David Josephs
-
Posts
6,150 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by David Josephs
-
-
James....
First off... thanks so much for that wonderful image... I had never seen it that clearly.... Do you have the entire page like that as well as the face sheet?
I was hoping to hear more from you regarding what Kellerman says is a small round entrance wound "to the right of the ear"... unless he is looking at an upside down photo... to the right of the right ear at the hairline is the right temple.
Maybe that's why there is no exhibit. ?? No, not saying this is a back entry... only that there are numerous accounts for wounds in places that were never "officially" recorded. The right temple hole being one of them... the lower neck entracne wound MAY be another.
I am saying that a shot to the lower neck as LIPSEY described would be more likely to create a fragment that exists the throat. I am NOT connecting these three wounds (back, lung, throat) with this low entrance or the WCR or HSCA entrances - imo these wounds are not connected... If a shot was fired from the South Knoll (high to low) to the neck... it could have been the cause for the pleural bruise... but to be honest... the autopsy doctors saying so does not hold alot of weight... and since we have no idea if we are looking at authentic autopsy images/x-rays...
who knows...
In terms of the damage done by a fragment exiting... since we do not know the condition of the path between the skull and throat with any certainty... how can you say it is impossible?
Between that explanation and a shot to the throat with ammo that is so small as to leave a 3-5mm hole... Millimeters?
Or the Ice dart / flechette pistol...
and the fact that Rankin and the WC is exposed to an autopsy that offers the fragment conclusion... we just can't know.
In terms of those that saw or didn't see the hole... I can dismiss it not being seen prior to the table due to the size and location of the wound. But can we at least agree that PERRY would have NEVER cut that wound resulting in it looking like that. and you make an interesting point about the top and bottom... we CAN see the bottom of the circle but that would not be half of a 5mm hole as it is much larger than that. and it seems to me that the bottom of this half circle, if the original wound, is much lower on JFK that you suggest.
So where are we James? You believe the throat wound was a shot of a regular small calibre bullet with no bullet related to the wound unless
1) it was the wound that transits and blows out the right occipitol - what we see on Z is a fabrication of the wound
2) it lodged just past the pleural cavity creating the hole and bruise and subsequently was removed and has disappeared to history
3) it was an exit wound from a fragment of bone - which shot and how is as mysterious as where the bullet is in your scenario..
4) melting ice darts with paralyzing toxins...
With regards to SBT - that game never started... so I see no need to worry about disproving that which has never been proven
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 the President was struck by a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a gun having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second, 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, 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 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?
Dr. PERRY - Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound.
-
Cliff... the evidence from the moment jfk left DP is suspect. I do not argue your points, which may be valid... I just dont see the dart gun thing broken out in DP.
The fibers in the shirt were moving outward yet had no bullet related material on them while the coat and shirt on the back do. You say dart (which pushes IN), I say bone from a shot to his head...
I think you underestimate the PAIN JFK would be in related to his back and ANY disruption. I've had L4/5 surgery... a very bad back such as JFK's could create extreme pain for him.
Loosening his tie so as to breathe...
Perry is quite specific about cutting the strap muscles and Humes is quite specific tha THAT was not what occurrred.
Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.
HUMES:...So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital.
Will get back to this tomorrow...
I do NOT refute the existence of the technology.. found some nice images and articles on the gun...
and it would be the utmosty in balls to have used that weapon that day... right?
not that it changes things one bit... bone, dart.. bullet, alteration...whatever.
NONE DARE....
DJ
-
First point... Alteration.
At Parkland the wound was a 5-7cm hole in the right occipitol... and a throat wound.
At Bethesda? The wound was described as a 10x19cm hole with MOST of his skull missing... I think your conclusions related to alteration are premature James.
There are some great threads related to Lifton's and Horne's work on this.... and I think you might take another more detailed look at the documentation that SCREAMS that JFK was in the ER well before the 8pm official start time.
Perry's comment is in his WC testimony. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/perry_m1.htm
Do a ctrl "F" to find "pluera," with the comma. It will take you right to it.
Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.
So James... I do not know what "P.10 Vol 6" means but this is in Perry's WC testimony and makes it pretty plain that he cut JFK's anatomically RIGHT strap muscles...
Humes/Boswell, imo, lied their way thru the entire thing in a patriotic trance... which is why I simply cannot believe the autopsy or any of the evidence related to the autopsy. Jsut ask Sandra Spencer or Robert Knudsen.
Regarding the bruise to the pleural cavity... and the fact that in either direction there is no way that a line connecting the back and throat wounds passes thru the pleural cavity/top of the lung... as we have proven.
Cerebellum - Sorry James, but in my experience there are simply too many redactions of evidence from "impossible it was Oswald" to "I was mistaken, it must have been the way the WCR says it was"
By the sheer law of averages, SOME of the FBI/SS/DPD mistakes had to fall in Oswald's favor. Yet we cannot name one.
So we are left with few options...
1) shallow entrance back and neck shots (back falls out and is found in JFK's clothes at Bethesda - subsequently this disappears... front - well I still believe that bullet, if it was one, would have been removed when the trach incision was enlarged.)
2) shallow back wound... fragment from assassination out the front - and a complete coverup of the pathways creating this hole.
3) There was yet another shot, higher on the neck but lower on the skull that resulted in skull damage and the fragment that exited
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? James - where would you place this wound based on this description?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
4) Why didn't others see the bleeding throat wound? It could have been below the collar...
Senator COOPER. You are saying this, then, that you did not see, yourself, at any time the mark of any wound in his neck front?
Mr. KELLERMAN. When we took him into the hospital in Dallas; that is right.
Senator COOPER. What?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; when we took him in the hospital in Dallas, I did not.
Senator COOPER. Did you ever see it?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Only after he was opened up in the morgue; yes, sir.
Senator COOPER. You saw some indication or some mark of a wound in the front of his neck?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Senator, from the report of the doctor who worked on him in Dallas, that he enlarged the incision here in his throat to perform that tracheotomy, and I believe in his own statement that that wound was there prior to this incision.
Senator COOPER. I know, but I am asking--
Mr. KELLERMAN. I didn't see it, sir.
Senator COOPER. What you saw yourself?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No; I didn't.
Representative FORD. Was that because Hill had thrown his coat over the President, or just didn't see the skin or the body at the time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir. When I--that coat was thrown over, sir, to eliminate any gruesome pictures.
Representative FORD. How far over that body? Did it go over the head only or down the chest?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No; the whole coat went all the way down to the waistline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. You saw the President's face, though, at a later time as you have described?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, thank you. This I had lost track of, to help you out, Mr. Congressman. While he lay on the stretcher in that emergency room his collar and everything is up and I saw nothing in his face to indicate an injury, whether the shot had come through or not. He was clear.
Representative FORD. But while he was on the stretcher in the emergency room you saw his face?
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right.
Representative FORD. But he had his tie and his collar still.--
Mr. KELLERMAN. Still on.
Representative FORD. Still on?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. You never saw his neck?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Representative FORD. At that time?
Mr. KELLERMAN. At that time, I did not observe him.
Representative FORD. The only time you saw him was later at the morgue?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Very much, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any blood on the portion of his body in the neck area or anyplace in the front of his body?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I don't recall any.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you observe any hole in the clothing of the President on the front part, in the shirt or tie area?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. From your observation of the wound which you observed in the morgue which you have described as a tracheotomy, would that have been above or below the shirtline when the President was clothed?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It would have been below the shirtline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you described all of the wounds of the President to which you have referred?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. GREER. No, sir. When he was in the emergency room and I was there, I did see his chest expand and move, the movement of the chest a time or so.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to observe any wound on the front side of the President?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't, I never seen any on the front side of the President.
The only thing I saw was on the head. I didn't know at the time of any other injuries on him.
Mr. SPECTER. As to the front side of the President's body, were you able to observe any hole or tear in either his shirt or tie?
Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't and I brought them back, those things, and didn't see them at the time. I probably didn't inspect them very closely but they were handed to me in a paper bag to bring back.
The first FBI laboratory reports on Kennedy’s clothes revealed that the holes in his coat and shirt submitted to both X-ray and spectrographic analysis showed traces of copper (bullet metal) around the edges of the holes. This was forensically consistent with JFK having been shot in the back with copper-jacketed ammunition. The same tests run on Kennedy’s collar and tie showed no bullet metal was found in the surrounding fabric. Rather than admit that the slits in the President’s collar and nick in his tie were not caused by an assassin’s bullet, the FBI lab report noted that the slits had the “characteristics of an exit hole for a bullet fragment.” (My italics). [2]
So James, by all indications either a fragment exited the throat as the FBI elude to or even a BONE FRAGMENT that would leave no bullet traces.
If we consider the lower neck shot entrance per Lipsey and Kellerman, I believe the angles work much better for what may have been the REAR head shot at the same time as the frontal one...
-
Tom...
I am constantly amazed by your resources... what I was wondering is whether you have used any relational data software to establish these connections in a visual manner....
it would seem to me that if you had a program that allowed you to click on a name and choose from the difference relationship connections of that person we'd be able to create visual maps showing the importance of the relationships.
If not, how do you keep these people-to-people relationships straight and how do you add to this growing database of yours?
DJ
-
David,
Thanks for providing the issue. It is quite a common issue with regard to the throat wound that needs to be addressed and can’t just be ignored.
From the points that you make regarding the moment of the head shot, it is clear that we are on different sides of the question here. However that has no influence on the point you make whether the head shot was at Z 313 or Z 343. For the sake of this argument, the head shot is the head shot irrespective of its time.
There is one criteria that must be met with this issue.
- Whatever exited the throat, it did so between Trachea rings 3 & 4. It is a criteria of the assassination and the Autopsy report. It cannot be avoided or changed. I assume there is no debate about that.
That said, I feel there is an issue that you need to address. If the wound to the throat occurred during the head shot, what is happening at Z 225?? I don’t feel it is satisfactory just to leave it unanswered. I feel that is something you ought to explain.
To help me explain why I feel you are wrong, I have created the image below.
a) I have cut away areas of the head in order to make explanation easier. The horizontal purple line represents the position of Trachea rings 3 & 4. The vertical purple line creates some idea of the boundary of the flesh on the body. I know the flesh is not vertical like the line. It is not exact in that sense.
I am assuming that you don’t necessarily accept that the bullet entered the trachea, as Humes states it did. It is not important here, we can let that lie.a) The yellow lines represent the notion that the fragments broke through the floor of the mouth at A. Now before you chastise me about the idea that the fragment went vertically down and then turned sharp right to exit, that is not what I am saying. The point I am making is that whatever the fragments angle of descent, there is going to have to be a fairly sharp change in direction to exit between these trachea rings. And exiting at trachea rings 3 & 4 is not a a debatable issue. It is an essential criteria. However, as you can see, having the fragment break through the floor of the mouth imposes restrictions on what is possible.
On that point alone I suggest that this fragment did not break through the floor of the mouth. The angle of change is just too great. You are welcome to play about with the image to make your own angles. However I feel you will come to the same conclusion as I. In order to exit between rings 3 & 4 the change in direction is impossible.
The blue lines represents that the fragments broke through the floor of the head at B. This angle is better however there is still a very steep direction change in order to exit between rings 3 & 4. It is also unlikely that it can escape going through the voice box. Now that kind of damage is not described in the autopsy or in the x-rays.Again you can play around with the lines and see if you can do better.
However let us assume that somehow, I don’t know how, you can create a satisfactory line of exit. In that case your problems have not ended there.
The damage to the lung and right strap muscle have not been accounted for. However this fragment has found a way to exit, two things it has to have done (prior to leaving the body) is damage these two organs. Nor can you say a bullet later entered through trachea rings 3 &4 and created that damage. Your argument is that this hole was created by an exiting bone fragment not a bullet entering the throat.
So, how were these organs damaged? There has to be an explanation. I would suggest it is impossible to devise any trajectory whereby a bone fragment can exit as you argue. However lets suppose there is such a trajectory. To then suggest that not only does this fragment find this path to the 3rd and 4th rings, it also finds two different paths that also allow it to damage these two organs prior to exiting. I suggest that stretches credulity beyond its acceptable tolerance.
There is considerable ambiguity in what Rankin says in that quote you use. It is not at all clear what he is referring to. However, lets assume you are right and there was a second autopsy report that Rankin had access to. That does not help you. You have to find a way to:-
a) show how a fragment could exit between 3rd and 4th trachea rings.
And also show how this same fragment could also damage the lung and right strap muscle. Note that the damage was that of bruising. Neither are described as having been struck.Thanks for raising the issue, it allowed me to examine the feasibility of an issue that often comes up. It allowed to see why this suggestion is an impossibility.
James.
Thanks so much for your great post...
I have to start out by saying that whatever was seen and recorded at the 8pm autopsy was NOT the condition of the body laying on the table at Parkland. Given what was described as most of the top and right side of his head was gone... Had he arrived at Parkland in that condition, there would have been no need for any life saving procedures... the body placed on the table at 8pm was not in the same condition as the one that died at 1pm in Dallas.
So let me ask you... without using the extant autopsy report as a guide for anything... it is possible that a bullet thru the head COULD cause a fragment of bullet or bone to escape thru the neck...
Mr. SPECTER - Would you continue to describe your observations of the President?
Dr. CARRICO - His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic, he was making no spontaneous movements,
I mean, no voluntary movements at all.
We opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.
The large skull and scalp wound had been previously observed and was inspected a little more closely.
There seemed to be a 4-5 cm. area of avulsion of the scalp and the skull was fragmented and bleeding cerebral and cerebellar tissue. The pupils were inspected and seemed to be bilaterally dilated and fixed. No pulse was present, and at that time, because of the inadequate respirations and the apparent airway injury, a cuffed endotracheal tube was introduced, employing a larynzo scope. Through the larynzo scope there seemed to be some hematoma around the larynx and immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged tracheal injury. The endotracheal tube was inserted past this injury, the cuff inflated, and the tube was connected to a respirator to assist the inadequate respiration. At about this point the nurse reported that no blood pressure was obtained.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of the neck which you have Just described, could you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO - This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage. It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations.
Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.
I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly.
I did not see any other wounds.
I examined the chest briefly, and from the anterior portion did not see any thing.
I pushed up the brace on the left side very briefly to feel for his femoral pulse, but did not obtain any.
I did no further examination because it was obvious that if any treatment were to be carried out with any success a secure effective airway must be obtained immediately.
I asked Dr. Carrico if the wound on the neck was actually a wound or had he begun a tracheotomy and he replied in the negative, that it was a wound, and at that point--
Dr. PERRY - The area of the wound, as pointed out to you in the lower third of the neck anteriorly is customarily the spot one would electively perform the tracheotomy.
This is one of the safest and easiest spots to reach the trachea. In addition the presence of the wound indicated to me there was possibly an underlaying wound to the neck muscles in the neck, the carotid artery or the jugular vein. If you are going to control these it is necessary that the incision be as low, that is toward the heart or lungs as the wound if you are going to obtain adequate control.
Therefore, for expediency's sake I went directly to that level to obtain control of the airway.
Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe, in a general way and in lay terms, the purpose for the tracheotomy at that time?
Dr. PERRY - Dr. Carrico had very judicially placed an endotracheal but unfortunately due to the injury to the trachea, the cuff which is an inflatable balloon on the endotracheal tube was not below the tracheal injury and thus he could not secure the adequate airway that you would require to maintain respiration.
(At this point, Mr. McCloy entered the hearing room.)
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Perry, you mentioned an injury to the trachea.
Will you describe that as precisely as you can, please?
Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.
I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea.
Commander HUMES - Yes; in essence we have. When examining the wounds in the base of the President's neck anteriorly, the region of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital, we noted and we noted in our record, some contusion and bruising of the muscles of the neck of the President. We noted that at the time of the postmortem examination.
Now, we also made note of the types of wounds which I mentioned to you before in this testimony on the chest which were going to be used by the doctors there to place chest tubes. They also made other wounds. one on the left arm, and a wound on the ankle of the President with the idea of administering intravenous. blood and other fluids in hope of replacing the blood which the President had lost from his extensive wounds.
Those wounds showed no evidence of bruising or contusion or physical violence, which made us reach the conclusion that they were performed during the agonal moments of the late president, and when the circulation was, in essence, very seriously embarrassed, if not nonfunctional. So that these wounds, the wound of the chest and the wound of the arm and of the ankle were performed about the same time as the tracheotomy wound because only a very few moments of time elapsed when all this was going on. So, therefore, we reached the conclusion that the damage to these muscles on the anterior neck just below this wound were received at approximately the same time that the wound here on the top of the pleural cavity was, while the President still lived and while his heart and lungs were operating in such a fashion to permit him to have a bruise in the vicinity, because that he did have in these strap muscles in the neck, but he didn't have in the areas of the other incisions that were made at Parkland Hospital. So we feel that, had this missile not made its path in that fashion, the wound made by Doctor Perry in the neck would not have been able to produce, wouldn't have been able to produce, these contusions of the musculature of the neck.
James - If I am reading this correctly, Humes is saying that the strap muscles were injured at the same time as the pleural cavity - while he was alive...and that the missle path and NOT the doctors caused the contusions in the strap muscles. That the tracheotomy did NOT injure these muscles. When we learn from testimony that they did do the damage to these muscles...
Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.
As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves
Senator COOPER - Assuming that we draw a straight line from Point "C" which you have described as a possible point of entry of the missile, to Point "D" where you saw an incision of the tracheotomy--
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Senator COOPER - What would be the relation of the bruise at the apex of the pleural sac to such a line?
Commander HUMES - It would be exactly in line with such a line, sir. exactly.
Mr. SPECTER - Aside from the slight differences which are notable by observing those two exhibits, are they roughly comparable to the angle of decline?
Commander HUMES - I believe them to be roughly comparable, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Could you state for the record an approximation of the angle of decline?
Commander HUMES - Mathematics is not my forte. Approximately 45 degrees from the horizontal.
REALLY? Looks to me there is no way to have a bullet enter at T3, travel DOWNWARD at 45 degrees, or even 20 degrees... TOUCH THE PLEURAL CAVITY... and exit at a spot well ABOVE the pleural bruise.
My point James is that the autopsy and the information related to it is pure BS from start to finish... the illustration below makes it obvious as the trachea ring they are pointing to is the 3rd ring... since there is no downward connection between the rear hole and the trach hole AND for a bullet to injure the plureal cavity AND exit the trachea it would have to be moving UPWARD.
If, on the other hand, there was a shot from the front to the throat from above and TO THE SOUTH OF THE LIMO... the bullet would damage the right side of JFK's neck and possibly injure the pleural cavity. With the back wound many times the size of the front, is it not possible the bullet went thru front to back?
As you can tell, there is very little resolution to the issue since the data we are working with is so unreliable. That Humes and others rejected the cerebellum damage seen at Parkland and did not dissect the wound, nor perform a complete autopsy I find it hard to conclude that a fragment could NOT have caused the hole. Yet just as possible is a south knoll shot that transits, a SK shot whose bullet is removed prior to 8pm in Bethesda... OR it was indeed a fragment.
Cheers to you James... enjoyable discussion
DJ
- Whatever exited the throat, it did so between Trachea rings 3 & 4. It is a criteria of the assassination and the Autopsy report. It cannot be avoided or changed. I assume there is no debate about that.
-
Cliff, I am going to have to assume that there were a number of military personnel in that room who do not have anyone who will VOUCH they were there for a number of reasons. But how about Major Gen Wehle who is listed on the autopsy attendee sheet from I believe the S&O report
LIPSEY: So, we watched the autopsy. Once again, my hours are a little fuzzy. The autopsy lasted approx. , if I'm not mistaken, approx. 3 - 4 hours. After that we stayed in the room. When the men from the funeral home came in, because, by this time when Gen Wehle had come back down, but he was in and out. He was still making a lot of arrangements, but he would come in occasionally for a couple of minutes to let me go out and take a little break. Then the men from the funeral home came in and we sat there while they more or less put him back together and made the cosmetic, made the different cosmetic changes that had to be made on the body.
Yes, Kellerman is describing the right temple wound to the RIGHT OF THE EAR in the hairline. Just yet another wound location not listened to or recorded by the WCR… Lipsey is in good company
Cliff – that they describe a frontal shot after a SHOOTING EVENT is no real stretch now is it? Then the hole was sliced thru… THEN it was obliterated… what we see on the Zfilm – IF THE THROAT WOUND WAS CAUSED BY A FRAGMENT – is his reaction to the shot in the back which even if it only went in a inch or so could and would cause pain to the throat area AND cause the arms to raise…. The reaction is fine… that you believe it was caused by a paralyzing ice dart is still a stretch. Hearing “My God, I’m hit” and the number of fragments, a very small 2-3mm fragment could have easily caused that hole.
So yes, it is possible that they were wrong about the throat wound.
Again Cliff… they were in an ER dealing with a gunshot victim. It was a VERY SMALL HOLE so either you have your ice dart… or it was an exiting fragment. Maybe if they dissected the wound – or let Rose do the autopsy – we’d know.
The MEDICAL EVIDENCE is inauthentic Cliff… not the Parkland witnesses. They saw a gunshot entry, which as I say, is expected. But even by their standards it was a VERY SMALL HOLE for a bullet. Besides… if you are going to foster the ice bullet/flechette idea please remember that they were designed to leave no mark, enter undetected thru clothing… If the throat would can be considered “undetected” the CIA must have gone back to the drawing board…
“Cause no one was hit” – so hearing a shot, seeing the dust… means the SS should what… slow the car down further?
The back shot occurs at about z220. The 143 frames prior I discuss is 313-143 = z190 so it really should be 113 frames earlier…. I hypothesize that the “FIRE” command came over a radio and up to three people fired simultaneously…
The delay in seconds you attribute to the toxin working is AGAIN, not how it was designed. If you are going to argue hi-tech CIA weapons… then get what they do correct please. This toxin was instantaneous… as designed. What good would shooting a dog with a weapon that took seconds to work… BARK BARK. The 6 second delay thing is not applicable IF the wound was a fragment… The BACKWOUND could have caused the same paralysis and still allow him to speak. How would YOU FEEL with a bullet lodged in your back?
Your description of JFK trying to loosen his tie is absurd Cliff… and of course the BACKSHOT comes after the FIRST SHOT… the FIRST SHOT occurs at z160 to many… z190-220 for others like JC who know it hit JFK before he was hit by a separate shot. Jackie describing JFK as “quizzical” is nice and all but it is just an adjective… So Cliff, he’s shot in the throat at what 190? And we so no blood, no realization of blood by Jackie who is looking right at him, nothing seen by Nellie…
Now take a look at the FRONT of JFK’s shirt… Good luck with that as the only image I have of the FRONT is the closeup of the button and lapels… there was a bullet hole not an inch from this button and collar… where’s all the blood from this wound?
They got it wrong – possibly – because all they saw was the entrance hole… and then it is lost to history.
I am still going to disagree with your premise that the throat wound MUST have been caused by a shot… not because anyone at Parkland was so wrong… they just went on instinct… SMALL ENTRY LARGE EXIT was what they saw… TINY entrance and the head blown out in the occip….
All I am saying is there is also evidence that contradicts the autopsy findings that a fragment MAY have caused the throat wound and the related trauma surrounding it… a fragment coursing thru JFK would cause a number of the upper chest wounds that were recorded.
I repeat, I cannot say one way or the other based on the available evidence whether the throat wound was NOT a fragment exiting. I can also say that a frontal shot to accomplish what you suggest is possible… but not necessarily the ONLY solution to the throat wound.
I do not see his reaction at 225+ as having to be in response to a throat wound as opposed to a back one which in turn makes your 6 second argument moot. IF there was no throat shot… the fragment theory makes perfect sense.
And I appreciate the restraint… I do not think any less of you as a person for believing in ice bullets and self-propelled flechettes…. Because I think you make valid points presented well I enjoy the conversation… I will leave some room for a throat shot if you leave some room for other possibilities.
Cheers Cliff
DJ
-
I believe I addressed your post but want to clarify...
I am not arguing against the T3 wound - no matter how you slice it the SBT is not possible.
Now, whether the damage you described was actually seen at the autopsy - again, how would we know if they did not write it down?
Check the autopsy report... there is simply no mention of the condition of JFK's head, mouth, sinus, neck, throat... http://jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
so we could not know whether those areas were damaged or not.
With regards to the findings of the Parkland Doctors and the throat wound... it LOOKED like a small entry wound...
Rankin tells us that AN AUTOPSY REPORT informs them that that hole was caused by a fragment... this HAD to be written somewhere for him to quote it.
And it had to have been changed to what the autopsy says today.
Do you have info that they did look at these areas you name and concluded something from that examination? your #d) no evidence from Bethesda does not mean it was not there, it simply means it was not even looked at... a BIG difference.
Cheers
DJ
David,
O.k. lets discuss this. First can you point me to the Rankin quote. I am not familiar with it.
Lets assume that the throat wound is an exit wound, as you suggest.
So I can think this through, before replying are we agreed that this throat wound occurred before Z 225. Or are you contesting that, that is not the moment.
In which case when do you suggest this wound happened?
James.
Ok... sounds good
From the Jan 27 1964 Exec Session.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0069a.htm
Mr. Rankin:
....We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably
a fragment came out the front of the neck...
For the throat wound to be of exit it would have to be a result of the bone and bullet fragments from a head shot... and depending on who you believe this was either at 313 or 343 (there is very good evidence that the WCR pushed the location of 313 from 4+65 to 4+95 feet... 30 feet further down the road)
So no, if the wound is as Rankin says the Autopsy described as a fragment exiting... it could not be before 225 and Kellerman was correct when he heard JFK speak after the back wound. I believe they were most afraid of an autopsy in TX that would reveal the frontal shot(s) as well as to find bullets that were written about but are no longer around.
If you look at the Frazier/Todd/Rowley/Cunningham bullet trail... it is obvious there are more bullets than accounted for.
Cheers
DJ
-
I believe I addressed your post but want to clarify...
I am not arguing against the T3 wound - no matter how you slice it the SBT is not possible.
Now, whether the damage you described was actually seen at the autopsy - again, how would we know if they did not write it down?
Check the autopsy report... there is simply no mention of the condition of JFK's head, mouth, sinus, neck, throat... http://jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
so we could not know whether those areas were damaged or not.
With regards to the findings of the Parkland Doctors and the throat wound... it LOOKED like a small entry wound...
Rankin tells us that AN AUTOPSY REPORT informs them that that hole was caused by a fragment... this HAD to be written somewhere for him to quote it.
And it had to have been changed to what the autopsy says today.
Do you have info that they did look at these areas you name and concluded something from that examination? your #d) no evidence from Bethesda does not mean it was not there, it simply means it was not even looked at... a BIG difference.
Cheers
DJ
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 --
James...
That is what they TELL us... Sorry, but the FBI's track record with regards to this case's physical evidence is pathetic.
Does that little crescent look as if anything was taken from there as opposed to the lower hole...
Shouldn't we have seen fibers from the jacket and shirt in his backwound and on the bullet?
And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket.
David I have never examined the jacket, however Humes did examine it on Monday March 16th before he went on to testify. On P. 365 it appears that Specter wanted Humes to say that this upper hole is the back entrance wound through the jacket. There is a superb moment when asked by Specter does this hole go all the way through the jacket, Humes initially says yes. Then he pauses for a moment and says this hole is not quite as clear as the damage to the lower hole. Then, when asked directly by Specter does this hole go all the way through the jacket, Humes says no. The damage does not go all the way through.
However it is not just the appearance of a hole in this region of the jacket, it is that there is no corresponding hole in the body that coincides with this damage to the jacket. I may argue that the back hole seen in the autopsy image is unlikely to be around T3, I feel it may be nearer T2. But what is certain is that this hole is also nowhere near where you believe this damage to the jacket is. Let alone the fact that Humes, who did examine the jacket, is on record stating that it is not a through hole through the complete jacket.
There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round.
It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited.
There is a logic to this idea, but it does not stack up. Aside from the fact that the embalmers note refers to small damage to the cheek and not inside the mouth. Putting aside that this happens too early in the assassination it is not possible. It is not just that damage has to be inside the mouth the following have also to be damaged.
a) there has to be a hole in the roof of the mouth to allow these fragments into the mouth.
there also has to be hole in the floor of the mouth to allow these fragments to move into the tracheac) there also has to be a means whereby these same fragments can now exit the trachea.
d) there is no evidence that this kind of damage was discovered at Bethesda.
AND all this has to be done in such a way as to fool experienced Parkland doctors into thinking what they are seeing is a bullet wound of entrance.
The problems involved for this to happen are so complex, they make it an impossibility.
I concur that there is a logic to your idea but practically speaking the requirements for it to happen far outweigh the possibilities.
James
-
='Cliff Varnell' date='18 April 2012 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1334711223' post='250682']
='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680']
And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket.
Who testified to a "wound thru JFK" at the base of his neck? How is it, David, that everyone who saw
JFK's low back wound and everyone who saw his throat entrance wound got it wrong in the same way?
Mass hallucination?
Gimme a break...
============
No Cliff... just a few people who saw things differently... Except ANYTHING at Bethesda has to be taken on faith as we reallt have no idea what occurred between Parkland and that table.
LIPSEY: Alright, as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more of less at the bottom of the neck.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680']
CLIFF:
It is also possible that Rankin was correct when he said he was looking at an autopsy report....
There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round.
I disagree most vigorously.
They had the capacity to paralyze a target before the kill shot -- to insure a kill shot, to avoid the
possibility that a non-lethal first shot might cause JFK to duck down. JFK seized up paralyzed in about 2 seconds,
utterly consistent with known testing by the CIA.
They had the capacity to fire a blood soluble toxin with the second shot.
These capacities existed. It's a fact. Why do you think they wouldn't use the technology available to them?
==========
I am of the opinion that he DID speak since the backwound was a shallow, non-transitting one, and the throat wound comes after the headshot.
Since the autopsy was not properly done we have no idea what the head, skull, mouth, or any other thing actually looked like at the time of the shooting.
I am willing to agree to disagree about the throat shot Cliff... I do not want to get into a shouting match over something that is masked by inauthentic evidence.
ANY shot prior to the kill shot would be cause for alarm, if alarms were on people's minds... they weren't. We have a shot just after the turn onto Elm... there is plenty of corroboration for this shot "sounding like a firecracker or backfire" (ground level sounds) and causing cement to kick up beside the limo.... Why weren't the alarms raised at this point... plus, it is 143 z frames after the back shot before 313... are you saying that his being paralyzed in turn cause the SS agents to be paralyzed? cause Jackie not to pull him down, Greer to speed off?
I do not accept your premise as to WHY a paralyzing shot would even be taken, and especially so far before the killzone... No Cliff... I am going to stick with the throat wound NOT being a bullet but a fragment along with other fragments... and themedical evidence we have is simply not complete enough to say ne way or the other....
Mr. KELLERMAN. As we turned off Houston onto Elm and made the short little dip to the left going down grade, as I said, we were away from buildings, and were there was a sign on the side of the road which I don't recall what it was or what it said, but we no more than passed that and you are out in the open, and there is a report like a firecracker, pop. And I turned my head to the right because whatever this noise was I was sure that it came from the right and perhaps into the rear, and as I turned my head to the right to view whatever it was or see whatever it was, I heard a voice from the back seat and I firmly believe it was the President's, "My God, I am hit," and I turned around and he has got his hands up here like this.
='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680']
It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited.
So JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat before he suffered a wound in his throat? And all the people
at Parkland who spoke of a throat entrance wound suffered the same mis-impression?
No, I don't find either of those scenarios likely at all, to put it mildly.
==========
Again Cliff...it's all how you want to see it. IF there was no frontal shot... AND we know the back shot did not go thru the throat... the only other possibility is a fragment of bullet or bone. IF there WAS a frontal shot I am willing to entertain your theories... I am just not yet convinced of this throat shot when there are other explanations as well as contradictions with Kellerman's testimony.
='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680']
Sadly, since the evidence with which we are given to work is such crap... completely inauthentic, proving what happened is futile.
There is nothing inauthentic about the statements of the witnesses to the low back wound and the throat entrance wound.
You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater -- and indirectly engaging in the same witness bashing we get from LNers.
==========
Maybe you misunderstand... there WAS a lower back wound... and yes, the throat hole was considered an entrance wound from a bullet at Parkland, no argument there.
But you have to address the 143 frames or so where JFK had been shot at least once in the back... and whether paralyzed or not, NOBODY - save Hill - comes to his aid...
NOBODY speeds away, Nobody moves heaven and earth to cover up and save the president...
Whether the hole was an ice dart or not has no bearing on that travesty or the FACT the final shot(s) were from the front.
='David Josephs' date='17 April 2012 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1334706576' post='250680']
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
What was said FIRST, and later corrected to implicate Oswald more completely... MAY be the real clues to the mystery... If a bullet worked its way out AND a fragment exited the throat...
we have very simple answers for very strange happenings.... While I still think ANYTHING is possible including the ice bullet idea... our disagreement does not detract at all from the conclusion...
Cheers
DJ
Rankin struggling to put the evidence into a 3-shot scenario is amusing. And ridiculous. The witnesses
with the best view of JFK describe him reacting to throat trauma from the first shot, which is what the
Zapruder film also shows.
Do you really think JFK started reacting to throat trauma before he was struck in the throat?
I don't.
And I see no reason to impeach the testimony of the throat and back witnesses in favor of such capricious scenarios.
======
A fragment of bone exiting the throat is NOT a capricious scenario... in fact, are you sure you mean "capricious"?
ca•pri•cious adjective
1. subject to, led by, or indicative of caprice or whim; erratic: He's such a capricious boss I never know how he'll react.
2. Obsolete . fanciful or witty.
What JFK is doing with his hands can be interpreted a number of ways... I see him being pushed forward slightly AFTER his arms raise from behind the sign.
Plus, wouldn't we expect to see some blood on JFK if he has a hole in his throat? Looking at Altgens and Z255-260... not so much. Yet I have reached no conclusion on this matter.
All I do know is that while either scenario is possible as the technology was available.... I don't know how we can resolve the holes left in each.
Cheers
DJ
-
David:
There has been a lot written on this forum about Dulles.
I mean not just by me either. Most people think he is on the short list of suspects in this case.
Not just because of the WC, although there is a lot to talk about there.
But his actions in deceiving Kennedy about the Bay of Pigs. And then trying to cover this up at the hearings and also in the press.
This is something I am going to deal a lot with in the first part of my rewrite.
Since I think this is crucial to understanding the case.
Agree 100% Jim....
But jumping on the man - who if you notice has been a member a while - cause he only has a few posts and asks a decent enough question (albeit covered in the past) is indicative of the OTHER forums where freedom to express oneself is crushed from so many directions.
Your response just caught me by surprise I guess.... Dulles is an amazing subject and worthy of many discussions...
I hope I did not overreact here... a little sensitive from the other forums I'm sure.
DJ
-
John et al... thanks for all that you do to keep this available.
Also thanks to the mods for keeping this place civil
-
James...
That is what they TELL us... Sorry, but the FBI's track record with regards to this case's physical evidence is pathetic.
Does that little crescent look as if anything was taken from there as opposed to the lower hole...
Shouldn't we have seen fibers from the jacket and shirt in his backwound and on the bullet?
And there are those that testify to a hole thru JFK right about at that spot on the jacket.
One possible explanation includes the finding of the Bell bullet, the finding of the bullet in JFK's clothes at Bethesda, the two bullets discussed in two separate SS reports as posted and the Murray photos of out favorite blond man taking something from where Foster says a bullet lodged.
Let's make this plain as Day - the FBI and SS made evidence disappear. Pieces of the jigsaw puzzle are gone forever so that we will never see the whole picture. That there was a conspiracy if no longer an issue. Why it is continuing to this day to be glossed over is a different subject entirely... one that NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY will help you understand.
CLIFF:
It is also possible that Rankin was correct when he said he was looking at an autopsy report....
There is little if any reason to shoot JFK in the throat from the front with such a small round.
It is MUCH MORE LIKELY that a fragment of bullet or bone exited there (the embalmers notes include 2-3 small holes in the cheeks where "shrapnel" is said to have exited.
Sadly, since the evidence with which we are given to work is such crap... completely inauthentic, proving what happened is futile.
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
What was said FIRST, and later corrected to implicate Oswald more completely... MAY be the real clues to the mystery... If a bullet worked its way out AND a fragment exited the throat...
we have very simple answers for very strange happenings.... While I still think ANYTHING is possible including the ice bullet idea... our disagreement does not detract at all from the conclusion...
Cheers
DJ
-
Yo Jim... 6 or 6000... what does it matter if a question is asked in good faith with a reasonable expectation of an answer?
I'd have to search, but are you aware of any works that detail Allen's activities from his firing to his inclusion on the WC?
Was he being watched by the FBI? Anyone else?
I am simply not that up on Allen's activities in this time period and would think if he was involved, it would be fairly easy to pinpoint suspicious activity...
Then again, if the JOKE is that he was on the WC and was able to remove evidence of ANY of his activities... then ok, funny joke.
But if there is a piece written on this time period - I would like to see it.
thanks
DJ
-
Been reading about Baggett, Hawkins, Hutson and the lists of officers who all subdued Oswald.
What we do not have are the names of the rest of the officers in the alley... or do we?
and were any of them called to testify? If he was back there when Oswald was let out the front
he would have to have seen the OTHER Oswald taken away. No?
thanks
-
-
Gee James...
Where could it have possibly gone?
-
Most local tv/cable stations will still have a beta machine... if finding one gets tough
fwiw
DJ
-
Mike,
The Military DID it ...
Peace
DJ
David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. But the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 elevated the CIA above the military.
Peace to you as well,
M.
Thanks Mike... Hope you read "None Dare....." I believe if you have not, it will change the way you see the assassination and CIA....
With regards to your comment above.... would you quantify "elevated" please... I've read over the Act and while it allows Financial and personnel secrecy...
the CIA still had to go thru the Military for anything they wanted..
If anything, the Act allowed the CIA to get into more trouble than the 1947 envisioned.
I look forward to your response
DJ
David,
Oddly enough None Dare Call It Conspiracy was the first book I ever read on this subject. In 1973, was loaned to me by a college friend as I was talking about the JFK conspiracy to him.
I'd like to read it again, but I recall it was quite from a John Bircher bent.
Dawn
Hey there Dawn...
Would like to know what you mean by "Bircher bent"
thanks
DJ
-
Mike,
The Military DID it ...
Peace
DJ
David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. But the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 elevated the CIA above the military.
Peace to you as well,
M.
Thanks Mike... Hope you read "None Dare....." I believe if you have not, it will change the way you see the assassination and CIA....
With regards to your comment above.... would you quantify "elevated" please... I've read over the Act and while it allows Financial and personnel secrecy...
the CIA still had to go thru the Military for anything they wanted..
If anything, the Act allowed the CIA to get into more trouble than the 1947 envisioned.
I look forward to your response
DJ
Yes, under the Act, the CIA "had to go thru the Military for anything they wanted." But that's the point. The CIA got anything it wanted. The Act gave it unlimited access to military resources for its own purposes without accountability under certain circumstances, which it could (and often did) fabricate. The Act allowed the CIA to call the shots and not even the JCS would know what it was doing. That's a coup in itself: a secret agency obtaining use of all U.S. military power.
Biography: http://educationforu...st&p=235641
I will grant you that the Act made the CIA much more powerful and less accountable... yet all the Military Intelligence acronyms were in existence well before and imo the line between the CIA and Military was virtually invisible. The Military had the budget, manpower, equipment and history... I think the CIA simply took the most evil and cunning of the Military intelligence... added European spy networks and more Evil... added other "personnel" with very little care other than their ability to destroy...
and the CIA was born.
Curious... Anthony Frank used to post here often and had a POV that stated the KGB had so infultrated the CIA by then that this and other assassiantions were all part of a KGB plan... he says that in the 1984 closed sessions, hundreds of KGB were identified within the CIA... he wrote an interesting book on the subject that he let me read the drafts of, yet it seemed to me to stop short of the required proof... just wondering if you had come across his posts
DJ
-
Mike,
The Military DID it ...
Peace
DJ
David, I appreciate your thoughtful response. But the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 elevated the CIA above the military.
Peace to you as well,
M.
Thanks Mike... Hope you read "None Dare....." I believe if you have not, it will change the way you see the assassination and CIA....
With regards to your comment above.... would you quantify "elevated" please... I've read over the Act and while it allows Financial and personnel secrecy...
the CIA still had to go thru the Military for anything they wanted..
If anything, the Act allowed the CIA to get into more trouble than the 1947 envisioned.
I look forward to your response
DJ
-
A very valid point Martin...
But since the DPD Homicide Division did not see clear enough to want to use a stenographer for Oswald's interrogation...
I get the feeling the DETAILS were really not all that important, as in "we're helping with the frame-up so all the details have to work" was NOT a train of thought...
What was ? Getting the (Ozzie/Hidell) rifle to the 6th floor FROM Irving the day before..... If they didn't need his interrogation in court... what use would there be for all the other "evidence"?
It would make sense that those who dropped the hulls and rifle would also leave the bag... and this presupposes that Oswald was TOLD to go home on Thurday for whatever reason that was needed.
Now, if Oswald had Irving Sports Shop mount a scope in Novemeber... and this was OUR OSWALD
how are the BYP authentic with a scoped rifle in March?
That morning FBI Agent Emory Horton arrived at Dial Ryder's house in Irving
at 10:30a m. Commission atorney Liebeler asked, "How did Horton know to come
out to the sports shop?" Ryder replied, "Actually, I don't know .... .I told him I had a ticket
with the name Oswald, no date, no address, just for drilling and tapping and
boresighting-no address, or name; he didn't say he'd like to see the ticket ..... we went
up to the Irving Sports Shop and I opened it up and got the ticket and showed him."78
Liebeler asked, "Did you give the tag to Mr. Horton?" Ryder replied, "No; he told us
to hold on to it, keep it and they would probably get it later on and they did."79
Ryder told agent Horton there was no record of selling mounts for the scope and
this indicated to him that the customer (allegedly Oswald) brought the scope and mounts
with his gun. Ryder said the only work he would have performed was the labor to drill,
tap, and bore sight the rifle.
When shown a photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, Ryder said that he associated
Oswald's picture with that of an individual who brought in an Argentine made rifle about
two weeks ago and had a scope attached to the gun.80 But Ryder explained that an Argentine
rifle has a different bolt assembly than did the gun found on the 6th floor of the
TSBD. The FBI neither asked Ryder for the name and address of the man who brought in the
Argentine rifle, nor did they review the shop's repair tickets, nor did they make any attempt to learn
if the individual ever existed.
-
According to Armstrong (page 17)
NOTE: After the assassination Dallas Police detectives found a document that has been
incorrectly identified as Oswald's birth certificate. This document is listed as item #448
in Warren Commission Exhibit 2003 and identified as "Birth Certificate# 17034." This
document is NOT a birth certificate nor is it the "Declaration of Birth" mentioned above.
Item #448 is merely an acknowledgment by the New Orleans Parish Office of Records of
Births, Marriages and Deaths that Oswald's birth was recorded in Book 207, Folio
1321. 52-03 Upon payment of a small fee, anyone can obtain such a certificate.
The orinal "Declaration of Birth" has never been found, nor was a copy published in
the Warren Volumes. The FBI obtained a Copy of this document from an unknown source,
which was released by the FBI along with thousands of other J F K related documents in
1978.
So still no Birth Certificate for Oswald...
-
question - if they were going to invent the paper bag in response to pressure like this - why did they not come up with something more convincing and/or consistent with something that could contain a rifle? Why did they describe something with dimensions that made no sense? I would a assume that a story concocted with and for the police would have devised something more plausible than a bag that was too small.
The bag was needed to get the rifle to the TSBD... there NEVER was a bag in Wesley's car...
In fact, the bag may have been brought in by the man Yates gives a ride and drops off right outside the TSBD...
with a 3-4 foot package.
The bag also was never in the corner of the TSBD... an interesting mystery inside the mystery...
Read the testimony of Studebaker, Day, Montgomery... and try to find out who and how that bag gets from that corner, to the photos of Monty holding the bag out front...
I'veposted it before... it is very telling...
Enjoy
DJ
-
Trying to find WHEN Rose/Stovall could have picked up his rifle and WHY?
Here are the first references to a 30-30...
12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) The type of weapon looked like a 30-30 rifle or some type of Winchester.
12:44 Dispatcher 9, it was a rifle?
12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) A rifle, yes.
12:44 Dispatcher 9, any clothing description?
12:44 9 (Inspector J.H. Sawyer) About 30, 5'10", 165 pounds.
12:47 Dispatcher Signal 19, involving the President. Suspect: white male, thirty, slender build, five feet ten inches, one hundred sixty-five pounds, believed to have used 30 caliber rifle. Believed to be in the old School Book Depository, Elm and Houston, at this time.
And some proof that a poly was done....
Mr. BALL. Okay, that will be fine. We will do this. Thanks very much.
Mr. ROSE. Let's see, there was something else I was going to tell you now, I wanted to mention--we did run Wesley Frazier on the polygraph, did you know that?
Mr. BALL. I know you did--we know about that.
If shots were fired within that building... why do we see over and over the DPD letting citizens BACK IN right afterward?
Representative FORD - Did any of the policemen interfere with your efforts to go into the Building and eventually down into the basement where you had your lunch?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they didn't.
I found Rose's report about going back and searching Wesley's place... The last page has them taking Wesley home and then getting a call and turning around...
I thought maybe Dowdy did the report but there's nothing in the database authored by him.... and only one poly from Lewis...
We all know (incl DPD) that a polygraph wasn't all that reliable... what was so important that Wesley HAD to be shown to be telling the truth? The Bag??
DJ
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box3.htm Folder 1 - #3
I am assuming that you don’t necessarily accept that the bullet entered the trachea, as Humes states it did. It is not important here, we can let that lie.
Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Cliff, it's a matter of interpretation of said evidence and the authenticity related to it.
You "not seeing how" anything occurs is really not a rebuttal... you have no idea how deep the back bullet might have gone and which nerves it might have damaged.
You're not a doctor and cannot possibly understand what is involved anatomically with the way his hands, arms and body moved after being shot...
I am more than willing to revisit the film and the sequence and keep an open mind... if he had the motor skills to try and untie his tie... why not use them to get down and out of the way...
unless the toxin starts to work and he is frozen... which indeed is what we seem to see.
I am putting together a frame by frame collage... give me some time and let's see what it shows
Cheers
DJ