David Josephs

Mike, here is a portion of Debra Conway's interview with Toni Foster in 1998 which appeared in the KAC Summer 2000. It is evident that Toni Foster, the "running woman" in the extant Z-film, had not seen the Z-film. "for some reason the car stopped. It did stop for seconds. I don't ever know why it stopped and all of a sudden it sped up and they went under the underpass. I could never figure out why the car stopped." Critics say the limo stop witnesses weren't referring to the limo, but this is quite false, as you see here. Others charge the limo stop witnesses as being in schock and not able to report accurately what they saw. This foolish reasoning is contradicted by the specificity of Toni Foster's recollections, even though the interview was in 1998.

You can see why Pat Speer's dismissal of these witnesses is such an insult to those who were actually there. If I were Toni Foster and read such comments, I would be rightly indignant.

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.

O'Neal saw the body at Parkland and helped with lining the casket.

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

{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.

David: Horrible wounds to left and right temples.. and the back of the head......

It appears you're playing mix n match, David, and pushing something totally out of line with what anyone claimed to witness. Not ONE witness, anywhere, ever, said there was a wound to the left temple AND right temple AND back of the head, or even left temple AND back of the head, or even right temple AND back of the head. The Parkland witnesses all saw ONE wound, but remembered it differently, and described it differently. Your pushing that there were three wounds, and that they all saw but one of three wounds, and that it is a pure coincidence that NONE of them saw more than one of these wounds--IF that is indeed what you're pushing--is more than silly.

I apologize if I'm misunderstanding you.

I think you are trying to confuse what I am saying - that these three wounds were noticed at Parkland is not in dispute... EVERYONE saw the back of head wound...

SOME see a LEFT TEMPLE WOUND

SOME see s right temple wound

Not a single person sees anything resembling the xray... where the entire front of his skull is missing...... look at the drawings again Pat... or please post a single image of a drawing by any Parkland personnel that agree with either of the xrays...

thanks

DJ

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?

Dr. AKIN - I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

If the RIGHT OCCIPITAL was the EXIT and the entrance came from the OTHER SIDE of the head (left temporal) - does that not add him to the list of LEFT TEMPLE wounds and those NOT seeing any frontal damage as that BS xray shows?

McClellend does not see a Left Temple wound AND hole in the back of the head?

Jenkins, left wound and large hole

Most others, Large Occipital/parietal hole...

Back wounds? no

Avulsed opening over right ear? NOPE

As far as Humes and Boswell and the crumpled skull... doctors wouldn't try to measure a wound on the skull with torn scalp and hair in the way. They would measure the skull wound after the scalp had been reflected. When they reflected the scalp, however, the skull was in pieces. They then removed some of the broken skull, and pulled out the brain.

That's not was was written or said, Pat. The testimony is that the doctors DID SAW AWAY SKULL... now whether that was at 6:45 or 8:15 is a matter os concern...

the witnesses suggest this occurs BEFORE the Y incision and well before the official autopsy begins when the skull and prain simply fall apart - AFTER our friends Humes and Boswell obliterate the wounds both front and back.

There is no indication that they measured the wound before the brain was removed.

Commander HUMES - I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left. This is somewhat difficult, because as back to when we were actually looking for the fragments of metal, as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table, and so forth, so it was difficult to put that exact figure into words.

Humes’ comments to the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992 are also relevant. He said “The head was so devastated by the exploding bullet…that we did not even have to use a saw to remove the skullcap…We peeled the scalp back and the calvarium crumpled in my hands from the fracture lines…”

EXPLODING bullet.... you mean the 6.5mm FMJ bullet as shown in CE399 as being the TYPE of bullet fired? Exploded into fragments and particles and a cloud - FMJ bullet?.

This was not described by a single Parkland doctor....

Robinson:

Removal of President’s Brain: Robinson drew dotted lines on the drawing he executed of the

posterior skull which shows the wound between the ears. When asked by ARRB staff what the dotted

lines represented, he said “saw cuts.” He explained that some sawing was done to remove some bone

before the brain could be removed, and then went on to describe what is a normal craniotomy procedure,

. saying that this procedure was performed on JFK. He seemed to remember the use of a saw, and the

scalp being reflected forward.

Q: What else did you observe from where you were with regard to any incisions or operations on the head?

REED: Well, after about 20 minutes, Commander

Humes took out a saw, and started to cut the

forehead with the bone - with the saw

Humes' words to the ARRB in 1996 offer further support that the skull basically crumpled in his hands. He told Jeremy Gunn: "Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose."

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.

That's an easy request to agree to, as I don't recall ever saying such a thing. Of course they indicated, by and large, that there was a wound on the back of the head. My beef is with people pretending that the Parkland witnesses agreed this wound was LOW on the back of the head, below the ears, and that this confirms that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. That, David, is absolute balderdash

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...

That's an easy request to agree to, as I don't recall ever saying such a thing. Of course they indicated, by and large, that there was a wound on the back of the head. My beef is with people pretending that the Parkland witnesses agreed this wound was LOW on the back of the head, below the ears, and that this confirms that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. That, David, is absolute balderdash

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....

Yes, after the call to the FBI Lab they had to deal with the Magic Bullet, and the flechette investigation was prematurely ended.

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.

None of this has anything to do with me, David. Why do you insist on claiming that it does?

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.

It was written up as more than that David. It was written up as a "general feeling" that such rounds "could have" caused the back wound (and you're wrofng to assume they didn't know about the throat wound). This discussion was followed up by SA Sibert going to the phone to call the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such rounds.

How is that not an exercise of interest on the part of Humes and Co? How could they share a "general feeling" if that wasn't what they were thinking?

Or do you want to parse the difference between "feeling" and "thinking"?

...

from the above post:

The reason he called was because the autopsists had a "general feeling" that a liquid soluble round "could have" struck JFK

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.

... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

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.

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

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:

David,

I think we're in general agreement. I won't deny that a compelling case can be made for pre-autopsy removal.

But I'm more impressed with the corroborative evidence for Flechette.

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.

The story behind 399 gets even murkier. It may not have been at Dallas, but it may have been at Bethesda. My copy of Best Evidence is tattered, torn, and at least right now, missing, but David Lifton devotes a chapter to the Osborne allegation, which seems to have been forgotten in all this discussion. Apparently an intact bullet fell out of President Kennedy's clothing, according to Admiral Osborne. Without Best Evidence in front of me I can't recall all the details, but Lifton wonders, and i think correctly, if the role of 399 had not yet been determined, and this was one way to tie the bullet to Kennedy. Or by that time its role had been determined, and its appearance at Bethesda was one of many screw-ups in the plot to frame Oswald.

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???

Mark... everything related to the Silly Bullet Theory was worthless... other than to convince the gullible public of what couldn't have possibly occurred.

One can almost see the wheels spinning in Specter's head... to come up with what as to be the most sensational question ever asked...

Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion.

Assume first of all that

1) the President was struck by a 6.5 mm.

2) copper-jacketed bullet (DJ: that unlike this one, severely fragmented and exploded into a cloud of dust particles)

3) fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second,

ballistically arced very slightly while traveling 189 ft (58 m) in a downward net angle of 19 degrees (allowing for the 3 degrees downward slope of Elm Street), after an initial supersonic rifle exit muzzle velocity of 1,850 to 2,000 feet per second (560 to 610 m/s), then entered President Kennedy's rear suit coat at about 1,700 feet per second (518 m/s),

4) with the weapon being approximately 160 to 250 feet from the President,

with the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees,

5) striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, passing through the President's body striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior portion of the President's body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity

DJ: LOOK at where this bullet hole is... LOOK at where his neck is by comparison UNDERSTAND THAT SPECTER says 45 degrees downward..

in reality it was about 20 degrees... DOWNWARD...

Put your finger between your shoulder blades and point DOWN at 20 degrees.... throat EXIT? no way.

but bruising the apex of the right pleural cavity, and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung inflicting a hematoma to the right side of the larynx, which you have just described, and striking the trachea causing the injury which you described,

and then exiting from the hole that you have described in the midline of the neck.

Now, assuming those facts to be true, would the hole which you observed in the neck of the President be consistent with an exit wound under those circumstances?

SPECTER:

IOW... if I ASSUME the hole we are talking about is and exit would, and further assume that FACT TO BE TRUE...

My question Dr Perry et al.... was the HOLE I TOLD YOU WAS AN EXIT, an exit hole?

And people out there can still cling to the "no conspiracy" stance

Ok Cliff...

Not a theory... defined as:

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation,

in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.

In other words Cliff... your proposing an explanation for the information you've gathered. "Possibilities" you call them that are based on your interpretation of the information available.

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...

"Are there bullets that dissolve?" is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a man who was shot, WITHOUT A TRANSIT LANE, has no bullets in his body.

What other choices are there Cliff? It was taken, it was never there, it dissolved.... The hole suggests it WAS there, and as I say, if HUMES and BOSWELL took the bullets out of JFK themselves,

asking whether there are dissolvable bullets is pretty clever - don't you think?

Or would you have them ask, "Wow, Surgery to the top of the head... did someone at Parkland dig the bullets out of the body as we can't seem to find any in this shallow wound... if "THEY" operated on the head

it is no great stretch to assume THEY removed the bullet in the shallow wound..." ?

Difference between us is you have a vested stake in your theory, which I would expect... it's a GOOD theory...

but please don't pull a Fetzer on me just because I happen to think there were other scenarios that satisfy the evidence, and don't necessarily buy into yours - agree to a little friendly disagreement here Cliff...

Only time will tell...

hopefully.

Peace

DJ

These are not "theories" in the same sense of the Single Bullet Theory, which was proposed after the autopsy. These two possibilities are scenarios suggested during the autopsy, before the prosector's deliberations were corrupted by news of the Magic Bullet.

My argument is that the blood-soluble flechette scenario explains more points of evidence, especially JFK's apparent paralysis after the throat shot, and a shooting sequence where the first two shots caused shallow wounds.

I've understood your point and responded Cliff...

to reiterate... Given the choice between A) the SS/FBI destroyed the medical evidence and STOLE THE BULLETS FROM THE BODY

and are there bullets the FBI is aware of that dissolve in the body?

Why do you assume that asking the question suggests they were agreeing on a solution to their problem of no bullets?

OR when we now know that JFK was on the Bethesda morgue table by 6:45 with Humes and Boswell, Kellerman and ?? doing their thing to him so that

at 8-8:15pm we see "surgery to the top of the head" theses are PROVEABLE FACTS of the case...

YOU make observations of the Zfilm and conclude what you do... an interesting theory with all the components of a real possibility

That the throat was opened beyond the tracheotomoy, that bullets disappeared from a variety of locations, that the physical evidence was controlled and tampered with by the SS/FBI is impossible to refute....

I did not say Parkland got the throat wound wrong.... THEY knew JFK was SHOT Cliff... SHOT... so a wound on the throat the size of a small hole would NATURALLY cause ER personnel th think it was a gunshot, a very small caliber gunshot... yet these people also thought that this was the entry for the large blowout hole in the back of his head.... why is that not a possibility?

A FLURRY of shots could include

one to the right temple,

one to the left temple,

one to JC,

one thru the windshield to his throat,

one to the back of his head.... just as easily as the theory of a dissolving poisonous bullet....

I am stating what the Exec Session transcripts stated about an autopsy report that is no longer in existence..

I am saying that the dissolvable bullets/poisonous flechettes you talk about were supposedly so small as to not be detected upon entry... NOT to leave a 5mm hole that looks like a frontal bullet shot... otherwise why bother if it's going to appear like any other bullet which would cause medical personnel to dig into the wound to find this bullet??

Here's a theory - the shallow shot to the back hits nerves, that when combined with the corset he was wearing, made him immobile.

Now I realize that the other passengers do NOT agree with this statement.... yet there a number of uncoroborrated realities we need to put some faith behind, no?

If the throat wound did not occur until AFTER these shots, as a result of either a subsequent shot, the FLURRY, or a fragment exiting

Mr. SPECTER. We will start with his voice.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Ok. From the noise of which I was in the process of turning to determine where it was or what it was, it carried on right then. Why I am so positive, gentlemen, that it was his voice there is only one man in that back seat that was from Boston, and the accents carried very clearly.

Mr. SPECTER. Well, had you become familiar with the President's voice prior to that day?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; very much so.

Mr. SPECTER. And what was the basis for your becoming familiar with his voice prior to that day?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I had been with him for 3 years.

Mr. SPECTER. And had you talked with him on a very frequent basis during the course of that association?

Mr. KELLERMAN. He was a very free man to talk to; yes. He knew most all the men, most everybody who worked in the White House as well as everywhere, and he would call you.

Mr. SPECTER. And from your experience would you say that you could recognize the voice?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much, sir; I would.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, I think you may have answered this, but I want to pin-point just when you heard that statement which you have attributed to President Kennedy in relationship to the sound which you described as a firecracker.

Mr. KELLERMAN. This noise which I attribute as a firecracker, when this occurred and I am in the process of determining where it comes because I am sure it came off my right rear somewhere; the voice broke in right then.

Mr. SPECTER. At about the same time?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct, sir. That is right.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, did President Kennedy say anything beside, "My God, I am hit."

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is the last words he said, sir