David Josephs

Thanks for taking the time and effort Greg... I would not call McBride the FOUNDATION as much as the launching point... that would be akin to saying if we can prove Oswald ordered the rifle, he committed the crime... those two things do not necessitate each other... beyond McBride there is so much to support H&L.... but all in due time At a quick glance I see most of your info is focused on 54-55 and not the 52-53, 53-54 school years... As I go to each of those links you offered I find them discussing 54-55.... we are focused on the 53/54 school year here... you will not find many witnesses after 1955 who will tell you anything about LEE... Harvey on the other hand has become the center of attention. Myra Darouse - Beauregard Myra "claimed" to be Oswald's home teacher because she was. Just not in any part of 1953 as she apparently thought some 40 years later. http://www.maryferre...71&relPageId=34 At this link of yours there is no mention of school years at all... and she confirms the smallness of the student she knew as Harvey Here is the NY PS#44 school record for LEE - between MAY and SEPT 1953 he grew slightly and was still 115lbs - not the small, quiet little boy Darouse - and a number of other people who knew Harvey and not Lee - described him as... the psychiatrist in NY (Milton KURIAN, march 1953) also described him as very small and undernourished while dealing with his truancy problems... nothing like the well adjusted, and well developed LEE Are you going to claim that from Jan 53 thru May 53 he grew 8 inches? and then when the photo at the Bronx zoo is taken that summer he shrinks back down again? The boy in the Bronx zoo photo is NOT 5'4" and 115... in fact, LEE would have grown even more by the summer... Harvey, the boy in that photo was NOT recognized by John.. while the other boy was... Greg, the problem is WITH the official timeline... I will take your post and look thru the links and address your points - which I can always count on to be well presented and well supported.... yet starting with that link to Darouse and you telling me there is something there that tells us the YEARS involved - when there is no mention of timeframe at all is a bit of a surprise. I'd like to get back to 1952/53 as this is the key period of transition - Here is just a little piece of why I do not trust what the FBI writes without signature of authentication - and then I will address 52/53 and more of your post. when we look around the Darouse pages in that file you linked me to, we see the FBI saying BREEDLOVE said that he too did not "recall" Oswald while at Beauregard Yet at the same time we have Lee Harvey Oswald's 8th grade report card for Industrial Arts taught by FRED BREEDLOVE, with his signature... showing Lee in his class... guess it was convenient for the FBI to state that Breedlove did not know him... especially during the 53/54 year when LEE was in HR 303 and Harvey was with Darouse elsewhere. Greg, Since when do FBI reports of what he said, she said, they said, and what we chose to write down ever account for evidence in this case? and so far, each of the links has to do with 54-55.... 53/54 is what wer are discussing, having statements from people about the 54/55 year is of no consquence... More soon. Cheers DJ btw - while I am no where near the researcher others are, I do believe I have a good grasp of the material. I try not to JUDGE the theory before I investigate it. You seem to simply not like the H&L idea and have focused all your efforts on McBride... when the keys to this mystery are to be found in total...

What YOU consider is of no consequence to anyone here Mikey... You can IGNORE everyone if you like... no one is going to put up with your repeated reluctance to LEARN SOMETHING HERE as opposed to climbing up your little ant hill and proclaiming yourself "King" So no more worries Mikey... like Paul May and Brian Walker before you... stoopid is as stoopid does.... You want to get your jollies sounding ignorant and offering uninformed opinions - have at it. Another fly by night xxxxx in the process of losing steam... bu-bye now...

replies in bold Mike, Forming your opinions from what you have found out on this, or any other forum, is no way to understand - let alone criticise - any researcher's work and ideas. Opinions generated on the Internet tend to be watered down versions of the original. If you want to be critical of David Lifton, at least do him the curtesy of reading his work. That way you might at least understand what it is he is saying. James Again, I am not critical of David Lifton. I think he is a very nice man. I am critical of his theories that he has stated in the forum. That is all. How can one be critical of "his theories" when you haven't taken the time to read and understand them yet? I am happy that he is willing to engage with us in the forum. Not as long as you keep talking out of your A$$ Mike... those here have been at it for 10, 20, 30 almost 50 years!! What he exposes are suppressed, historical FACTS related to the movement and alteration of JFK's body... refute this Mike... and please try not to forget that it was Kellerman, Greer, Sibert & O'Neill who claim to WHEEL JFK into the morgue at 7:17. and the MDW (Joint Casket Bearer Team) officially carries in the casket at 8pm... first incision at 8:15... Finck called at 7:30 after xrays and photos have already started being taken When you can reconcile these three bits of FACT into a coherent theory, let us know... DSL did it in 1981 after 15 years of work. And you've done what, exactly? My theory of the case is based on the validity of the photographic evidence. His theory of the case requires that photographic evidence to have been fabricated. So why not go about AUTHENTICATING / VALIDATING this evidence? Your complete inability to grasp what DSL has offered is staggering... As I have stated before, I have read very few books on the JFK assassination. I did not want to be influenced by any opinions of the case stated by other authors. I wanted to study the evidence and come up with my own opinion. I was very surprised to find that there was a book out there that had a somewhat similar interpretation.( I have not read that book either) "study the evidence" - from where Mike? From which book or set of books will you be finding and authenticating this "evidence" The WCR? HSCA? ARRB? Rush to Judgement? False Mystery? Accessories After the Fact? Reclaiming History? Case Closed? With Malice? Death of A President? The Weisberg books, Harvey & Lee, Oswald and the CIA, LBJ: Mastermind, Who Kiled JFK?, Six Seconds in Dallas...... Where exactly are you going to find the evidence YOU LIKE? When you read my opinion you can be sure it is my opinion, uninfluenced by the opinion of the author of any other book. But like a$$holes, everyone has an opinion.... from what do you base this opinion Mike? What gives your opinion any value to others when you choose not to LEARN about the assassination? This approach has worked well. I have been able to identify several important errors. The severe cropping of the Towner #3 photo and the incorrect chronological ordering of that photo are two important examples. YOU were able to ID these errors? Tell us Mike... what EXACTLY is your opinion related to the assassination and from where do you derive it? Whose shoulders do you stand upon to come to your conclusions?

I didn't actually think the swap happened at Parkland... just a thought based on the sequence... But there is the quick drive to Love Field... I didn't realize so many went with the ambulance... I could have sworn that it was only Kellerman who drove off... DJ http://www.jfk-online.com/landis.html At approximately 2:00 pm the President's body was wheeled from the hospital in a coffin into an ambulance. Special Agent Andrew Berger drove the ambulance; ASAIC Kellerman and ATSAIC Stout were in the front seat. Mrs. Kennedy, Admiral Burkley, and Agent Hill rode in the rear of the ambulance with the President's body. I rode in the Follow-up car behind the ambulance which departed the hospital at 2:04 pm. At 2:14 pm, the President's body arrived at Love Field Airport and several Secret Service agents immediately carried it on board U.S. Air Force No. One via the rear door. I followed on board behind Mrs. Kennedy and then moved to the forward section of the plane. I witnessed the swearing in of President Johnson at 2:39 pm in the center compartment on board Air Force #1, and at 2:47 pm departed Love Field Airport, Dallas, Texas, via Air Force No. One, with Mrs. Kennedy and the body of the late President Kennedy. Josh, my understanding was that there was luggage problems between AF-1 and AF-2... the wait for the judge to swear LBJ in... and the FACT that everyone attnded the wearing in... even those who said the casket was never left alone... I do believe that JFK was offloaded from the front right of the plane and flown via helicopter to ??? DJ

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