember, you know. Between Friday and the President and Sunday and Oswald, and all those conferences and interviews, I got a little bit confused -- because Saturday morning I was asked to come up to the hospital and talk to a whole bunch of people and so I was up there Saturday too. And I don't remember -- but maybe it was two, both.., ... Saturday was when they called? PERRY: Yeah, twice. FLANAGAN: I believe so. PERRY: But they called twice. And they asked me about the chest tubes--or something to that effect. Was it chest tubes? PURDY: Yeah. In your testimony you say that "the initial phone call was in relation to my doing a tracheotomy," and you informed them... PERRY: ...that I'd cut right through the wound. PURDY: Right. Do you remember whether or not there was any discussion in either of the calls about whether there had been any surgical incisions made in the President's back? PERRY: I don't remember. I don't know why they would. He might have asked me, but I didn't even look at his back--so I wouldn't have known the answer to that if there had been. But I don't recall him asking that question. He might have asked -- I got asked so many questions along about that time, I don't remember who asked them. I didn't even look at Mr. Kennedy's back -- which was another thing I wish we'd have done. FLANAGAN: One further question on these lines. To your knowledge, did the Bethesda Hospital or Humes -- did they ever receive any, for instance, handwritten notes that might have been taken by them? PERRY: Should have. FLANAGAN: ...I mean after the assassination. PERRY: Yeah. You know, we -- yeah, that's a good question, too, Mark, because we all sat down afterwards and wrote out in our own -- as L'il Abner would say, hand written -- notes our recollection of what happened down there, knowing that we'd get a little fuzzy about it. And I think they got copies of those; I'm not sure of that, though. Those copies were available, because we made them available to the investigating committees, and know our inspector and all the guys around here. We all wrote down some of them and they were available for everybody. I think several of the people from various investigating agencies looked at 'em. They made a bunch of copies and they should be widely circulated. Interestingly enough is the discrepancy between what people remember -- it's kinda like the blind men and the elephant -- that's what they remember. Dr. McClelland's and some of the others are quite different from some of ours which I thought... FLANAGAN: Is this normal procedure -- that Parkland Hospital would follow writing down... PERRY: No. Normally, what we do -- well, normally, yes; but normally just one of us. Normally, the guy -- myself, for example, since I ostensibly was responsible for the surgery and the rest of it, normally the guy who's attending and who's doing the job writes a summary about it afterwards for the record. The reason all of us did was we thought it might be important -- more than the usual -- to have a good record. I'm not sure it served its purpose. I haven't read everybody's, but I've read some of them and I found they didn't correspond with what I remembered. PURDY: Do you remember any in particular? PERRY: No, no, but I remember the stuff about Bob McClelland's. We talked about that later because we talked about the thing in the temple. And we all kind of laughed about that but I just, you know, Bob was told when he joined in there and like me he didn't spend much time because he saw I needed help. And when he started helping me with the trache, he asked where he was shot. And somebody told him he was shot in the left temple and he accepted that as being true, when actually it wasn't true and I think Bob wrote that down -- or if he didn't write it down, he told somebody that, which was interesting. But, you know, you get naive and trustworthy and that's a bad way to be. PURDY: As you recall, your testimony says that the second conversation you had with Dr. Humes was in regard to the placement of the chest tube for drainage of the chest cavity. PERRY: It's interesting to me -- and I'm not being critical-but it's interesting to me that the pathology report does not reflect that. The autopsy report said that those incisions were made to combat subcutaneous emphysema, which is not a -- in the current jargon -- a viable therapeutic technique. FLANAGAN: What would have been a normal routine, if it existed at the time, after someone taken into emergency expired, and then you wrote up some reports... PERRY: What do we usually do? FLANAGAN: What would occur then with the reports, for instance? PERRY: They'd go in the hospital records. FLANAGAN: Hospital record with the forensic pathologist in the area that might examine the body... PERRY: Yeah, they're all there. It all goes in the record. We'd write a narrative summary and I must say, if I may be a little bit immodest, I write mine right away. I'm very good about that sort of thing -- mainly because I found that if I do it right then, it's like an operative report. When I come Out of the operating room I dictate the operative report right then because it gets progressively hazier. And I usually sit down and write it as soon as I finish. I write a short op. note anytime I do an operation on the chart. We prepare them right then. And that's what we would do. And that would become a part of the legal hospital record. Edited July 31, 2018 by Micah Mileto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick McTague Posted July 31, 2018 Share Posted July 31, 2018 Micah, Did the WC / do we today have access to the "legal hospital record" from Parkland for 11/22/1963? Has anyone analyzed them? It seems like they would contain the most informative, clearest view of the condition of JFK's wounds and what happened to him prior to entering the coffin. Thanks for the great summary from Dr. Perry. Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micah Mileto Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 21 hours ago, Rick McTague said: Micah, Did the WC / do we today have access to the "legal hospital record" from Parkland for 11/22/1963? Has anyone analyzed them? It seems like they would contain the most informative, clearest view of the condition of JFK's wounds and what happened to him prior to entering the coffin. Thanks for the great summary from Dr. Perry. Rick There is no accurate to-the-hour record of those phone calls between Humes and Perry. The handwritten notes on the phone call from Humes have 11/23/1963 as the date, but this Humes-Perry phone call could have occurred 12:00 AM ~ 2:45 AM. We know a window of time likely existed after Sibert and O'Neill departed. Since the FBI lab's Robert Frazier wrote in his notes that Sibert and O'Neill delivered the bullet fragments at 1:45 AM, and since 45 minutes is about the bare minimum time to drive from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the FBI lab, Sibert and O'Neill couldn't have left later than 1:00 AM. Since at least his HSCA interview, O'Neill has decided to tell interviewers he saw the cosmetic preparation of Kennedy's body including the dressing and casketing, which is clearly incorrect if they were in a hurry and the casket departed the hospital at around 4:00 AM (so the cosmetic procedures most likely lasted until 3:30 AM - 4:00 AM). Sibert and O'Neill also claim that they presumed the body examination was over when the autopsy surgeons left their gloves on the table and left. Well, if this absence existed, it couldn't have lasted long because we know that Humes came back to handle the body further while assisting the Gawler's funeral team. BTW Tom Robinson, Joe Hagan, and John Van Hoesen of Gawler's funeral home have each stated that they had to wait for some time for the body examination to be completed. One funeral home website I found stated that a body can be embalmed in as little as 45 minutes to an hour. So I don't think there is anything wrong with the body examination lasting until as late as 2:45 like Kellerman's notes specify calling Clint Hill to inspect Kennedy's body (Clint Hill's own notes says this occurred "after the autopsy and prior to the embalming"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 The following gif screams fraud. Why should anyone pay attention to autopsy info from the Warren Commission? Pay attention to the heart shape black patch on the back of President Kennedy's head. Is that someone in the photo editing business' way of expressing love? If you look at the gif closely you will see there are more people than me that think there was more than one back wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick McTague Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said: There is no accurate to-the-hour record of those phone calls between Humes and Perry. The handwritten notes on the phone call from Humes have 11/23/1963 as the date, but this Humes-Perry phone call could have occurred 12:00 AM ~ 2:45 AM. We know a window of time likely existed after Sibert and O'Neill departed. Since the FBI lab's Robert Frazier wrote in his notes that Sibert and O'Neill delivered the bullet fragments at 1:45 AM, and since 45 minutes is about the bare minimum time to drive from Bethesda Naval Hospital to the FBI lab, Sibert and O'Neill couldn't have left later than 1:00 AM. Since at least his HSCA interview, O'Neill has decided to tell interviewers he saw the cosmetic preparation of Kennedy's body including the dressing and casketing, which is clearly incorrect if they were in a hurry and the casket departed the hospital at around 4:00 AM (so the cosmetic procedures most likely lasted until 3:30 AM - 4:00 AM). Sibert and O'Neill also claim that they presumed the body examination was over when the autopsy surgeons left their gloves on the table and left. Well, if this absence existed, it couldn't have lasted long because we know that Humes came back to handle the body further while assisting the Gawler's funeral team. BTW Tom Robinson, Joe Hagan, and John Van Hoesen of Gawler's funeral home have each stated that they had to wait for some time for the body examination to be completed. One funeral home website I found stated that a body can be embalmed in as little as 45 minutes to an hour. So I don't think there is anything wrong with the body examination lasting until as late as 2:45 like Kellerman's notes specify calling Clint Hill to inspect Kennedy's body (Clint Hill's own notes says this occurred "after the autopsy and prior to the embalming"). Micah, I'm sorry - I was referring to Parkland's legal notes from the doctors that Dr. Perry referred to here: "PERRY: Yeah. You know, we -- yeah, that's a good question, too, Mark, because we all sat down afterwards and wrote out in our own -- as L'il Abner would say, hand written -- notes our recollection of what happened down there, knowing that we'd get a little fuzzy about it. And I think they got copies of those; I'm not sure of that, though. Those copies were available, because we made them available to the investigating committees, and know our inspector and all the guys around here. We all wrote down some of them and they were available for everybody. I think several of the people from various investigating agencies looked at 'em. They made a bunch of copies and they should be widely circulated. Interestingly enough is the discrepancy between what people remember -- it's kinda like the blind men and the elephant -- that's what they remember. Dr. McClelland's and some of the others are quite different from some of ours which I thought...FLANAGAN: Is this normal procedure -- that Parkland Hospital would follow writing down...PERRY: No. Normally, what we do -- well, normally, yes; but normally just one of us. Normally, the guy -- myself, for example, since I ostensibly was responsible for the surgery and the rest of it, normally the guy who's attending and who's doing the job writes a summary about it afterwards for the record. The reason all of us did was we thought it might be important -- more than the usual -- to have a good record. I'm not sure it served its purpose. I haven't read everybody's, but I've read some of them and I found they didn't correspond with what I remembered." Has anyone dug into those? Are they available anywhere? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, John Butler said: The following gif screams fraud. Why should anyone pay attention to autopsy info from the Warren Commission? Pay attention to the heart shape black patch on the back of President Kennedy's head. Is that someone in the photo editing business' way of expressing love? If you look at the gif closely you will see there are more people than me that think there was more than one back wound. What is the reason for the rule being placed on the President's back? Couldn't be to hide the real entry of the back wound could it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) Ray, Don't know. But, someone has used that ruler to put their own scale on it. There is plenty of wound-appearing spots on Kennedy's back. Some claim these are blood scabs and the back was not properly cleaned. They look like bullet holes to me. Remember, my posts on the AMIPA film of Bob Yeargan. That film shows President Kennedy being shot in the back on Main Street at least 3 times. Most folks ignore that piece of information and do not respond to it except with maybe "I don't see that." Here is more information on the AMIPA film. http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/06/10/the-amipa-film-revisted/ Edited August 1, 2018 by John Butler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted August 1, 2018 Share Posted August 1, 2018 1 hour ago, John Butler said: Ray, Don't know. But, someone has used that ruler to put their own scale on it. There is plenty of wound-appearing spots on Kennedy's back. Some claim these are blood scabs and the back was not properly cleaned. They look like bullet holes to me. Remember, my posts on the AMIPA film of Bob Yeargan. That film shows President Kennedy being shot in the back on Main Street at least 3 times. Most folks ignore that piece of information and do not respond to it except with maybe "I don't see that." Here is more information on the AMIPA film. http://jfkrunningthegauntlet.com/2018/06/10/the-amipa-film-revisted/ There's one bullet defect in JFK's coat, one defect in his shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Butler Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 (edited) Yeah. Odd, isn't it. People would have you believe there is no fabricated evidence in the Kennedy Assassination. Just accept things that are shown to you. Just believe in Mother Warren. Two conditions exist. First, there is one shot to the back and one bullet hole in shirt and jacket. Secondly, there is more than one bullet hole in the back and only one bullet hole in the shirt and the jacket. What does that make the shirt and jacket as evidence? Edited August 2, 2018 by John Butler 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