Nick Bartetzko

I know little about ballistics. Well! While I dig out the answer to your question, perhaps a little comparison would be of benefit. P.S. It was long ago reviewed by one with the full credentials of the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation (OSBI) and a full member of AFTE. Tom I reviewed the document, photos etc. You research is meticulous and your theories are "persuasive". But you make a supposition that a tumbling bullet would leave as clean an entry wound (4x7mm) striking from the tail end vs the nose end and that is specifically what I do not understand. Are you saying that all tumbling bullets will leave sharp entry wounds? I will phrase it a different way. If a bullet is fired directly into a tree branch and begins to tumble/wobble, what factors (deflection, velocity?) affect whether that wobbling bullet would enter perfectly to match the precise 4 x 7mm measurement or leave a much larger wound indicative of a tumbling, wobbling object? If a bullet wobbles side to side, it would leave a larger wound and if it wobbles end over end, it would need to strike at a very precise point to leave a clean 4x7mm wound. I don't know any other way to phrase my questions. I don't recall you discussing the characteristics of tumbling bullets and what ballistics issues would determine a larger than normal wound vs a standard wound. Nick

Next, when we know that either a "paper punch" or a flat-nosed "wadcutter" bullet creates an entry point which has relatively clean cut edges, and we recognize that CE#399 has only one flat end, and that flat end measures the exact dimensions as to the entry wound into the back of JFK, and that entry wound had relatively clean-cut edges, then even our "Jethro Bodine" sixth grade children can figure out exactly which end of CE399 struck JFK and is responsible for the back entry wound. I know little about ballistics. Could you or "Jethro" just answer a couple of questions for me....1) what is the likelihood of a tumbling bullet leaving what appears to be a clean 4x7mm wound? 2) wouldn't any tumbling bullet leave a much larger wound, more in keeping with the length of the bullet itself?

Gil, as always, you post interesting videos. Can you elaborate on your opinion in the video that the body was already in another casket and was altered at Walter Reed? Seems David Lifton and others have tried that route and have yet to come up with any Walter Reed witnesses. Nick

I'm just re-reading this important and interesting thread....and whoa...! isn't Barrett the man identified as the FBI man in the Plaza looking at, reaching for and picking up something in the grass near the road...many think a bullet?! How the hell did he get to the Tippit shooting area to witness a wallet handover...did certain folks have a script of what was to happen where and when?!..... I've read this thread again and it doesn't appear that Barrett's identity in DP was ever confirmed....although long suspected. I believe he has also denied it. IIRC, some time ago there was a thread (maybe on Rich DellaRosa's site) on the mystery man showing the photos of him putting something/nothing in his pocket. I believe Leavelle said he knows who the man is, but will not reveal the name to respect the man's privacy. I am presuming no one has shown those interesting/suspicious photos to Leavelle, otherwise he might change his mind. Nick

I met Vince at a Jerry Rose JFK conference in Fredonia New York about 1991. He has done tremendous work over the years and it's an honor to have him on this forum.

Any idea which officer is in front of the limo? Ellis or Freeman?

I agree. Not sure what purpose it serves to alienate those who have agreed to take the time to join the forum and answer questions. Nick

Thanks, Gil. Interesting video and good quality. Looks like there are a few frames of Lovelady as well. Nick

Here's a link for the obituary notice for Nancy Denlea. http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=nancy+den...amp;ei=UTF-8and I had never known her last name was Denlea, but I'm well aware of that name. Her husband, Leo, was the CEO of a large insurance company I worked for and I had an opportunity to meet him on a few occasions. The Denlea family lived in the Hancock Park area of Los Angeles. I vaguely recall seeing a copy of the obituary of Admiral Burkley that he had died in Los Angeles. That now makes sense as his daughter took care of him in his last years. Apparently Admiral Burkley had 3 other children. It would be interesting to know if they are still alive and if they have authority to waive the attorney/client privilege or if that opportunity is lost as Mrs Denlea was the estate executor. Maybe Bill Kelly could comment on this.

That link to Olivier's Rockefeller report serves as a reminder. Once again, thank you for putting all the Rockefeller medical panel stuff up online. It led me to a still unappreciated discovery. It's absolutely stunning that radiologist Fred Hodges told the Rockefeller Commission the skull entrance was in the occipital bone as determined at autopsy. Apparently, no one noticed that he was contradicting the Clark Panel's assessment of an entrance 4 inches higher on the skull, and thought it worthwhile to clear this up. Instead, the Belin-led PR machine pumped out that the doctors confirmed two shots from behind and locked away the details so no one could see the extent of the mess he'd uncovered. Pat Thanks for the Rockefeller Commission information. I'd never heard of radiologist Fred Hodges and his startling conclusion. I presume this is Dr Hodges. http://www.mir.wustl.edu/neurorad/internal.asp?NavID=10 Nick

That is an interesting theory and a different way to interpret the movements of JFK and JBC. I'm very familiar with Doug's good work on the windshield. If your theory is correct, then when did the back wound occur? Another possible explanation that occurred to me when reading your post is that the shot went through the windshield and missed. Maybe this is the shot that Virgie Rachley and others saw hit the street.

Great collection of videos you have come up with. Regarding the Milteer tape, seems to me I recall hearing a much better copy, although I don't recall which TV program that was. Nick

Hi Bernice Thanks for that link. It had been a while since I last saw it. I've always been interested in Wilson's work. What is curious about the video is the wound shown in Moorman does not appear similar to what is allegedly obscured in the autopsy photo. Any thoughts on that? Anyone else also notice that? Nick

Yes only as to the top two photos. I assume that is Robert Oswald in the photo. So what government branch would be accompanying/protecting him at that time? Nick

Welcome....I think...to this forum. You are entitled to your opinions, some of which might actually be correct. The death of JFK is indeed somewhat of an obsession to some of those here, because they believe it to be a national disgrace that the true facts were never disclosed by the government. Unlike you, I do not have any confidence that the WC "got it right". Neither the HSCA. If you look, you can read Tannenbaum's and Sprague's comments about what it was like dealing with Congress while trying to conduct another "official" murder investigation in the late 1970's. Those experienced criminal investigators left and a law professor (Blakey) was hired to "solve the crime". That was, of course, within the funding constraints allocated by the Congress. IOW, we'll get to "the truth" if it doesn't cost us too much money. Many folks here have spent countless hours researching documents, providing photos and help on their own or when asked. If it is not worth your time to register and peruse the forum, then please do not do so. I appreciate living in these United States, but that does not automatically mean that I believe every official government report or press release issued by same government. It is my belief that some refuse to consider the possibility of government deception in the JFK case because, to do so, would so undermine their confidence in this country. I can accept the possibility of deception or a revealing of less than all of the known facts. To do so would not permanently lessen my long term confidence in this country. Sincerely, Nick Bartetzko

Well, Nick... I... Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg. It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are." But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg. Ashton Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof?? Nick, was I that transparent? I think my report card is going to say "Needs work on social skills." Well, I wasn't being at all facetious when I said I really did appreciate your effort, because I do, but value is where you find it, and in my own research efforts I generally use a steamshovel to sweep interpretations, paraphrasings, hearsay, philosophical musings, opinions, and conclusions into the dumpster by the cubic ton. I try wherever possible to go to primary sources. Where and if I have to turn to other sources, I have a rule of two to compare, preferably three—or dumpster bound.It's a brutal method of research and not for everyone. Also isn't worth a damn for a leisurely rainy-day read. Touché. Ashton Ashton Well.....just maybe......sometimes your social skills could use a "bit of refining". Occasionally, I get a bit irked when I see a lack of civility in some of the posts...and that is not at all limited to your posts. I just don't see a need for harsh rhetoric toward others. You and I differ on the value of Weisberg's research and conclusions. FWIW (and likely not much to you), Weisberg does quote Carrico as saying the neck wound was above the level of the shirt (please don't ask me to spend the time to type it all). My interpretation of the Z film is JFK beginning to show distress either to a neck wound or the sound of gunshot(s) as he emerges from behind the sign. Immediately thereafter, it is obvious to me that he is struck in the back from a relatively flat trajectory shot as he appears to be driven forward. If we assume that Connally's back wound is close to that point, he appears to be driven more downward by impact, reflecting a different shooter trajectory and location. I look forward to more of your posts. Regards, Nick

Well, Nick... I... Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg. It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are." But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg. Ashton Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof?? Glad I made the effort to quote Weisberg. IMHO, in spite of the excess verbiage, Weisberg did come up with some very valuable information. Still makes for easier reading than the WC. BTW, your research is much appreciated and sometimes your writing style as well. Nick

That is the fall-down funniest thing I have read in ages. Can't thank you enough. This has gotten my new year off to a rollicking start. (I think the dry delivery is what brought it to laugh-to-tears-level. Priceless. I hope the Brits are paying attention.) Ashton Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377. This is Weisberg, in his unique writing style, speaking of Perry. I have skipped a few paragraphs of Perry's comments about Connally's wounds and the President's head wounds. From my interviews with him, I am without doubt that, had he not been subjected to powerful and improper pressures, there would have been no word he would have said that would not have been completely dependable. From time to time embarrassment showed. He began defensively, going back to the anterior neck wound. He does not deny telling the press that it was one of entrance. He does say that he has been given a tape of one of his interviews in which he hedged the statement by saying it was, to a degree, conjectural. Most doctors, under these circumstances, great urgency, the President as the patient and without their having turned the body over, would have said something like "appeared to be" in describing the wound as one of entrance. While superficially maintaining the position in which Spector put him under oath, of saying he did not really know whether the wound was one of entrance or exit, Perry readily admits that Humes correctly understood him to describe it as a wound of entrance. He also admits that federal agents showed him and the other doctors the autopsy report before their testimony. As I led him over these events and his participation, what he did and the sequence, he recalled that he first looked at the wound, then asked for a "trake" (short for tracheotomy) tray, wiped off the wound, saw a ring of bruising around it, and started cutting. In describing the wound and ring of bruising, he used the words, "as they always are". Pretending not to notice the significance of this important fact he had let bubble out, I retraced the whole procedure with him again. When he had repeated the same words, I asked him if he had ever been asked about the ringed bruise around the wound in the front of the neck. The question told the experienced hunter and the experienced surgeon exactly what he had admitted, one description of the entrance wound. He blushed and improvised the explanation that there was blood around the wound. I did not further embarrass him by pressing him, for we both knew he had seen the wound clearly. He had twice said he had wiped the blood off and had seen the wound clearly, if briefly, before cutting. The official representation and that of an unofficial apologist to which we shall come would have us believe that bruising is a characteristic of entrance wounds only. This is not the case. The reader should not be deceived on this or by Perry's admission that there was bruising. Exit wounds also can show bruising. One difference is that exit wounds do not have to show bruising. That in this case there was bruising by itself need not be taken as an expression of Perry's professional opinion that it was a wound of entrance. The definitive answer is in those words he twice used, quoted directly above, "as they always are". It is entrance wounds only that always are of this description. Thus, Perry had said again and in a different way that this was a shot from the front. In context, this also is the only possible meaning of what Carrico had said. Perry was unwilling to express criticism of the autopsy doctors. Humes had told Spector that the bruise on the President's pleura might have been caused by Perry's surgery. Perry was affronted by the suggestion. He said that they never cause such bruising in tracheotomies in adults and are exceedingly careful to avoid it in the smaller bodies of children. When Perry learned of this bruising, he had wondered if the cause was fragmentation. If he then had no way of knowing it, on the basis of my "new evidence", that today does seem to be the most reasonable explanation. Having learned what Spector suppressed, that Perry is an amateur expert in ammunition....... I am done typing as I couldn't figure out how to cut and paste what I had scanned. This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful. Nick

Tom I have been out of town and am now catching up on old posts. I will keep my response brief as it is past midnight here. Harold Weisberg, in his book Post Mortem, interviewed Drs Carrico, Perry and McClelland on 12-1-71 at Parkland Hospital. Dr Carrico told Weisberg that he was certain he saw a bullet hole above the level of the collar and there were no holes in the clothing. Weisberg speculated that damage to the clothing was caused by the nurses cutting off the clothing. Dr Perry told Weisberg that he wiped blood from the wound, noted a ring of bruising, and then began the tracheotomy incision. This differs from Perry's response to you many years later. The relevant pages in the book are 375-379. Based on the interview, Perry was an avid hunter and experienced in firearms and ammunition. Could you confirm if a "ring of bruising" as described by Perry is indeed indicative of an entry wound and would you deem this significant if true? Nick

Dawn, I totally agree it is an easier case to solve and prove offical malfeasance in the tampering with the evidence and investigation, etc. However, look at what happened with the new photos of three CIA 'heavies' lurking in the Ambassador, no doubt hoping to shake RKF's hand in congratulations....and there are no screams I hear of outrage and demand for an investigation....or did I miss something over here in Europe. I think more saw it here than there, in fact. Most here were shocked and shocked it didn't cause riots..or even a loud rumbling noise. Sleep Sheep Sleep....... I agree with you too Dawn. I just wish they would, and get one figured out and solved. Maybe it would cause more people to "move " on solving JFK's. I forget the kids name who was taking all of the pictures that day, [a new camera i beleive] at the moment, but from what i heard, the LAPD and the "powers that be" really messed with him pretty bad. I beleive they took all his film, and it took a lawsuit to get them returned [but some were missing i believe]. I beleive it took years and years. Now hes an adult, and from what i understand he either has a pending lawsuit or won the lawsuit. [im no expert here so correct me if im wrong] Im sure his pictures 'showed' what really happened, as i believe he was shooting film the whole time through the pantry. just my opinion FWIW, thanks-smitty This goes back a few years. I'll give you a brief synopsis from memory as it is getting late here. Scott Enyart did win his lawsuit. A courier was hired to go to the state archives in Sacramento to deliver the film to him. Somewhere in south central Los Angeles, the courier stopped for gas (or had a flat tire) and the briefcase containing the photos was stolen. I think Lisa Pease in Probe did a thorough article on this at the time. Conjecture is the photos were destroyed many years ago. I tend to agree. Had I been the owner of such potentially important evidence, I would have personally traveled to the archives in Sacramento in the presence of my attorney to pick up the film.....FWIW. Nick

Maarten That is an interesting comment about the hairpiece. Looking at the photo, there appears to be an irregular, vertical, zigzag pattern in the hair about 1 inch to the right of the ear. There are also a series of at least three 1-1 1/2 inch sections of straight hair visible along the forehead hairline. Somewhat shaped like an octagon. Unusual, but probably explained as a lighting anomaly. Nick

This reflects my own philosophy. That is why I have refused to delete the membership of right-wingers, lone-nutters, etc. Members are asked to refrain from name-calling. However, it is physically impossible for Andy and myself to read every posting and then delete insults. Even if it was, it is extremely difficult to make judgements about the terms being used. This is explained by the debate on this thread about terms like ignorant. However, it is clear that some members are uniting up against certain individuals and are attempting to bully them off the Forum. Jack White and Ashton Gray have both suffered from this. My message to you is that I am sure most viewers are able to see this happening and it is the image of the bullies which is suffering. Stay strong, do not retaliate in kind, and you will win the battle. Their behaviour only illustrates the weakness of their arguments and the fear they have of your views. John The name calling and extreme rudeness is......was distressing. That is why I am now so indebted to Ron Ecker for alerting me about the "ignore" feature. Have used it twice now. Visiting your forum has again become an informative and pleasant experience. Regards Nick

Greetings Opinions are always welcome, but I was wondering what the point was of using the words kook and nutcase. Seems there are way too many folks around already who are rude, inflammatory, inconsiderate etc. Hope you are not among those ranks Regards Nick

Ask Gary Mack, who wrote several Easterling articles for his excellent newsletter COVERUPS! As I recall, it had something to do with New Orleans Fire Department records showing that a fire Easterling talks about was not true. That, plus a lot of other stuff about supplying rifles, etc. Sticking in my memory is something about firing a rifle into a barrel of water to recover a pristine Carcano bullet. My memory may not be very accurate unless I look up my newsletter copies. Email Gary, and he can summarize; post his reply for us. My main thought about Easterling: No plotters in their right minds would select such an unreliable goofy guy as a crucial part of a sophisticated plot. That is not the way the agency operates. Better to use him as a red herring. Hurt threatened to sue Gary over the allegations in his newsletter, proving to me that Gary was onto something. Jack I have the Henry Hurt book and hadn't read it in years. I recalled some of the allegations of Easterling because he was such an unusual character. The fire incident really stood out to me in that some of what Easterling claimed might indeed be correct. A fire did occur on September 24, 1963 in New Orleans. The records were located by Tom Noonan, a PI that Hurt had hired. Seems Noonan found a ledger in the basement of the New Orleans Public Library with a handwritten description by a fireman. The address was listed and it was within a few minutes drive of Easterling's original description. The Noonan information is on page 371 of Hurt's book. I have Gary Mack's book Coverup somewhere, but can't locate it right now so am unable to say how he might have debunked the fire incident. The fire certainly seems plausible based on Noonan's discovery. Nick