David Josephs

Greg, I appreciate what you are doing and would like to have you address some of the earlier days for Lee/Harvey A Ms Myra Derouse CLAIMS to have been Harvey's Home room teacher at Beauregard in the 53-54 school year... She describes him as a small (4'6" at most) scrawny, undernourished kid... who prefered to be called Harvey. She drove him home, heard about the mother who worked in a bar... The homeroom was located in the basement cafeteria of the high school... School records for PS44 in NYC for September 1953 have Oswald listed at 64 inches (5'4") and 115lbs.... (the boy on the left in the photo below) The boy on the right, which Robert says is LEE and that he took the picture, is in reality Harvey... and I show you how Robert messes up in testimony below. School records from Beauregard have Lee Harvey in homeroom 303 with a different PE teacher entirely. Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952? Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then. Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School. Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school. Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Stripling JR High is in Fort Worth Mr. JENNER. You were attending--you were then 15. You were now attending high school, I assume. Mr. OSWALD. Junior high school. Mr. JENNER. In Fort Worth? Mr. OSWALD. Fort Worth, W. C. Stripling Junior High School. Mr. DULLES. What was the name of that? Mr. OSWALD. W. C. Stripling Junior High School. Now, Lee and the MO moved to NYC in 1948... HARVEY went to PS#117 in 1952, was barely in class and had problems with the law and his truancy at PS#44 in 1953, the attendance suddenly changes... and the ongoing court appearances for HARVEY'S behavior while LEE, who arrived in NYC with his mother, is a model student at PS#44 In 1952, Lee was in NYC and not Fort Worth... In the Summer of 1953, Harvey is in Stanley, ND. Can't be in Ft Worth, NYC and NOLA all at the same times... and as you can see here... in 1952 he WAS in Ft Worth... but they move to NYC and as I show below ROBERT not only knows this but visits them in NYC in 1952 AFTER school has already started. the boy with 47 days absent was HARVEY... he transfers to PS#44 on 1/16/53 yet does not being records until 3/23/53 ROBERT visited NYC in the summer of 1953 when Harvey was between 7th and 8th grades Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave. Mr. JENNER. Fix the time. Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family. Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay? Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address. Mr. JENNER. What, if anything, did you learn at that time regarding Lee's attendance or nonattendance in school? Mr. OSWALD. Nothing on that, sir. This was in the summer time. Lee, of course, was home and not supposed to be in school. And I do not think anything was brought up that I recall about whether or not Lee had been attending school regularly or not. Mr. McKENZIE. Can we go off the record? Mr. JENNER. Yes. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. DULLES. Back on the record. Mr. JENNER. Referring to the 10-day leave in New York City, did you spend time with your brother Lee? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. Your mother was working during that period of time, was she not? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. In spending time with him, did you take him around, or accompany him, visiting various places in New York City? Mr. OSWALD. He took me around, sir. Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion during that period to take any photographs, snapshots, of Lee? Mr. OSWALD. I certainly can identify the one appearing in Life--yes, sir; I did. Mr. JENNER. Just hold your answers right in this area exactly to my questions. Mr. OSWALD. I'm sorry. Mr. JENNER. Were these taken with your camera, or was it a camera that your mother or brother owned or had? Mr. OSWALD. This was my camera. Mr. DULLES. What do these questions refer to? Do they refer to the pictures in Life? Mr. JENNER. Well, I really did not want to refer to that at the moment. Do you remember any of the places at which you took snapshots of Lee during this 10-day leave? Mr. OSWALD. The Bronx Zoo I believe was about the only time I can recall taking any pictures of him So, according the the WCR records and the testimony of HIS BROTHER ROBERT... Robert KNOWS his young brother and Mother are in NYC in 1952-1953... he visited them there first in 1952(!), and took the photo of HARVEY we see above during the summer of 1953. The records of Oswald from Stripling are GONE... there is nothing to coroborrate Robert's testimony and insistence that his brother was in Ft Worth at the same time he is visiting them in NYC, both in Fall 1952 and Summer 1953. Robert KNEW that Lee could not be both in NYC and Ft Worth... Harvey on the other hand..... is the boy on the right, and NOT the 5'4" BIG BOY in the photo on the left btw - check out the hand and arms on Harvey on the left... look at the size of his hands comapred to his body... now chaeck some of the Nov 22 photos of Oswald's hands.... definitely not proof... but they sure do look familiar DJ John PIC: Mr. PIC. So they moved out in about September 1952, maybe it was late Septemberearly October, somewhere around there, so from about somewhere between September of 1952 and January 1953, my brother Robert came to New York on leave, and we were all invited up to the Bronx. ... "To visit my mother and my brother..." from Harvey and Lee, Armstrong: The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony about Stripling and concluded that "Lee Harvey Oswald" left Fort Worth in August of 1952, and moved to New York with his mother where he attended the 7th grade (1952-53) and the first half of the 8th grade (fall semester, 1953). He then moved to New Orleans where he attended the last half of the 8th grade (spring semester, 1954), all of the 9th grade (1954-55 school year), and graduated from Beauregard in June 1955. He briefly attended Warren Easton High School in the fall of 1955 (New Orleans), dropped out, worked in New Orleans for the next 8 months, and then moved to Fort Worth. According to Warren Commission version of his background, it would have been impossible for "Lee Harvey Oswald" to have attended even a single day of school at Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth, from September 1952 thro June 1956 Finally... the assisstant pricipal of STRIPLING JR HIGH As I continued to locate and talk with former Stripling teachers, many suggested that I call "Frank Kudlaty," the former assistant principal at Stripling. I telephoned Mr. Kudlaty, introduced myself as a JFK researcher, and asked if he knew whether or not "Lee Harvey Oswald" had attended Stripling. Without hesitation Frank said, "Yes, he attended Stripling." Somewhat surprised I asked, "How do you know that." Frank replied, "Because I gave his Stripling records to the FBI."Frank explained, during a videotaped interview, that before the FBI agents arrived at Stripling on Saturday morning (November 23), he briefly reviewed Oswald's school file. He explained that when a student enrolled in a new school, in this case at Stripling, the previous school routinely sent copies of his school transcripts. Occasionally, if the records were not sent, the new school would write and request copies of the school records from the previous school. Frank said that when he examined Oswald's file he saw neither copies of school transcripts from a previous school nor a letter from Stripling requesting such records. Frank said this was very unusual, as Oswald must have attended school prior to his attendance at Stripling, yet there were no records . Greg... what I believe Harvey and Lee is trying to show is that a single person's history was created from two people. At this point in the timeline JFK is not even in the picture... This is our CIA doing what they do in their effort to deal with Russia and the Cold war.... HARVEY, imo, was to be an asset... what type and for whom... IDK. Were Robert and John into things beyond their means? again IDK Robert supports the Lee is Lee and always was, while John knows that the Lee he is shown at the Bronx zoo, is NOT his brother... and says so. You an I deciding on the intelligence, logic, meaningfulness, necessity and/or desire of those creating and playing these games - is in my opinion beyond us. Knowing how these projects were set up or created in OTHER areas may or may not have a bearing on this one. I would hope you can see Harvey and Lee as a view into planning and operations who's ultimate purposes are unknown. Do you believe Arthur Vallee was manipulated into potentially being at the right place and right time? If I am a chess master - I look at all the pieces on the board before I evaluate my next move... the history of Harvey/Lee makes sense in the world of spooks and spies... That it doesn't make sense to the "normal" person is part of the beauty of it - in fact it is so "out there" that believing is harder than accepting it's even possible... No Greg, I do not believe Harvey & Lee is debunked at all... NYC in 1952-1954 is the KEY to the merging of these two boys - and the fact that school records - originals - have all gone missing should come as no surprise. DJ

Sorry Mikey... eye witness testimony is only used to authenticate the physical evidence... when a proponderance of the witness statements contradict the physical evidence AND that evidence is horribly tainted by the activities of those who gathered it, the physical evidence is questioned. So, except when the photographic, medical and physical evidence has no chain of custody, no authentication, no coroborration and has been exclusively in the hands of those most likely involved in the cover-up - the FBI and Secret Service - the witness evidence supercedes it... The fact that in a normal situation you are correct is what made AUTHENTICATING THE EVIDENCE so much more important in this case... When in case after case the physical evidence cannot be authenticated - what do you suppose that says about that evidence other than it is NOT representative of the facts. Curious Mike.... which of the fallible witnesses remembering incorrectly HELPED Oswald... or does every witness that cannot be trusted only say things that HURT Oswald? 11. On the basis of the evidence before the Commission it concludes that Oswald acted alone. The eyewitness testimony OVERWHELMINGLY puts a shooter on the grassy knoll...

Thanks Josh... But that's a far cry from "He helped wrap the casket in plastic" and what about the rubber sheath and bags... Not a single person at any of the casket entries and openings have JFK's head wrapped in rubber.... Robinson uses rubber afterward to close the headwound... but that's in DC Besides, does O'Neal bring this rubber with him... does he assume that Rose will do an autopsy and that he will be called upon to work up the body? And a thought occurs... JFK's head is completely wrapped in a variety of things... it WAS JFK that was in that bronze casket.. right?

Here Here Daniel.... Burns my chaps when these witnesses are dismissed, as if the physical evidence in the case has more credibility than these eye witnesses... the Physical evidence cannot even tell us where z313 occurs with any accuracy.... "No, Carolyn Arnold was mistaken about seeing Oswald downstairs around 12:15 .. "Roger Craig was mistaken about who and what he saw." "Jean Hill did NOT hear as many shots or see anyone running behind the fence", Altgens was mistaken that as a professional photographer focusing to 15 feet and claiming that JFK was hit while 15 feet from him... another mistake Baker's affidavit is inconsequential... that he does not mention a door with a window or the 2nd floor should simply be dismissed as an innocent mistake Hill claiming the shells are Autos and explaining years later how he saw the hulls in a "tight bunch" - when in reality he doesn't arrive and meet Poe until AFTER they are inthe cigarette wrapper Yates did NOT drop a man with a 4 foot paper bag at the front of the TSBD No one sees any Oswald look a like leaving the back of the theater White does not see a car with an Oswald in it Those on the overpass - who all coroborrate each other - did not see smoke or hear a shot from the GK Truly was wrong about the wide turn onto Elm Boone and Weitzman - mistaken about the rifle Sawyer - mistaken about the rifle being found on the 5th floor and moved Truly was wrong about the timing with Fritz, Oswald and the finding of the rifle Richard Carr and who he sees running rom the back of the TSBD Ed Hoffman - cause you know handicapped people are not reliable Below is the unedited transcript from interviews with witnesses to the Kennedy assassination: Rosemary Willis Roach, her sister Linda Willis Pool, and mother Marilyn Willis; Bill and Gayle Newman; Pierce Allman; Bobby Hargis and James Leavelle. Interviewed by Joe Nick Patoski Rosemary Willis: Rosemary: As they made the turn from Houston to Elm Street, they'd just gone a few feet when the first shot rang out, and upon hearing the sound, my normal body reaction was to look up and follow the sound that I heard, it was so abrupt. I didn't know what it was, but I was looking for what I heard. And the pigeons immediately ascended off that roof of the school book depository building and that's what caught my eye. My eyes were searching for what I heard and I see the pigeons, you know, they're scared to death, and take off in abrupt flight. Next thing I know, right after that, there's another shot. And after that, there's another shot and another shot. We disagree, between me and her (nodding towards her mom and sister). My ears heard four shots. If you ask me how many I think there were, I really think that there were six, but I heard four and I'll tell you why: the first one, you know I'm right across from Zapruder. I'm wherever the limousine is. It's almost like I could...I'm right there. Anyway, the first shot rang out. It was to the front of me, and to the right of me, up high. The second shot that I heard came across from my right shoulder. By that time, the limousine had already moved further down. And that shot came across my shoulder. And the next one, right after that, still came from the right but not from as far back, it was up some. Still behind me, but not as far back as the other one. And the next one that came was from the grassy knoll and I saw the smoke coming through the trees, into the air.... Fragments of his head ascended into the air, and from my vision, focal point, the smoke and the fragments, you know, everything met. I mean, there's no question in my mind what I saw or what I heard. Brehm... BREHM expressed his opinion that between the first and third shots, the President's car only seemed to move 10 or 12 feet. It seemed to him that the automobile almost came to a halt after the first shot, but of this he is not certain. After the third shot, the car in which the President was riding increased its speed and went under the freeway overpass and out of his sight.

Been looking for some coroborration... the nurses and porters do not mention Vernon at this point... who does? Miss HENCHLIFFE - Well, after the last rites were said, we then undressed him and cleaned him up and wrapped him up in sheets until the coffin was brought. Mr. SPECTER - And after the coffin arrived, what was done with his body? Miss HENCHLIFFE - He was placed in the coffin.

My answers in blue... quotes in black and red .So, starting with the LIES Humes tells us about using a saw, or NOT using one... Maybe by 8:15 they did not need one... but those that were there and saw what Humes did PRE AUTOPSY tells a very different story.... at Parkland the TOP OF THE HEAD was not damaged... only the back of the head and at the temples... regardless of how many times Specter and other say "Top of the head". Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wound besides the head wound which you have just described? Dr. BASHOUR - No; I did not observe any wounds. Mr. Specter - When you arrived, what did you observe as to the condition of the President? Dr. Baxter - He was very obviously in extremis. There was a large gaping wound in the skull which was covered at that time with blood, and its extent was not immediately determined. His eyes were bulging, the pupils were fixed and dilated and deviated outward, both pupils were deviated laterally. At that time his breathing was being assisted so that whether he was breathing on his own or not, I couldn't determine Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it. Mr. Specter - Did you notice any bullet hole below that large opening at the top of the head? Dr. Baxter - No; I personally did not. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Dr. CLARK: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present. Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds immediately below the massive loss of skull which you have described? Dr. JENKINS - On the right side? Mr. SPECTER - Yes, sir. Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process. Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins. Dr. JENKINS - Well, I was feeling for---I was palpating here for a pulse to see whether the closed chest cardiac massage was effective or not and this probably was some blood that had come from the other point and so I thought there was a wound there also. Dr. JONES - With no history as to the number of times that the President had been shot or knowing the direction from which he had been shot, and seeing the wound in the midline of the neck, and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull, the only speculation that I could have as far as to how this could occur with a single wound would be that would enter the anterior neck and possibly strike a vertebral body and then change its course and exit in the region of the posterior portion of the head

All depends on who you ask and when Barry. From nude in clear pastic sheets, to a black body bag, to sheets around the body and head.... plain metal shipper, ornate bronze casket.... Never have heard the O'Neal version with the rubber... unless this was much later after Robinson did his work... O'Neal was not called by the WC.... When would Vernon have seen the body like this - he wasn't at Bethesda was he? DJ

{sigh} The AP xray... that shows nothing from the midline down to the anatomical right ear corresponds to the Lateral which in my image above shows virtually no bone above the top arrow This is the TOP of his head... Not a single image of a medical person, also provided, has their hand on the TOP of their head.... where in the xray would correspond to McClellend's widow's peak. and 2) if JFK's skull was falling all over the Bethesda table, why describe a neat, avulsed hole, as yet again, the illustrations show.... the laceration Boswell describes is as if an ax hit JFK in the head... There is simply no way a brain comes out a 3" hole in the occipital Pat... these DOCTORS were inches from the man... BEFORE the government got involved. Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head...... yet somehow, someway... that's not what we see at 8:15. Commander HUMES - Our interpretation is, sir, that the missile struck the right occipital region, penetrated through the two tables of the skull, making the characteristic coning on the inner table which I have previously referred to. That one portion of the missile and judging by the size of the defect thus produced, the major portion of the missile, made its exit through this large defect. A second portion of the missile or multiple second portions were deflected, and traversed a distance as enumerated by this interrupted line, with the major portion of that fragment coming to lodge in the position indicated. Perhaps some of these minor fragments were dislodged from the major one it traversed this course. To better examine the situation with regard to the skull, at this time, Boswell and I extended the lacerations of the scalp which were at the margins of this wound, down in the direction of both of the President's ears. At that point, we had even a better appreciation of the extensive damage which had been done to the skill by this injury. We had to do virtually no work with a saw to remove these Portions of the skull, they came apart in our hands very easily, and we attempted to further examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.

Pat, Do these images NOT accurately reflect what the Parkland Doctors and personnel said? Wouldn't you agree that the Occipital is both BETWEEN and BELOW the ears? Wouldn't you agree that based on this data there is simply no place FROM THE BACK for a bullet to leave a particle trail where it is seen?... and finally, based on the side by side xrays... it appears as if there is still quite a bit of bone on the left side of the skull, even in the front... where on the lateral xray does all this bone go? To the LEFT SIDE TEMPLE WOUND... McClelland was not the only witness to this wound... Didn't the last rites Father also describe a horrible wound over the left eye? Or conversely, didn't Altgens and Brehm tell us that matter was ejected out of the left side of his head? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from. Thanks DJ . 1. McClelland did not see an entrance by the left temple. He said the wound was "of the left temple" which implies to me that he thought the large head wound others said was on the right rear side of the head was on the left side. In other words, he got mixed up. Later, when his mistake was pointed out to him, he tried to blame Jenkins for his mistake, and said that Jenkins had pointed to Kennedy's left temple at one point. But I don't really buy this excuse, as I don't think a competent doctor would report a small wound he never even saw, while failing to report the large wound he would later claim he'd studied. 2. Look at the supposed back of the head witnesses. How many of them pointed to a wound location on the back of the head, below the ears, where it would have to have been for the Harper fragment to have been occipital bone? 3. As far as the particle trail...it is a mistake, IMO, to assume it is a trail heading from the front to the back, or the reverse. A number of these particles were on the outside of the scalp. These fragments, then, reflect that a bullet broke up upon entrance by the right temple. I think this shot came from behind, but have no problem with others thinking otherwise. The fact that CTs need to come to grips with is that this IS what the x-rays show, once one studies the x-rays, and stops buying into all this nonsense about them being fake. Pat, I hope you know that I respect your work and think you've moved the case forward in many, many areas.... but I still believe there are areas in which some of your conclusions don't jive with how I see the evidence.... 1. The notes are right there Pat - did he, like so many others, change the FIRST STORY to something that worked better for all involved... ? And if there was yet another DR and a priest who report even a wound on the left side, this is in direct contradiction to Specter's autopsy report He said the wound was "of the left temple" Dr. McClelland's report reflects a "...a gunshot wound of the left temple" (CE 392:17WCH 12) http://www.maryferre...34&relPageId=38 Dr. Robert N. McClelland: WR 526-527/ 17 H 11-12/ CE 392 ---"...The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. JENKINS - No---I don't know whether this is right or not, but I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area, right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process. Mr. SPECTER - The autopsy report discloses no such development, Dr. Jenkins. The THIRD autopsy report - an oh so accurate representation of the wounds - doesn't mention it. So that's supposed to mean it didn't happen? as DSL says pleeez... That autopsy report also doesn't mention the shallow , non-transiting wound seen by the three autopsists.... or the apparrent surgery to the head... did that not happen as well? Father Huber Father Oscar L Huber was one of the priests that gave the last rites to the already dead JFK (11). Part of the ceremony included tracing a cross on the President's forehead using holy oil. Obviously, Father Huber would have been in an excellent position to look at JFK's head wounds. Father Huber was quoted in the press the weekend that the President died saying that he had seen a terrible wound over the President's left eye (12). (11) William Manchester, "The Death of a President", p258 (12) Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin, November 24 1963 2. What about the actual DRAWINGS as I posted, suggests anything but right/middle of the back of the head...? Do a few of the personnel reach a little higher, a little more to the right.... are you going to tell us that these were scientifically accurate to the millimeter... c;mon Pat... the wound depicted does not extend above the Occipital, which also extends above the ears They are not pointing to the LEFT or FRONT Pat.... they are not pointing to a gaping hole in the FRONT as that xray suggests S&O state that he could have been shown open casket as there was nothing from the front.... Jackie and others say the same thing.... 3. Please look at the representation of the fragments on the skull at the top right - Irregardless of F2B or B2F... they exist at a level that would require them to FLOAT UPWARD BY 2-4 inches given where the back wound was placed... and where the xray shows the upper most rear wound opening... and isn't there an abscence of bone in the frontal xray at left temple with a crack extending directly right over the nose? How can you possibly state that the frontal xray, and the Parkland descriptions are at all compatible? They contradict each other and every medical "expert" has said so. I am not saying "FAKE" Pat... as Horne has let us know, they were STAGED, after 'Boswell/Humes/??' took a 3" occipital wound and small holes at the right and/or left temple and opened up his entire skull in order to obliterate it. Pat... what is that obvious ROUND BLACK CIRCLE over his right temple - you see that naturally occurring? andcompare the Parkland diagrams to BOSWELL's... that 3 inch hole is now 80% of the skull... Didn't someone say they took a hammer to his head... that it looked like an eggshell... Again, not what was described BEFORE he entered the hands of our government...

Pat, Do these images NOT accurately reflect what the Parkland Doctors and personnel said? Wouldn't you agree that the Occipital is both BETWEEN and BELOW the ears? Wouldn't you agree that based on this data there is simply no place FROM THE BACK for a bullet to leave a particle trail where it is seen?... and finally, based on the side by side xrays... it appears as if there is still quite a bit of bone on the left side of the skull, even in the front... where on the lateral xray does all this bone go? To the LEFT SIDE TEMPLE WOUND... McClelland was not the only witness to this wound... Didn't the last rites Father also describe a horrible wound over the left eye? Or conversely, didn't Altgens and Brehm tell us that matter was ejected out of the left side of his head? Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from. Thanks DJ .

Once again Mikey... the evidence you offer is easily contradicted by the medical evidence available.. You want to help explain how, if the front of his skull, in the xrays, is missing (blown out by the back to front shot)... SOMETHING seems to be holding up his face... ?? 1) How are these superimposed images consistent with each other? 2) you see that trail of particles across the TOP of his head... please point to the entrance would on the BACK of the skull that allows that trail to be in that place.

Of course, you’re entitled to your belief, and no doubt, you would be thrilled to find the “grassy knoll shooter”. . .but, as I said in BEST EVIDENCE, and said many times in public appearances, the key to the Kennedy assassination--the key that leads to the authors of the crime--is not who put the bullets into President Kennedy’s body, but who took them out. Cheers to you David.... Yet even if the integrity of the body was established as intact from Dallas... the OFFICIAL RESULTS of the Autopsy, the BEST EVIDENCE, could have been completely fabricated and have nothing at all to do with what was seen and recorded during those evening hours. Which of course is most evidence in the extant Autopsy Report... the THIRD autopsy report... the BEST EVIDENCE by which the LNer builds his case DJ

Thanks David... yet I will have to disagree with you on this point: that the shot from the front was part of a reverse engineering job.... Before the plane landed in Bethesda Oswald was the culprit... end of story. But would you agree that up until that point, the CIA manufactured "conspiracy" was designed to illicit the response that Oswald and his Mexican, Russian, Cuban "associates" killed JFK... so let's go wipe Cuba and Russia off the planet.... This is what the JCS and CIA seem to have been setting up at least since the summer of 63. Now, all of a sudden, it's Oswald the Lone Nut... and we can't have anyone other than Oswald.... What bothers me most about this idea is that from the very first day's questioning, the SS/FBI INSISTED there were only three shots from behind... and brow beat any witness who disagreed. Hoover was concerned about Mexico City enough to state on Dec 12, 63: I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man. How did the FBI know and promote, in the first hours, that it was no longer a conspiracy? Wasn't Jean Hill told 3 shots, no more, don't care what you say you heard, almost immediately? To conclude, I'd have to say then that the CIA COULD have simply been messing with Hoover and the FBI and SS in creating a trail to a ficticious conspiracy thereby making it even more difficult for the FBI to show Oswald as the LN and to jack up their buddy Hoover.... DJ

First off these are OBJECTIVES OF AN AUTOPSY "Hardly sufficient" and "MUST BE DISSECTED" does not refute anything... does not show that at any time the would was shown to have transited the body.. YEs Mike, they SHOULD have dissected the upper torso to ascertain a track or confirm the shallow wound.... But whan a 6.5mm high velocity bullet is shot thru a person, IT LEAVES A .25" hole thru the body... The would would not simply END. Secondly... the HSCA was not in the room at Bethesda...they do not say Hume's statement is false, and it is true, to ascertain the TRACK, dissection is needed.... Is a dissection needed to determine the downward angle of the hole being probed? No bullet, No transit Bullet from Parkland, complete, pristine... this really isn't that difficult S&O report: This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. Inasmuch 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.

No

Mike... please point to where it says the wound from back to front on JFK exhibited a TRANSIT LANE thanks DJ btw... "Here is there objectives" ??? Really? "Here are their objectives"? and what does the listing of the OBJECTIVE of an autopsy have to do with PROVING A TRANSIT LANE?

Thank you Peter... fantastic synopsis... The number of witnesses that have to be "mistaken" about what they saw, according to the gov't investigations, is staggering.... One more point... Can you name a single time where the mistakes of a witness HELPS Oswald? Where a changed FIRST STORY makes it look LESS LIKELY that Oswald was involved? Alvarado and Duran's lies might count since they help show that Oswald was NOT in Mexico and that the CIA was setting him up.... but that doesn't come out till much later I believe. Carr's changing of the cab driver who drove Oswald? Hill claiming the bullets at the Tippit scene were bunched together in his subsequent RE-interviews... which was why he broadcast they were auto shells and NOT a pistol... except by the time Hill arrives the bullets are already in Poe's possession and the other bullets are somewhere else completely.... wonder why he lied about that? The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol. I guess my point all along has been that IN THIS CASE the witness testimony, even with its inherent problems, is FAR SUPERIOR to any piece of unauthenticated physical evidence... such as a windshield, autopsy report, xrays, photos, films, bullets, fragments, etc, etc, etc..... Cheers DJ

Mike... I guess you are not aware the the Connally wound originated with a 25 degree downward angle... The THEORY that a bullet passed thru or between both men has been disproved 9ways come sunday..... There were no transit lanes thru the shoulder to the throat... NONE The throat wound is HIGHER on the body than the back wound.... SBT no workie The throat would could only have been an exit wound IF THE BULLET HAS A CHANNEL THRU THE BODY... no channel, no SBT O'Neill: I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body (DJ:due to external massage or just plain location of the bullet in the wound) http://www.history-m...et/pdf/md47.pdf O'NEILL HSCA Affidavit I heard Humes say that the bullets entered from a 45-60° angle. (JFK's backwound after Humes sticks his finger into it and FEELS the closed end of the wound. a 6.5mm bullet would leave a .25" lane thru JFK's body, thru ANY body it traveled thru... and ther simply was not such lane) When the autopsy doctor appeared to have no idea of where the bullet entering the back may have gone, the doctors began discussing other possible outlets for the bullet The ambulance then travelled to the rear where Sibert, Bill Greer (Secret Service), and Roy Kellerman (Secret Service), and I placed the casket on a roller and transported it into the autopsy room. Mike - this is the entire conspiracy in a nutshell... At 6:35 a team of men carried a metal shipping casket into the morgue (Boyijean) at 7:17, these four men ALONE, TESTIFIED TO placing an "empty" bronze casket onto rollers and brought it into an already bustling morgue.... actually the morgue's ante-room... where EVERYONE WAS TOLD TO LEAVE while this empty casket is brought in to be in close proximity to the body of JFK - WHICH HAD BEEN ON THE TABLE for over 30 minutes by now.... at 8pm the Joint Casket Bearer Team (MDW) arrives and OFFICIALLY takes the bronze casket, NOW with JFK's altered body, into the morgue.... If you read the interviews and statements of S&O closely, we find they were NOT in the morgue during this time.... and were NOT there when the bronze casket was opened.... and did NOT do into the morgue until JFK was already back on the table.... So Mike, BEFORE you tell us about SBT, or JFK pass-thru wounds... you have to overcome the mountain of evidence that already shows there NEVER WAS A TRANSIT LANE THRU THE BODY of JFK. The wound to the throat APPEARED to be from a frontal gunshot and all the angles and movement of the location of the shots will not change this... on the other hand... we have confirmed sightings of a man with a rifle in the SE 6th floor window, which, from THAT window would be a much more steep angle to both JC and JFK from z190 thru the overpass....

And no Cliff... the MAGIC BULLET / SBT does not come into existence for months... the autopsy report seen in EXEC session on January 27 DOES NOT STATE THE SBT AS A POSSIBILITY.. It offers a completely different explanation for the throat wound... So if on Jan 27 the throat wound is a fragment... WHEN does the SBT come into existence? according to you it begins THAT NIGHT? So where in the existing autopsy report is this explanation Cliff? Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went.in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

The only thing tedious is your refusal to see how YOUR definitions of terms and YOUR interpretation of one sentence O'Neill writes while ignoring everything else he says. THIS is historical fact Cliff: I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body THIS is a soft-nosed bullet.... A soft-point bullet (SP round or JSP for short), also known as a soft-nosed bullet, is a lead expanding bullet with a copper or brass jacket that is left open at the tip, exposing some of the lead inside and is thus an example of a semi-jacketed round. Side by side comparison with a hollow-point bullet and FMJ ammunition will quickly illustrate the difference. Soft-point bullets are less common than hollow points, due to the slower expansion and greater penetration, but they fill roles that hollow points do not. In some cases the reduced expansion is desired, so that more penetration is achieved before the bullet begins the rapid deceleration caused by expansion. In other cases, the smooth, rounded profile typical of a soft-point bullet is preferred over the concave tip of a hollow point, because the latter tends to suffer failure to feed malfunctions in certain magazine-fed firearms. Funny thing here Cliff... note the absence of the words PLASTIC, ICE, DISSOLVE, SOLUBLE.... You sir have twisted the definitions and words from Sibert and O'Neill to suit your purpose... and to attempt to prove YOUR THEORY. The Drs did not ASK anything Sibert did not tell them anything All you have is a DISCUSSION about these types of bullets.... A bullet that FRAGMENTS does not dissolve Cliff... it FRAGMENTS, as in many, many little pieces... THESE are fragments... Tell me, when you dissolve Sugar in water... are there FRAGMENTS LEFT? If you choose to cling to your argument as is... fine with me... The theory of using soluble rounds is still sound... Your argument in favor of their use is woefully inadequate. I'd challenge anyone to read the FBI's AFFIDAVITS and come to your own conclusion... How a diseappeared bullet in the back equates to the Autopsy doctors forwarding the HISTORICAL FACT that the THROAT WOUND may have been caused by such a weapon system is simply too far a stretch without a fwe more dots to connect them... You are comfortable making that leap... from what I've seen as coroborration... I am not.

Cliff... YOUR interpretation of the affidavits lets YOU come to a conclusion which in turn allows YOU to formulate a THEORY about the use of soluble rounds... You confuse which wounds they are discussing, you confuse what the purpose of the call from Sibert was You confuse what O'Neill repeatedly says about the "general feeling" in the room about the reason for the missing bullet - IT FELL OUT JFK's BACK... What part of this statement eludes you? Where in their reports/statements do they mention asking Killion about soluble rounds? Be specific Cliff - this is ALL ABOUT YOUR POV, and has nothing to do with what was actually said. O'Neill: I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body

Cliff - separating what they said into two posts makes this more confusing.... I posted what the CALL from Sibert to Killion was about... Sibert says it himself. Wrong again Cliff... your "general feeling" had to do with a "soft-nosed bullet" not soluble rounds.... or rounds that would completely fragmentize, the statement does not say that the doctors at the autopsy asked us to determine if there were such things as soluble rounds A general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. and the phone call had nothing to do with soluble rounds Sibert left to call SA Charles Killion (FBI Laboratory) to determine if any extra bullets existed SIBERT: Following discussion among doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuck Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize When the autopsy doctor appeared to have no idea of where the bullet entering the back may have gone, the doctors began discussing other possible outlets for the bullet. No word of ice bullets or soluble rounds here - yet you keep claiming it was these doctors who came up with that option and specifically asked about these types of bullets... I say BS. The "discussion" could have easily been, Humes, "I just don't understand where the bullet went" O'Neill, "Well, I know there are bullets that dissolve, plastic or ice bullets" Boswell, "huh?" Finck, "Really?" Sibert, "yeah, I've heard of those too" Humes, "You saying that bullets that dissolve could have been used? That might explain why there is no transit" Sibert, "Well, maybe there are other bullets still in Dallas... I will call Killion and find out" and not another word is EVER spoken about soluble rounds.... cause where in the world would a non-CIA associated assassin get soluble rounds, right? When Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back, Sibert left to call SA Charles Killion (FE1 Laboratory) to determine if any extra bullets existed. He was advised of the finding of a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and relayed this information to the autopsy surgeons. I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body. I understand that Humes did call Parkland on 11/23/63 and learned at that time that a tracheotomy had been performed over a wound in the President's throat. So the result of the phone call was NOT the FBI making a case for soluble bullets or that they even existed, but for a bullet found in Dallas that fell out of JFK during external cardiac massage. and no matter how much SPIN YOU PUT ON IT, you cannot make what is plainly written and easily understood as a phone call to see if there are other bullets in Dallas as a confirmation of the autopsists desire to know if soluble rounds exist. DJ.

One of the problems with that scenario, David, is that it is inconsistent with an extremely shallow wound to the back. They could barely get the tip of their pinky to where the path ended. There was no "surgery" evident in the back at the completion of the autopsy or at any other time. So, if they surgically removed these bullets how did they do so without leaving any evidence of surgery? I am not necessarily convinced that the flechette dart was used, but I will not rule it out based on the evidence nor on arguments that I have thus far seen entertained by detractors. I've been looking at this evidence for almost 2 decades and even Fletcher Prouty told me when I brought it up that he was almost certain it was used. He based his opinion on the characteristics of the wounds and the effect on the target, that are unique to this weapon system. He was the one who originally got it approved for development for the CIA. Hey there Greg.... I tried to lay out my position in the above post.... I think the back wound was shallow and 1) either a pointed bullet was in there and fell out (Bell?). Whether that was the stretcher bullet or not, IDK. OR 2) the bullet was indeed still in JFK at 6:45 when Humes/Boswell used a clamp and simply removed it.... it then fell naturally to the 8:15 autopsy to state that the wound was indeed shallow and non-transitting (also remember that the FIRST reports were 3 shots, three hits, JFK - JC - JFK.... If the bullet they removed was anything but a CE399 twin... it had to disappear and other solutions created... and voila, CE399 becomes the shallow wound bullet.... until Tague has us run out of bullets... and the SBT is born. Whether there was evidence of surgery or not would be left up to HUMES to say so.... his sticking his pinkie into the wound could obliterate any signs of surgery... The Parkland ER personnel saw a bullet hole, an entrance wound to their trained eyes. So much so they postulated that the exit wound out the back of the head was the end result of this bullet. No bullets were looked for at Parkland, no xrays were taken. There was a wound of the right temple, the left temple, the throat and a 3 inch avulsed hole in the back of the head. I am DEFINITELY NOT stating that a soluble round or flechette was NOT used... what I am saying is Cliff's presentation of his THEORY as HISTORICAL FACT has a few holes in it. If they ASKED about these rounds... why was the answer from FBI, "we have CE399, found on a 'JFKs' stretcher" ? It fell out of JFK's back, NOT from JC. Discussing soluble rounds SERIOUSLY when Oswald had already been caught and publically convicted would have been absurd... There is also nothing to state WHO had this discussion - specifically. O'Neill's HSCA affidavit (curious - how come THIS affidavit is considered good evidence while the Baker/Weitzman/Boone affidavits were completely ignored at the WC hearings?) What irks me about Cliff's presentation is the one-sidedness of it... in ALL THE RECORDS O'Neill's one sentence is the only mention of soluble bullets. While at the same time basically confirming that a FMJ 6.5mm bullet did NOT hit JFK in the back... and that the wound did NOT transit.... end of SBT. The throat was not considered involved until the next morning's conversation with Perry.... since at no time did Bethesda even consider the throat the site of a bullet wound why continually refer to this evidence - which is only related to the back wound - as something "the autopsists wanted to know". And then conclude that their wanting to know makes it even more plausible and possible... isn't that a straw man argument? When Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back, Sibert left to call SA Charles Killion (FE1 Laboratory) to determine if any extra bullets existed. He was advised of the finding of a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital in Dallas and relayed this information to the autopsy surgeons. I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was ho doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body. I understand that Humes did call Parkland on 11/23/63 and learned at that time that a tracheotomy had been performed over a wound in the President's throat. I do not recall anything about the tracheotomy incision that indicated a bullet had damaged the area. When shown a tracing of the tracheotomy during the HSCA interview, I had no recollection or comment concerning the apparent bullet wound perimeter. It was and is my opinion that the bullet which entered the back came out the back. Some discussion did occur c0ncernin.g the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy that a soft-nosed bullet struck JW. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record. From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA: From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit: The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact". The correct answer would have been -- yes! http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt Page 3 of SIBERT Affidavit: Fair enough Cliff.... yet I am going to layout below the evidence you pointed us to and the conclusion that the Doctors DID NOT ASK ANY SUCH THING... NOR was that the consensus of the men in that room As I dig a little deeper into your source material I think we have a difference of opinion as to what was said…. (I do not see where I claim to know what happened... only the logic behind the different questions Humes COULD have asked... and whether or not he was involved in the pre autopsy surgery.) This has nothing to do with me. This has nothing to do with any theories of mine. I'm simply pointing out what they thought at the time and the evidence consistent with their observations. What THEY THOUGHT AT THE TIME... is something you conclude from what was said... you have no idea what HUMES was thinking... "If I ask about a soluble bullet, maybe they will forget the "surgery to the head" comment" is just as possible as anything else... given the time of arrival and the events between 6:30 and 8:00pm I find it funny that you take the facts available and create a THEORY to fit those facts - a very good theory indeed.... yet then call it HISTORICAL FACT. The existence of the weapon system is not in question...the THEORY you put forth is that it was used that day... based on your interpretation of the evidence available. Lifton/Horne's THEORY is that the body was operated on prior to the start of the official autopsy - again based on the evidence available - and these two theories are not in conflict at all... What I disagree with is your assertion that it was the DOCTORS who gave the soluble solution a thought, that THEY originated the thought and that there was any resolution to what YOU CLAIM, was THEIR question.... It's hard to deny the existence of additional bullets as described by the SS memos... the CE399 problems, and the reality that MORE THAN 3 SHOTS WERE FIRED... there HAS to be more bullets in DP or in the bodies... and there were. Why can you not even acknowledge that the autopsists saying something to the FBI in the room like, "So either of you guys throw away any bullets?" would be absurd... I fail to see any point to the above. What are you talking about? What I am saying here Cliff, is the question of what happened to the bullet that was supposed to be IN THE BACK WOUND is one of THREE possibilities.... 1) are there soluble bullets (Cause there is no bullet here, it is a shallow hole, and there is not transit lane - where the #$^$# is the bullet") 2) with "surgery to the head" there could have been surgery to other parts specifically to remove bullets... HUMES did not, and WOULD NOT ask if surgery COULD have been performed to remove the bullet(s)... NOR DID HUMES ASK IF THERE EXISTED ROUNDS THAT DISSOLVE... (unless you can prove it) 3) the bullet fell out the shallow wound… was pointed and found by Tomlinson… and is subsequently replaced with CE399. Cliff - "there were discussions" that did NOT make it into the FBI report from that day, or Humes' testimony, or Boswell, or Finck Mr. SPECTER - Have you been present here today during the entire course of Doctor Humes testimony? Commander BOSWELL - I have, sir; yes. Mr. SPECTER - Do you have anything that you would like to add by way of elaboration or modification to that which Doctor Humes has testified? Commander BOSWELL - None, I believe. Doctor Humes has stated essentially what is the culmination of our examination and our subsequent conference, and everything is exactly as we had determined our conclusions. Mr. SPECTER - Now, Doctor Humes, at one point in your examination of the President, did you make an effort to probe the point of entry with your finger? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; I did. Mr. SPECTER - And at or about that time when you were trying to ascertain, as you previously testified, whether there was any missile in the body of the President, did someone from the Secret Service call your attention to the fact that a bullet had been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital? Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; they did. Mr. SPECTER - And in that posture of your examination, having just learned of the presence of a bullet on a stretcher, did that call to your mind any tentative explanatory theory of the point of entry or exit of the bullet which you have described as entering at Point "C" on Exhibit 385? http://www.history-m...Vol16_0501a.htm Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. We were able to ascertain with absolute certainty that the bullet had passed by the apical portion of the right lung producing the injury which we mentioned. I did not at that point have the information from Doctor Perry about the wound in the anterior neck, and while that was a possible explanation for the point of exit, we also had to consider the possibility that the missile in some rather inexplicable fashion had been stopped in its path through the President's body and, in fact, then had fallen from the body onto the stretcher. The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact". This statement of yours is the crux of your argument Cliff... you ASSUME the doctors wanted to know something when all that is written is a DISCUSSION... and the discussion centers around the BACK WOUND, not the throat… At the time you are sourcing, the throat wound was not even a consideration… The Doctors, using only the physical evidence before them, can only conclude the back bullet fell out. SIBERT does not come back from his call with information regarding ice bullets… And O’Neill gives us the actual impression of what they saw: SIBERT: http://www.history-m...et/pdf/md46.pdf It was my impression that both Finck and Humes agreed that there was no exit wound of the bullet thru 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 doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize Cliff - from this quote we conclude that Sibert was going to ask about a bullet that could completely FRAGMENTIZE... (as opposed to all FMJ bullets that are NOT DESIGNED TO FRAGMENTIZE.) not whether bullets were soluble. And since we can also conclude that this CALL TO KILLION comes after the back wound discussion mentioned by O’Neill below… the concept of SOLUBLE BULLETS was not mentioned again. In fact, when Sibert returns, he only mentions the bullet that becomes CE399… NOTHING related to info on soluble bullets. O’NEILL http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md47.pdf Funny again how you neglect to include the statements just prior to and just after your copy/paste..... Were any of the rounds fired “soft-nosed”… given CE399? Did Sibert or O’Neill come back from calling around to say that a soluble bullet was an option? It was and is my opinion that the bullet which entered the back came out the back. Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed during the autopsy 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" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet. So what I would like to know is how you arrive at the conclusion from these documents that YOU referred us to, that Drs Humes, Boswell and/or Finck ASKED to find out whether the bullet could have been soluble… as opposed to complete fragmentation… I don’t see ANYTHING that refers to “blood” soluble… in fact, the evidence points to EVERYONE IN THAT ROOM believing the round fell out JFK’s back and was the bullet found at Parkland.

Yes indeed Daniel... nice catch. I remember the Osbourne dialog... and the HSCA dance around.... The HSCA is at least admitting that Osbourne was there... (50) John Stringer, the medical photographer, likewise recalled some discussion at the beginning of the autopsy concerning the scope of the autopsy. He said he believed Dr. Burkley played a central role in the discussions and seemed to be acting on behalf of the Kennedy family . (39) He specifically recalled Dr. Burkley indicating to the doctors that they should not conduct a full autopsy, saying, "* (,you) shouldn't do a complete one if (you) don't have to." (40) (51) Adm. David Osborne (then captain) stated that at the beginning of the autopsy there was tremendous pressure to perform a "quick post" and to leave the hospital . (h.1) (58) Special Agents Sibert and O'Neill confirmed that the pathologists had X-rays taken before and after making incisions. The FIRST incision was at 8:15 according to the official record - the FIRST incision in an autopsy is the "Y" incision - the head and neck were NOT cut into or investigated thoroughly. The Body officially arrived at the morgue at 8pm yet Humes tells Finck at 7:30 when he calls him, that photos and xrays had already been taken. ?? The FOX photos are obviously PRE incision... AS Xrays were being taken from the morgue to be developed, the technician sees Jackie and party arrive and enter the hospital WHILE JFK IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE COFFIN.... Neat trick - huh? DJ This is from volume VII, with the paragraph numbers in parentheses. ------------------------------------------------------------------- (84) In a committee telephone interview with Admiral Osborne, another issue arose. He stated that he thought he recalled seeing an intact slug roll out from the clothing of President Kennedy and onto the autopsy table when personnel opened the casket and removed the clothing from the body of the President. (85) The committee reviewed thoroughly all documents and recontacted those persons who moved the body of the President from the casket onto the autopsy table and then prepared the body for examination. Paul K. O'Connor, who along with James Jenkins, had the duty of preparing the body for the autopsy, said the body had arrived at about 8 p.m. and was wrapped in a body bag [note, this is Lifton's guy--J. McA.], the head in a sheet. O'Connor said he assisted in unwrapping the sheet and could not recall any foreign object, specifically a missile, being discovered during the autopsy or while unwrapping the sheets. We all are aware that when leaving PARKLAND, JFK was nude, wrapped in sheets, with more sheets around his head.. A clear plastic LINER was placed in the coffin first to keep the blood from seeping... So how is it that the HSCA can conclude an 8pm arrival.... in a BODY BAG no less, when the evidence celarly suggests a different story? (86) Jenkins likewise said he could not recall any foreign objects being discovered or discussed and specifically could not recall any missile or fragments of a missile falling out onto the autopsy table or floor. (87) Throughout the committee's investigation, no one had ever mentioned the discovery of a missile in Bethesda Naval Hospital. The only bullet recovered was the one discovered at Parkland Memorial Hospital. So what about Osbourne's mentioning it - how does he become "no one"? (88) Following this investigation, the committee recontacted Admiral Osborne and informed him that the body of the President had not arrived in any clothes, but was wrapped in sheets, (116) and that no one else recalled anything about the discovery of a missile. And what about the body bag? Admiral Osborne then said that he could not be sure he actually did see a missile and that it was possible the FBI and Secret Service only spoke about the discovery of a missile. He did say he was positive only one bullet was ever recovered, whether it was discovered at Bethesda Hospital or Parkland Hospital. Success for yet another governmental "official" investigation.... the FIRST story was wrong... what was FIRST REPORTED AND SEEN..? a mistake Is it me, or does that seem to happen ALOT in this case???