Why was there a back wound?

[Pat Speer]

FWIW. The goal of the assassins was to 1) kill Kennedy and 2) get away so they could pin it on Oswald. As a consequence they needed to minimize the loudness of the shots and minimize the number of shots. They hoped to kill Kennedy with 1 shot from the TSBD. The first shot was fired from the sniper's nest. A reduced charge. It hits JFK in the back. No kill. They then go to Plan B. The second shot was fired from the Dal-Tex. A small caliber automatic weapon with a silencer. It hits Kennedy low on the skull and Connally in the back. Still no guaranteed kill. They then go to Plan C. Sniper's nest shooter re-fires with a fully charged bullet and kills Kennedy, while some sort of device--possibly an M-80-- is exploded to the west of the TSBD as a diversion. This explosion creates a small cloud of smoke. People localize on this final sound and see the smoke and run to the knoll but find no smoking gun. A successful operation. Unfortunately, the last two sounds were too close together to have been fired by Oswald's rifle. Thus, we know it wasn't Oswald all by hisself.

The only problem with this scenario is that the small caliber automatic weapon bullets weren't found in the car. Or were they? We know the SS cleaned up the car and never reported the clean-up. Who knows what they found?

The biggest problem with Ashton's scenario, IMO, is that, if the shooter was good enough to hit Kennedy in the back, he'd have been good enough to hit Kennedy in the skull. As a result, creating a shallow back wound to disguise a lethal stab wound to be applied later is risky and unnecessary.

[Charles Black]

The only reason that this thread has advanced this far should be evident to anyone willing to read "every" post in this thread. Pertinent questions and answers have either not been addressed at all,

or the pretense was given to answering questions by changing the meaning of what the questioner posted.

This type of thing happens frequently during these discussions ......particularly when a very limited number of posters with ingrained ideas ( such as me) are arguing perhaps "pet points" (as is human, tho not scholarly). Reason seems to take a backseat to ego. The additional input by more and different participants would go a long way toward correcting this, IMHO.

I want to personally apologize to those of you who have been the target of my sometimes agressive comments. Since I personally know none of you, my criticism is not meant to be aimed at you personally.....rather at your expressed views. At times it is apparent from re-reading this entire thread, that what is responded to is often not what the poser of the question was "meaning to communicate".

As I re-read all of the posts, in my mind at least, there were several points and questions that I "attempted" to make that I do not feel were understood, or else were merely unanswered.

If I may, I would in a most elementary manner, like to re-question a few of these items.

1) Please tell me why there could not have been an Elm Street assassin who acted "exactly" in the manner indicated in the several posts in which I proposed this.

2) Please tell me how any of you know exactly where JFK's collar rode at "the instant" of what I perceive as a gunshot. If you cannot....how can you argue the point?

3) If the throat wound were not a gunshot from my "fancied" idea.....why could there not have been a thru the windshield shot, as has been previously proposed from the area of the underpass. The wound could have been created by a piece of glass or a bullet.

4) I proposed that CE399, if not a plant, could have been the result of a "faulty load" in a bullet which shallowly entered JFK's back a short distance and emerged back out of the entry wound and was caught in JFK's clothing. NO ONE is "certain of exactly where this bullet was found !

5) If a paralytic bullet "froze" JFK's body.....how did the unreal movement of JFK being "slammed" against the back cushion occur.....short of his being hit with a sledge hammer?

6) What medical authority states and has substantial support that what I, and a great many, perceive as a quite natural reaction to a throat wound....is anything other than that? Why is there an "insistance that JFK was paralysed....by either an anterior or posterior shot? I am not an MD, however I have seen throat trauma from both a blow to the throat and from choking. Even when attempting to truly stretch my imagination, I see nothing but a near perfect depiction of throat trauma. Why insist "BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PARALYTIC AGENT"? It also "could have been" a siezure. But why believe that it was not the most obvious occurrence ?

Why alter what most persons would see as "obvious", in an attempt to further expand a conspiracy?

7) Why would Parkland personnel lie unless they were a part of the conspiracy? As most of us must be in agreement that Parkland IMMEDIATE testimony, on the afternoon of 11/22/63, stated that the anterior throat wound appeared to be one of bullet entry. Why, except for nefarious purposes, would someone on this forum wish to disregard the immediate testimony, in favor of what was "admittedly changed" testimony, SWORN to the Warren Commission and to government investigators at a later date? Does this not SMELL? What does it SMELL of ?

8) Despite possible limited availability and a very disputable delivery mechanism, please indicate to me that such a paralysing agent was used as a part of any other assassination plan. Do you feel that a U.S. Coup d' Etat would have been chosen as "a proving ground" for such a weapon. If a hit could have been made center throat with a paralysing delivery weapon, which at most would have very limited testing, why would a "hit" not be much more assured with a state of the art firearm, with a proven accuracy, in the hands of a world class marksman, shooting to KILL. For what reason would a goup of"killing" experts, care to muddy up the scene with "unproven extras"?

As has been the history of this particular thread, I doubt if anyone will even ATTEMPT, an answer to these most obvious questions. This thread can only continue if they remain IGNORED.

If an attempt is made at answering, I ask forum members to relate "exactly" the answers that you are given to the actual questions which I have asked.

I would really like to be convinced of this newest Dealey Plaza intepretation. If they bother to answer, please be prepared for a massive discourse of nothing more than "CIRCULAR LOGIC" !

These questions will not be answered in a manner that is satisfactory to persons that have thoroughly studied this case.

Charlie Black

[Frank Agbat]

5) If a paralytic bullet "froze" JFK's body.....how did the unreal movement of JFK being "slammed" against the back cushion occur.....short of his being hit with a sledge hammer?

Charlie,

Your question is a valid one, and leads me to a topic that I think deserves more attention. We have, as a community, spent countless hours arguing the "jet effect", frontal shots, angles, lines of fire, neuromuscular reactions, etc. While these are all valid, there is one thing about which I have never seen sufficient research. It may be out there somewhere, obscured, ignored, etc.

Has anyone ever really, truly, studied the physics of the back brace?

For the "back and to the left" motion, this is a variable that is most certainly present, yet frequently glossed. Mentioned, hypothesized, cherry-picked when convenient, but not tested and understood. JFK might have been "frozen" for the same reason he ended up being slammed back and to the left -- the back brace.

[Cliff Varnell]

Ashton Gray:

I had a little pool going on how long before you finally were going to shoot yourself in the foot and blow your entire "paralytic dart" nonsense into a glittering, evanescing metallic debris field.

Once the payout is made, the action is over, right?

I was hoping you'd shoot down the "metallic debris" scenario -- it depends

on the blood soluble technology not working the way it was designed.

Let's put all the original sources discussed in this thread into one post.

Start with that great shining moment, after the autopsy and before

the FBI Magic Bullet cover-up kicked in.

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA James Sibert:

I recall the doctors looking for a bullet in the body in connection

with the back wound and becoming frustrated during their search.

They probed the wound with a finger and Dr. Finck probed it with a

metal probe. They concluded that the wound went in only so far and

they couldn't find the bullet. It was my impression that both Finck

and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet through

the back. The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the

bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also

given to a type of bullet which fragments completely....Following

discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left

the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent

Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information

regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize...

From the signed affidavit of FBI SA Francis O'Neill:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet.

A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was

discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a

"plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the

same kind of bullet.

The FBI cover-up began with Sibert's call to Killion to ask about

blood soluble rounds, where he learned instead of the magic bullet.

Sibert made that call to FBI HQ to follow-up on the autopsists' "general

feeling" that the back wound was caused by a hi-tech weapon. It was

the one point in the case where the perps were in the sight.

And in fact, such hi-tech weaponry did exist.

William Colby, Church Comm. testimony, September 16, 1975

(emphasis added)

The specific subject today concerns the CIA's involvement in the

development of bacteriological warfare materials with the Army's

Biological Laboratory at Fort Detrick, CIA's retention of an amount

of shellfish toxin, and CIA's use and investigation of various chemicals

and drugs. . . .

A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of

incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were

developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of

a small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this purpose.

Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation techniques.

These related to a desire to incapacitate captives before they could

render themselves incapable of talking, or terrorists before they could

take retaliatory action....

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a

gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person

who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the

autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

Charles Senseney before the Church Committee, Sept. 18, 1975:

I worked in the Biological Warfare Section of Fort Detrick from 1953. . . .

I was the project engineer of the M-1 dart launcher and following on

microorganism projectiles and so forth.

[Church staffer]Smothers: Is this a device that looks roughly like a .45

caliber pistol with a sight mount at the top?

Senseney: This was a follow-on. It was to replace the M-1 projectile to go

into the Army stockpile. It did look like a .45.

Smothers: Did the CIA have, Mr. Senseney, the wherewithal to utilize this

dart launcher against humans?

Senseney: No, they asked for a modification to use against a dog. Now,

these were actually given to them, and they were actually expended, because

we got all of the hardware back. For a dog, the projectile had to be made many

times bigger. It was almost the size of a .22 cartridge, but it carried a

chemical compound known as 46-40....

Tested on humans, this paralytic acted within two seconds, wouldn't show

up on x-ray, had the size of a .22.

Here's the HSCA examination of JFK's thoracic x-rays:

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some

subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1

transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the

transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the

opposite side and also with the previously taken film, mentioned

above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There

is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung

which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous

or interstitial air overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1

right transverse process is still present.

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two

small metallic densities in the region of the C7 right transverse

process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying

the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not

present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that

these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the

time that this film was exposed.

OPINION: There is evidence of interstitial air on the

pre-autopsy film, and evidence of a right T1 transverse process fracture,

both on the pre-autopsy and post-autopsy film. The fracture fragments

are not significantly displaced. I do not feel that there is any

evidence of foreign body on these films, and that the small metallic

density mentioned above, overlying the C7 transverse process region,

is actually an artifact.

For the "metallic debris field" to have been the result of the failure

of WerBell's rounds to fully dissolve, one must also posit fakery in

the pre-autopsy x-ray, a possibility that can never be dismissed.

Both the pre- and post- autopsy x-rays show the bruised lung tip,

the hairline fracture of the tip of the T1 transverse process, and

and an air pocket.

It is the air pocket, rather than any metallic debris, that is the true

signature of Mitchell WerBell III.

[Ron Ecker]

One problem (or two) with the paralytic theory: the result of using dissolving paralytic elements would be unexplainable wounds (which we indeed have front and back). The conspirators didn't worry about that?

I disagree with Pat that the desired result for the assassins was to kill JFK with one shot. The desired result was to blame the hit on Castro, and the bloodier the better in blaming the bearded bastard, so it didn't matter how many shots it took or from what directions. LHO was the designated patsy, but only as the one identified member of a Castro hit team. (He turned himself into a lone nut by being taken alive.) But while several shots as needed were no problem, I would think that conspirators would hesitate to inflict wounds that were simply unexplainable, particularly since the only likely explanation (who could possibly foresee the SBT?) was the use of CIA weaponry.

[Charles Black]

Hello Frank

I pretty carefully looked into this several years ago. But a quick search of my "meticulous" filing procedures hasn't and probably won't quickly produce what I was searching for.

If I recall correctly, the back brace did not go nearly as far up the back as I had imagined. There was even a picture of it posted on one of the forums which perhaps amother member may have at hand. This brace was nothing like a board up the President's back which would have made all of his body be forced to move together. He was leaning forward from the waist when a head shot struck. But back to your original question....the force of the bullet impact, regardless of the type of back brace, was not forceful enough to have produced the illusion which resulted from the rapid excision of several frames.

As Dr. David Mantik and other experts in the field

have stated, the speed and upward and backward movement of JFK's body was produced by a force too great to have been caused by "a" or "several" bullets.

This along with my pretty extensive personal study of ballistics, which led to the same conclusion, is the reason that I believe that this unnatural movement never happened. None of the Dealey Plaza witnesses on the afternoon of 11/22/63 reported anything similar to this. Both they and Jackie repored him falling sideways into Jackies lap. No "head snap". Regardless of what some attempt to discount as unreliable witness testimony, I feel that it takes one pretty witless to claim that dozens of witnesses, all reporting the same event,

while never having discussed it with each other, are all wrong "because the Z film could not have been altered". I will repeat again that I strongly feel that frame excision occurred immediately following frame 312 in order to hide evidence of an exposed shooter on the Z film.

I didn't mean to deliver a sermon but this is an area that I am fervent about because "I" know that what we seem to see did not, in fact, occur.

If you stay tuned to this topic, you will find the questions which I presented in my immediatley prior post (#89 I think) , will not be provided any realistic answer. There are attempts being made to enlist support of blatant fantasies. In my opinion of course !

Charlie Black

[Cliff Varnell]

Why insist "BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PARALYTIC AGENT"?

Because it is a fact of history that the autopsists and the FBI

men at the autopsy shared a "general feeling" that JFK's back

wound was caused by a blood soluble round.

If you are shooting to kill someone you don't fire rounds that penetrate

an inch, like the back wound, or nick the trachea, bruise the lung tip,

cause a hairline fracture of the tip of the T1 transverse process, then

stop and disappear leaving only an air pocket, as the throat shot did

No conventional medium powered firearm is going to do that, Charles.

JFK acted frozen in the motorcade....

Gentle reader,

...Let's look at the case a little differently...

A gunshot murder occurs in a large American city.

The autopsy is conducted by three doctors, with two FBI men observing

and taking notes.

After the autopsy the 5 men huddle to discuss what appears to be two

entry wounds with no exits and no bullets.

There is a "general feeling" that these wounds were made with a high tech

weapon.

The FBI men call the FBI Laboratory to inquire as to the existence of such

a weapon, and they are told that the CIA is purported to have a gun that

fires a round the size of a .22, designed to immobile a person within 2 seconds

with the round dissolving in the body and not turning up on x-ray.

The autopsists look at the x-ray: they see the bruised lung tip and a hairline

fracture of the T1 transverse process. There is a pocket of air overlaying the T1

and C7 transverse proccesses. A pocket of air, but no bullet.

Suddenly the door bursts open and someone comes running in with some film

of the shooting -- the victim acted frozen for 6 or 7 seconds before his head

was blown off.

Who are the FBI guys going to suspect first?

Someone within the CIA, of course.

[Charles Black]

Not to belabor the point but I find something quite interesting. In "my" immediately prior post I stated : "If you stay tuned to this topic, you will find that the questions which I presented in my immediately prior post ( #89 I think ), will not receive any "credible" answers.

I was apparently correct. I expect that the members toward which this post was directed, realize the absurdity of accusing the Parkland Medical Staff of being assassins, and conspirators to murder the President. If there is any true "response", which I don't anticipate there to be, it will necessarily be a long winded expression of more circular logic that will directly address nothing. It will only be a barrage of verbage meant to "impress", while truly stating nothing pertinent to what I have asked.

There can be no such answer on this particular forum, simply because there is not one which is intelligent or logical enough to be acceptable.

I would suppose that there is hope that this ridiculous issue will simply "fade away". It has accomplished its purpose ! It misdirected many hours of this forums time and energy that may have been used for something realistic and pertinent.

What will the next deeply intellectual thread be titled ? "WHY WAS THERE A HEAD WOUND " ?

Charlie Black

[Ashton Gray]

Not to belabor the point but I find something quite interesting. In "my" immediately prior post I stated : "If you stay tuned to this topic, you will find that the questions which I presented in my immediately prior post ( #89 I think ), will not receive any "credible" answers.

You completely ignore every credible answer given to you. You've been given credible answer after credible answer to your wholly incredible hypothesis that a shooter with a silenced and concealed handgun stood in the midst of a large crowd in broad daylight and shot from the hip without aiming, hitting the President of United States in the throat at a place that is 100% impossible, having been completely covered by shirt and tie—which has been demonstrated conclusively and repeatedly with photographic evidence against which you have not mounted a single cogent argument.

I'm not the only one who has rationally and reasonably and politely pointed out the overwhelming arguments against your grotesquely preposterous "theory," and no matter how many reasonble and entirely credible answers you get, you categorically refuse to consider any of them and go right on insisting and complaining that no one will give you a credible answer.

Apparently you haven't stopped to consider that "credible answers" aren't your divine right: they require a credible hypothesis.

So by all means go right on filling the forum with page after page after page of self-righteous bewailing over the fact that no one will validate your fantastic and wholly impossible theory that you apparently feel the whole world ought to be rushing to embrace.

Meanwhile, I have my own solution to such fatuity:

*PLONK*

Ashton Gray

Edited January 14, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Charles Black]

Ashton

I have ignored NO CREDIBLE ANSWER. As I stated, your response would be ".... a barage of verbage meant to "impress" while truly stating nothing pertinent."

It should be obvious to anyone having read this "entire" thread That this is exactly what you have done. You have answered NOTHING....which at least both you and I well understand !

Charlie Black

[Jack White]

Why insist "BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN A PARALYTIC AGENT"?

Because it is a fact of history that the autopsists and the FBI

men at the autopsy shared a "general feeling" that JFK's back

wound was caused by a blood soluble round.

If you are shooting to kill someone you don't fire rounds that penetrate

an inch, like the back wound, or nick the trachea, bruise the lung tip,

cause a hairline fracture of the tip of the T1 transverse process, then

stop and disappear leaving only an air pocket, as the throat shot did

No conventional medium powered firearm is going to do that, Charles.

JFK acted frozen in the motorcade....

Gentle reader,

...Let's look at the case a little differently...

A gunshot murder occurs in a large American city.

The autopsy is conducted by three doctors, with two FBI men observing

and taking notes.

After the autopsy the 5 men huddle to discuss what appears to be two

entry wounds with no exits and no bullets.

There is a "general feeling" that these wounds were made with a high tech

weapon.

The FBI men call the FBI Laboratory to inquire as to the existence of such

a weapon, and they are told that the CIA is purported to have a gun that

fires a round the size of a .22, designed to immobile a person within 2 seconds

with the round dissolving in the body and not turning up on x-ray.

The autopsists look at the x-ray: they see the bruised lung tip and a hairline

fracture of the T1 transverse process. There is a pocket of air overlaying the T1

and C7 transverse proccesses. A pocket of air, but no bullet.

Suddenly the door bursts open and someone comes running in with some film

of the shooting -- the victim acted frozen for 6 or 7 seconds before his head

was blown off.

Who are the FBI guys going to suspect first?

Someone within the CIA, of course.

FWIW, I agree with Cliff...to a certain extent.

FWIW, I agree with Charlie...to a certain extent.

My opinion...we don't really know, do we?

A brilliant scenario which is still a mystery 40 years later.

Jack

[Ashton Gray]

The autopsy is conducted by three doctors, with two FBI men observing

and taking notes.

After the autopsy the 5 men huddle to discuss what appears to be two

entry wounds with no exits and no bullets.

There is a "general feeling" that these wounds were made with a high tech

weapon.

The FBI men call the FBI Laboratory to inquire as to the existence of such

a weapon, and they are told that the CIA is purported to have a gun that

fires a round the size of a .22, designed to immobile a person within 2 seconds

with the round dissolving in the body and not turning up on x-ray.

The autopsists look at the x-ray: they see the bruised lung tip and a hairline

fracture of the T1 transverse process. There is a pocket of air overlaying the T1

and C7 transverse proccesses. A pocket of air, but no bullet.

Suddenly the door bursts open and someone comes running in with some film

of the shooting -- the victim acted frozen for 6 or 7 seconds before his head

was blown off.

Who are the FBI guys going to suspect first?

Someone within the CIA, of course.

FWIW, I agree with Cliff...to a certain extent.

FWIW, I agree with Charlie...to a certain extent.

My opinion...we don't really know, do we?

A brilliant scenario which is still a mystery 40 years later.

Jack

What Cliff Varnell just gave you was a completely fictionalized account of what took place in the autopsy room. This is what you've been induced to agree to by having been given whole-cloth spy fiction presented as though it were "fact."

The facts—according to the testimony and 302 report—are that FBI agent Sibert independently left the autopsy room immediately after it was noted that the probed back wound was shallow and no bullet had been found (the autopsy was still in progress), went out to a phone and called to inquire of another FBI employee about the possibility of some sort of dissolving projectile, and while on that phone call was told about a bullet having been found on a stretcher at Parkland.

Sibert came back into the autopsy room and delivered this news about the found bullet, at which time the doctor conducting the autopsy (which was still in progress) opined that the bullet likely had come out at Parkland during efforts to revive the President.

The two FBI agents left at a disputed time, but soon after—when they considered the autopsy "done"—and there was no such post-autopsy "huddle" of "five men," no such "general feeling" about any Sooper Spy Magic Bullet.

You are being fed pure unjustifiable fiction when the record is available.

The absurdity of the CIA plotting for months to effect what has proven to be a very well-executed assassination, only to leave their calling card of a type of projectile that only could have come from them is too ludicrous to entertain—particularly from the very person going around claiming that at the same time the CIA purportedly were trying to frame a patsy (who had no record of even having been to Cuba) as being the trigger man for Fidel Castro in order to set off a military...

I'm sorry: I simply can't compose a complete cogent sentence about anything this barmy.

Please get your BS Detector calibrated.

Ashton

Edited January 14, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

The facts—according to the testimony and 302 report—

Citation please. Cherry-picking the testimonies won't do.

Sibert and O'Neill wrote sworn affidavits.

Where is the sworn testimony that contradicts the version both gave?

The absurdity of the CIA plotting for months to effect what has proven to be a very well-executed assassination,

So well executed that they likely paralyzed the guy to make the head shot certain.

only to leave their calling card of a type of projectile that only could have come from them is too ludicrous to entertain

The info that would tie them to the crime wasn't fully revealed until 1975.

—particularly from the very person going around claiming that at the same time the CIA purportedly were trying to frame a patsy (who had no record of even having been to Cuba) as being the trigger man for Fidel Castro in order to set off a military...

If you're not reading SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TALKED, you're not researching the case.

Ashton, you don't seem to understand the complicity of Hoover.

The investigation was under the command and control of the perps.

Now that concept may be too simple for some supple minds to get around,

but I think anyone who has studied the case for 5 minutes will get it.

Charles Barkely once said of basketball beat writers -- "The more they

watch the game, the less they understand it."

Something like that is true of certain JFK researchers as well.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Cliff Varnell

[Ashton Gray]

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed:

From Deposition of James W. Sibert, Assassination Records Review Board, 11 September 1997:

• QUESTION: Now, just a moment ago, you referred to the telephone call that you made to Mr. Killion. Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket?
  SIBERT: Oh, that was after the body was removed. It was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There's no exit to this back wound," and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. ...So, that's when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegate. There just was no bullet that could be located. ...When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, "is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremities of the body?" And I said, "They— The doctors can't find a bullet" and "they're at a loss to account for the bullet causing the back wound." He said, "Well, you heard about the bullet that they found on the strcteher over in Dallas." And I said, "No, I hadn't." He said, "Well, the Secrct Service is bringing that bullet in to the laboratory." They didn't know whether it was on Kennedy's stretcher or on Connally's, but it was on its way in. So: with this information I went back and relayed this to Humes immediately, because I thought it was something that he'd probably want to know. I thought he might even want to call Burkley or others. ...I came back with the Killion statement about the Dallas stretcher bullet. It's in my 302, that when I was told about this bullet being found on the stretcher over at Parkland, I relayed this information to Humes. Humes said it was clear that—about these bullets—and the one in the back had been probably worked out by cardiac manipulation over there at Parkland. That was in my 302. Maybe he was satisfied then, and decided that was his conclusion.
  

Hope that helps.

Ashton

Edited January 14, 2007 by Ashton Gray

[Cliff Varnell]

Jack, I went to Sibert's testimony and excerpted this for you. Compare it to how I summarized it versus the complete whole-cloth spy fiction you were fed:

I stand corrected on one point: the discussion among the 5 occured after

the probing of the back wound, but before the formal end of the autopsy.

Makes no material difference at what point this discussion occured,

only that it occured BEFORE the call to the FBI Lab and the JFK murder

cover-up kicked into high gear.

Ashton's fiction: that Sibert called the FBI "independent" of the autopsists input.

From the FBI autopsy report signed off on 11/26/63:

Insomuch as no complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain

area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other area

of the body as determined by total body x-rays and inspection revealing

there was no point of exit, the individuals performing the autopsy were

at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets.

Either Sibert and O'Neill did a Vulcan mind-meld with the autopsists, or

the issue was openly discussed right after the probing of the shallow back

wound.

From O'Neill's HSCA sworn affidavit 11/8/78:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic] bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet.

From Sibert's sworn HSCA affidavit 10/24/78:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely...Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic] Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize.

When this discussion of blood soluble rounds occured the night of 11/22/63 is irrelevant.

Both FBI guys indicated in their 302 report and HSCA sworn affidavits that the

call to the FBI Lab followed a discussion among the 5 men after the probing of

the back wound.

When dealing with Ashton Gray, gentle reader, make sure yer back up bullxxxx detector

is in as tip-top shape as yer main rig...

Edited January 14, 2007 by Cliff Varnell