Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Posting these for Richard. :]

1103.jpg

lungs5c.gif

Thanks Nic. These drawings should make things a bit clearer. How could that bullet traveling downward, enter the back where it did, pass close enough to the upper right lobe of the lung to leave a 5cm bruise and sub-pleura bleeding, then exit the throat just below the Adam's Apple? For whoever buys that, I have a few bridges to sell them.

RJS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard J. Smith  Today, 12:52 PM Post #15 

Experienced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 122

Joined: 8-June 04

Member No.: 822

QUOTE(Antti Hynonen @ Jan 26 2005, 06:53 AM)

RJS:

An alternative which IMO makes a good argument is if one was to consider the frontal throat wound an entry wound (as Parkland Dr's initially speculated), and the back wound about 5 inches lower (on the right side) an exit wound, it would give us an indication of the path of the missile. This path would also strike the right upper lobe of the lung, right?

I believe, the path of the bullet would also support the theory of a railway overpass or south knoll shooter, and the hole in the windshield.

The above relates directly to what has been discussed on this Forum previously, in several threads.

Antti,

The problem with your theory is that there was no traceable bullet path through the body, front to back or back to front. There is a back wound, with a lung contusion, and there is a throat wound with damage in the surrounding neck muscles. There was no path between them. Either way, it presents a problem for us. If we as CTs say there's no way the bullet entering the back could have exited the throat because there was no bullet path found, we have the same problem with the reverse. It was said by the WC that the bullet passed between layers of muscle, which caused no damage. I find that an unrealistic view, as I think many others do, but that darn throat wound is and always has been extremely hard to reconcile. To be truthful Antti, I just don't know. Just for the sake of argument though, I would say if the throat wound was an entrance, and the back wound the exit, a shot from the South Knoll probably lines up better than a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD. Also, just for the sake of argument, if the back wound was an entrance and the throat wound the exit, a shot fired from the 2nd floor of the Dal Tex building also lines up better than a shot fired from the TSBD's 6th floor, if it were unobstructed. All that said, the back wound apparently had a downward angle. Quite the dilemma isn't it?

RJS

Richard,

You could be right about there not being a path between the throat and the back wound. However, as I recall the wounds were never examined thoroughly enough to determine what direction the bullets were headed, or whether they infact were shallow wounds. The theory I presented (through and through, from throat to back) would help explain why there are no bullets to be found in the body.... of course someone could have dug them out between Parkland and Bethesda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

You said, "You know as well as I that Oswald's connection to the government was no secret, not even in 1963. All of it is explained in the 26 volumes and in the Warren Report itself."

I am confused by your statement. In reality the Warren Commission states on page 325 (in bold letters I might add): "Oswald Was Not an Agent for the U.S. Government"

You use the words "Oswald's connection to the governement was no secret..." I'm confused by your position.

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, a great dialogue (trialouge?) going on here about the wounds.

Informative and interesting. Thanks!

Is there anyone who believes in a conspiracy who thinks the single bullet scenario is remotely possible? I mean, is there even a five per cent chance it could have happened that way?

Remember it is (as I recall) the position of the HSCA that the SBT was correct but someone else was also shooting at JFK.

Just wonder if there is even a five percent chance that a bullet went through JFK and hit Connally (even if it was not the bullet found on the stretcher)?

Let's make it easier. I will assume if you do not post you consider the SBT is not even remotely a possibility.

And let me make this clear (so long as I don't say "perfectly clear" I don't sound like RN!): I think there is sufficient evidence of a conspiracy even if the acoustic evidence should fail and even if the SBT is POSSIBLE. But I am wondering, again, if there is a five per cent chance of the SBT. Any takers on this?

Edited by Tim Gratz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think there is sufficient evidence of a conspiracy even if the acoustic evidence should fail and even if the SBT is POSSIBLE.

IMO the acoustic evidence is pretty weak. First we don't really know what kind

of rifles or weapon have actually been used in the shooting and secondly the

recording technique used was simple. I imagine there was a lot of noise at

Dealey Plaza, cars, bikes and the all the people who waved and screemed.

Many witnesses did hear more than three shoots but have later been ignored

in favour of the LN theory. Maybe it was a kind of tactic to make a lot of noise

with one weapon (the Carcano canon) to start a confusion so that the real sniper or snipers were harder to locate.

As I'm no expert on weapons it would be interesting to know what the most

sophisticated sniper rifles were available in 1963?

I personally don't belive in the SBT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were all kinds of sniper rifles available in 1963. The CIA had been supplying them to the Cubans.

As to the SBT, I believe there is a better than five percent chance that one bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally. I just believe that there is a 0% chance that CE 399 was that bullet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, a great dialogue (trialouge?) going on here about the wounds.

Informative and interesting.  Thanks!

Is there anyone who believes in a conspiracy who thinks the single bullet scenario is remotely possible?  I mean, is there even a five per cent chance it could have happened that way?

Tim,

I used to think the only way the SBT would be remotely possible is if there was an unobstructed shot from the 2nd floor Dal Tex building. After getting into the lung bruise and the anatomy drawings, I just don't see how a bullet fired from either the TSBD 6th floor or the Dal Tex 2nd, could enter the back, bruise the lung and exit the throat. And it's mighty odd that if there was an autopsy photo of the lung, it is missing.

Here's the transcript of the LBJ/RamseyClark telecon I mentioned previously:

Phone Conversation between Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark and President Lyndon Johnson

Re: Autopsy Photos

Date: 1-21-67 12:00 Noon

Time: 7 mins 25 secs at the end of a 8 mins 31 secs conversation

Background: Ramsey Clark was U.S. Attorney General between 1967 and 1969 under president Lyndon Johnson, an administration that escalated the war in Vietnam, and that pursued FBI investigations of civil rights activists under the Counter Intelligence Program. Now Ramsey Clark is a fierce critic of U.S. foreign policy and domestic human rights practices, and claims that "the greatest human rights violator in the world is my own government."

-Begin-

RC: Ah, we had three pathologists that performed the autopsy on evening of November 22nd come in. We had to bring Finck from Viet Nam. There were only 8 of us, including the three pathologists.

They went into archives last night. (1)The staff worked till midnight on the autopsy photos and X-rays. They all three seemed to have a chip on their shoulder. I think they'll go along with our that they shouldn't talk.

LBJ: They shouldn't what?

RC: They shouldn't talk to anybody. But they are quite defensive of the criticism of them. They feel their professional reputations are at stake and what not. They say, "We haven't got it tied down as an affidavit yet." I hope they have it by Monday. They'll be working on it today or tomorrow here. They may have it done before then. But, they're so technical, so reticent about finding things that they're hard to work with.

They say the autopsy photos conclusively confirm their judgment as to the bullet entered the back of the skull --- and it's not perfectly conclusive as to the one in the lower neck. It's very clear to them that they, there's nothing in the autopsy photos that contradicts anything that they said.

Now, we've run into one problem last night that we didn't know of. That is, there may be a photo missing. Dr. Humes, Commander and Naval doctor, testified before the Warren Commission (2)that this one photo made of the highest portion of the right lung. The other two doctors don't recall if such a photo was made. They do recall discussing the desired ability of making such a photo. But there is no such photo in these exhibits.

It could be contended that that photo could show the course and direction the bullet that entered the lower part of the neck and exited the front part. We're seeing to run that down. The only other witness that would have any judgment at all would be the corpsman, naval corpsman, that took the photos. We have to talk to him. We're not too sure, until we see what the doctors conclude.

That's desirable. We are left with one specific problem. Dr. Humes did testify before the Warren Commission there was such a photo we don't have.

LBJ: Wasn't delivered to you.

RC: Not delivered. That's very clear. Another part that is a concern that's not tied down either --- that's Dr. Burkley's part. You remember I talked to him on November 8th down at the Ranch after I talked with you about it. Hadn't discussed it since. He gets very emotional on the subject. His eyes start watering. He says that he knew where the autopsy photos were all the time. They were in his possession. Now, this is not --- He's not entirely clear on the matter. The possession will become an issue in a significant way and it had not been until, in our judgment, till last night because of the missing photo now. I say "missing photo." There's a contradiction of whether there was this photo.

LBJ: Ah uh. Well, they weren't actually in his possession, were they?

RC: He said that they were actually in his possession. And that he received them and had them in a safe in E.O.B. (Executive Office Building) In a vault sort of thing in E.O.B. He later released them to Mrs. Lincoln. Probably hidden them. (garbled) Which I think I know, prepared by Bobby Kennedy. I think Dr. Burkley knew what he had in every instance. He knew every minute.

He, ah, I tell you the real problem is when you start talking with him about it what he said is it's just outrageous that anybody would want those photos. The personal property of the dead president's family. "Horrible" when he talked about it, thinks about it. "People shouldn't do that." When you try to explain that's a real problem, why, he --- "It just won't do at all."

His inventory (3) coincides with what we had. Inventory that we got ---material was delivered to us by Kennedy representative Burke Marshall (4). So that would indicate that between his letter and what we received November 1, everything is there. Or if there were another photo, on the 4th (garbled) then Mrs. Lincoln.

LBJ: Ok. I...

RC: I don't really think he had actual possession. I think he had something, he had constructive possession part of the time. We have evidence the material was given to him before this. At the Archives longer than this. Nobody at Archives knew it was there. Mrs. Lincoln had some storage space including some security vaults because she was working over there on the President's papers and all Presidential Library. Course people had the keys, 'course things filed up. (garbled)

LBJ: (sighing) Ok. I'll talk to you later. (abruptly hanging up)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There were all kinds of sniper rifles available in 1963.  The CIA had been supplying them to the Cubans.

That what I'm saying and this leads to the conclusion -the acustic evidence

recorded- is useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

You said, "You know as well as I that Oswald's connection to the government was no secret, not even in 1963. All of it is explained in the 26 volumes and in the Warren Report itself."

I am confused by your statement.  In reality the Warren Commission states on page 325 (in bold letters I might add):  "Oswald Was Not an Agent for the U.S. Government"

You use the words "Oswald's connection to the governement was no secret..."  I'm confused by your position.

Jim Root

Hi Jim,

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was the exploration of his possible connection to the governement was done by the Warren Commission and referred to in the Warren Report. They concluded he was not on the payroll and not an agent of the US governement.

Paul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paul

You said, "You know as well as I that Oswald's connection to the government was no secret, not even in 1963. All of it is explained in the 26 volumes and in the Warren Report itself."

I am confused by your statement.  In reality the Warren Commission states on page 325 (in bold letters I might add):  "Oswald Was Not an Agent for the U.S. Government"

You use the words "Oswald's connection to the governement was no secret..."  I'm confused by your position.

Jim Root

Hi Jim,

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was the exploration of his possible connection to the governement was done by the Warren Commission and referred to in the Warren Report. They concluded he was not on the payroll and not an agent of the US governement.

Paul

_________________________________

Paul: THEY LIED. An as to SBT, I say 0% chance of that. Also to same bullet hitting JFK and Connolly because I assume that a person hit by a bullet would REACT to being hit and there is no reaction by Connally til 1.5 seconds after JFK was hit. This is clear on the Zapruda film. (Unless you buy into the "it hung in mid air for 1.5 seconds then went on to hit the Gov. school of "thought":D)) CE 399 did not hit anyone, ever. (IMHO). During HSCA only the great Dr Wecht stood up for the truth on CE 399. Idiot Dr. Baden actually held up this bullet and asked them to notice "how flattened" it was. I was so blown away by this testimony that I immediately wrote to HSCA about this, but got some stock response from Stokes.

Dawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawn

I usually do not delve into the SBT because A) I do not consider myself an expert by any means and :ph34r: I find myself still reading and attempting to collect information that would clear up my biggest problems with either side of the argument. (I guess I find myself in the same position that the commission found itself on this issue, divided)

My problem deals with the thigh wound to John Connolly. All indications show that it had to come from behind and above (to the exclusion of all other directions) which means it had to go through Connolly. It only penetrated about one inch into his thigh. Here is where my trouble starts. We all seem to understand the problems with the single bullet theory (and I agree there are problems) but the alternative requires that the thigh would bullet is the pristine bullet that was "found" after having been "placed" on Connolly's cot.

In order to be believe that the "pristine bullet" was placed on the cot you must accept that the conspirators would have to know that Connolly was going to have a thigh wound caused by a spent bullet. The conspirators would also have to have been prepared to have the emergency room staff recover the thigh woung bullet and discard it. A level of planning even I have trouble accepting.

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In order to be believe that the "pristine bullet" was placed on the cot you must accept that the conspirators would have to know that Connolly was going to have a thigh wound caused by a spent bullet. The conspirators would also have to have been prepared to have the emergency room staff recover the thigh woung bullet and discard it. A level of planning even I have trouble accepting.

Jim Root

I'm not following you here, Jim. I believe that 399 was either found in the car by a member of the Secret Service or in the hospital by a hospital employee, and was placed on the stretcher by someone afraid to get involved. There is no one who testified that the bullet "lodged" in Connally's thigh; the testimony in fact argues against it. In fact, the only wound consistent with having a bullet "lodge" in it was Kennedy's back wound. Of course, this scenario implies that the bullet or bullets causing Connally's wound was never located. It is one of the great logical inconsistencies of this case that so many believe that all the bullets would somehow be located, when the purported "missed" shot was never found, only half of the head shot bullet was found, and 399 was only found on a fluke and was only entered into evidence after some hospital employees forced it on the SS. We have to accept the fact that it's possible (probable?) there were other bullets undiscovered either through deliberate neglect or by negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

If the bullet was placed on the stretcher by someone,

what evidence is there that it was found in the limo?

Isn't it just as likely that a bullet fired by the 6.5 rifle was

planted, and the other caliber bullets were removed under color of law...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat

"I believe that 399 was either found in the car by a member of the Secret Service or in the hospital by a hospital employee, and was placed on the stretcher by someone afraid to get involved. There is no one who testified that the bullet "lodged" in Connally's thigh; the testimony in fact argues against it."

You are making my point which leads to my dilema. There is no record of a bullet being lodged in Connolly's thigh but there was a wound about one inch deep. That 399 was found on his stretcher is suggestive of it being the same bullet that caused the thigh wound. If 399 was in fact planted you have two problems, what happened to the thigh wound bullet (that was "spent" and only penetrated one inch) and how would someone have known to plant a bullet that would be so easily connected to the thigh wound.

Once again, I am not the expert on this subject by any means but I believe the balistics of 399 matched the rifle found in the 6th floor of the TSBD. If it was fired from that rifle then we either have a shooter in the TSBD or we have someone that would have planted a bullet in a place that could be associated with the thigh wound (but how could someone have predicted the thigh wound to Connolly that would explain the "pristine bullet?")

Kind of a catch 22.

Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul said

"Hi Jim,

Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was the exploration of his possible connection to the governement was done by the Warren Commission and referred to in the Warren Report. They concluded he was not on the payroll and not an agent of the US governement.

Paul"

Paul, you should maybe read testimony of a Cia Payroll clerk whose name is Wilcott. I believe he explains how Oswald actually was on the payroll.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...