John Hunt

Is this the one you are thinking off?? John Hunt

Shanet, There is no evidence that Caesar’s tie was ever in RFK's hand. Caesar wore a clip on tie and was behind and to the right of RFK during the assassination. The tie could easily have come off when RFK fell backward against Caesar. John Hunt PS. My father worked in a hospital for 30 years and was required to wear a clip-on tie and prohibited from wearing a real tie. The reason?? In the event that a patient became unruly and attempted to grab someone by the tie, it would pop right off. Same thing goes for security guards and cops.

Moldea, in a book which concluded that Sirhan B. Sirhan acting alone killed RFK, accidentally offered a shooting scenario that demands nine shots, and thus two shooters! http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/moldeas.htm That Moldea has refused to acknowledge his error or attempt to defend his faulty work tells us all we need to know. Instead, we get a hack like Ayton who defends Moldea blindly and badly, gets challenged, then scurries off into the shadows claiming victory as he goes. John Hunt

John, I have touble with these: (1) Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the president. The third shot he fired killed the president. (2) President Kennedy was struck by two rifle shots fired from behind him. (3) The shots that struck President Kennedy from behind him were fired from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building. (4) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle that was used to fire the shots from the sixth floor window of the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository building. (6) Lee Harvey Oswald's other actions tend to support the conclusion that he assassinated President Kennedy. (7) Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. (16) The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy. (20) The responsibility of the Secret Service to investigate the assassination was terminated when the Federal Bureau of Investigation assumed primary investigative responsibility. (22) The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties. (23) The FBI adequately investigated Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination and properly evaluated the evidence it possessed to assess his potential to endanger the public safety in a national emergency. (24) The FBI conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination. (28) The Warren Commission performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of its duties. (29) The Warren Commission conducted a thorough and professional investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination. (31) The Warren Commission arrived at its conclusions, based on the evidence available to it, in good faith. John Hunt

AYTON: "Go away, Hunt, [sic] When I'm through with you, you will be the laughing stock of the good old USA! Keep your eyes open!" If you say so, Melvyn. But given your inability to come through on threats/promises in the past, I'll believe it when I see it. Be forewarned, Melvyn,; if the content of your book is as sloppy as what you've given us here and at aajfk, you can expect to hear from me. ;-/ John Hunt

Wrote Melvyn: "My book...provides CONCLUSIVE acoustics [sic] evidence that only 8 shots were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel." Conclusive acoustic evidence for 8 shots?? As I'm sure you’re aware, Melvyn, limiting the shooting to 8 shots does not rule out conspiracy. One wonders who Melvyn will cite re: Brent and/or West. I'll be waiting, Melvyn, so please make it good. :-) John Hunt

FWIW: A latex baloon is highly elestic. The dura is highly inelastc. John Hunt

Dan, Toss in any questions you have. Unlike Ayton, I'm well educated on the RFK assassination evidence and not afraid to discuss the issues. John Hunt

STURDIVAN : "[Hunt] complains that Noguchi repeated an estimate of the size of the missing scalp wound that he evidently got from the surgeon standing next to him. Then about 3 pages later he complains about Noguchi not giving an estimate of the size of the bone wound that was also missing." That is not at all what I did at all. I pointed out that Noguchi could not bring himself to state that the entry in the skin and bone was not present when he examined the body. Rather than be forthright, Noguchi absolutely tip-toed around that fact and I pointed that out. Sturdivan's beef has nothing to do with what I actually wrote. Why did Sturdivan completely misrepresent what I wrote for the THIRD TIME, then take me to task yet again under his fictional account?? My take is that Sturdivan skimmed the essay and then snapped out some quick slop for Melvyn's consumption. Recall, once again, Melvyn Ayton crowing, "Sturdivan domolishes Hunt's thesis." John Hunt

Wrote Sturdivan: He [Hunt] uses imprecise words: the missing skull entry was "obscured" instead of "eradicated," etc. "Eradicated??" What is Sturdivan talking about?? I never wrote any such thing. What I did write was: "One depiction, if accurate, demonstrates that the entry hole was not "obscured" as Noguchi put it-it was ***absent*** at autopsy." And that is 100% accurate, it was "absent." Again, Sturdivan's has materialy misrepresented of the content of my essay, then complained about it. The question is begged; Cannot Sturdivan read?? John Hunt

According to our own Melvyn Ayton, Larry Sturdivan wrote of my RFK essay at http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/rfk_pt1.htm STURDIVAN : "Hunt makes blunders that should not be made by even the novice. He speaks of the bullet used as an "expanding" bullet then assumes that it is a .22 inch projectile in penetration." Where in the essay did I say that?? Never, that's where!! What I did say was: "A hollow point round such as that allegedly used to kill RFK begins to deform as it strikes an object. The denser the object struck, the more the bullet will "mushroom." The result is a bullet that presents an "enhanced" surface area, and thus creates a damage path wider than its original diameter." Sturdivan completely misrepresents what I wrote, and then calls it a "blunder." Obviously, Sturdivan did not read the essay carefully. John Hunt

Melvyn Ayton posted a redacted version of Larry Sturdivan's "take" on my eassay, Robert Kennedy's Headwounds, Part 1: The Case for Conspiracy at: http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/rfk_pt1.htm Then Melvyn wrote here: "I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient!" I address Sturdivan's miguided missive in the upcoming "Robert Kennedy’s Headwounds, Part 2; On the Trail of the Cover-Up" Below is a preview from that essay dealing with Sturdivan: QUOTE ON In February, 2006, one Melvyn Ayton sent Sturdivan the internet link to Part 1 (http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/rfk_pt1.htm), asking for Sturdivan’s opinions on what I’d written. Ayton then posted redacted versions of Sturdivan’s response on the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup. I contacted Sturdivan by email to inquire as to whether Ayton’s quotes were accurate. Sturdivan replied that they were “somewhat verbatim,” and that he understood that they were for publication. The sections Ayton chose to publish can be found in this footnote. [1] My comments have been included in [red bracketed text]. Sturdivan’s main complaint, as posted by Melvyn, was as follows: "The whole essay hinges on Hunt's statement (about page 10), 'Thus, the 2 x 2 cm rim of raised tissue (and the 2 x 2 cm wound tract in the cerebellum) tells us that the original entry hole was 2 x 2 cm.' No, it doesn't! It tells us that the bullet damaged tissue out to about a centimeter around its trajectory. [Emphasis added.] The stretching and shearing of soft tissue abruptly pushed apart by the bullet tears cell membranes and capillary walls. The infusion of blood and cellular contents causes the tissue to swell and the back pressure prevents blood flow. This is the tissue that is already dead or will die due to lack of oxygen. It would eventually become necrotic if the patient lived. It is the tissue removed by the surgeon in the process called debridement. This effect is completely independent of the size of the hole in the skull. [Emphasis added.] Thus, all of Hunt's major conclusions in this essay are baseless, because he has no means of determining what the size of the hole in the skull was. Essentially, Sturdivan’s complaint can be boiled down to the following statement: The 2 x 2 cm rim of raised tissue (and the associated 2 x 2 cm wound tract in the cerebellum) tells us that the bullet damaged tissue out to about a centimeter around its trajectory, and this effect is completely independent of the size of the entry hole in the skull. Thus, Hunt’s contention that the rim of tissue reflected on the size of the entry wound is in error. Here, Sturdivan has missed the boat completely, for he is lecturing on the effects of missile penetration, which was never the issue. The rim of raised tissue in RFK’s brain had nothing to do with the effects of the penetration of the bullet. After the bullet came to rest, the brain began swelling and had nowhere to go but up through the entry hole, which is exactly what it did. And when it did, it left a tell-tale rim of upraised tissue 2 x 2 cm in diameter. That, of course, is not in keeping with the damage expected from Sirhan's .22. Sturdivan’s complaint that “all of my major conclusions are baseless, because I had no means of determining what the size of the hole in the skull was” is simply wrong. Had Sturdivan read my essay more carefully, he would have recognized that I accurately related the information from the autopsy report; Noguchi had the brain in his hands and reported that swelling cause the brain to herniate up into the entry wound. Therefore, Sturdivan’s main complaint is null and void and my original conclusion remains unmolested. Sturdivan also wrote that: ”This effect [the raised ring of tissue on the surface of the cerebellum] is completely independent of the size of the hole in the skull. …and… “The area of damaged tissue "pried apart" by the bullet surrounds the track. This is qualitatively different from damage caused by the lateral pressure outward from the trajectory produced by the tissue being pushed laterally very quickly and forcefully. This outward flow will extrude tissue through any opening. The damage surrounding the track will cause swelling without extrusion. In fact, there is no backward pressure on the tissue at entry and immediately after the passage of the bullet.” [Emphasis added.] Here, Sturdivan is attempting to demonstrate that the 2 x 2 cm raised ring of tissue adjacent to the bullet hole was not the result of tissue swelling up through the entry hole in the bone, as Noguchi concluded. Sturdivan’s contention, therefore, is that the raised tissue is not a reliable indicator of the size of the bullet hole in the skull. According to Sturdivan, the 2 x 2 cm raised ring of tissue resulted from the effects of the bullet penetration itself, and is “completely independent of the size of the hole in the skull.” Again, Sturdivan has missed the boat. Under Sturdivan’s explanation, the 2 x 2 cm rim of tissue expanded up against the tough, inelastic dura matter that closely covers the brain, which is itself confined by the intact skull. In his report, Noguchi described the swelling to parts of RFK’s brain confined by the dura and intact skull: The gyri [folds of brain matter] over both cerebral convexities [major hemispheres of the brain, right and left] are flattened.” [AR8] Noguchi reported that the folds on the surface of the brain were flattened. Why was that? Because the brain swelled up against the intact dura and skull and the expanding tissue had nowhere to go, thus the gyri were flattened. Under Sturdivan’s proposed explanation, even though the entire brain was swelling up against the tight-fitting dura, a rim of tissue somehow “rose” above very same intact dura and skull that constrained the rest of the brain. Near the close of Sturdivan’s commentary, he related that: "When reading the attached keep in mind that with low velocity handgun bullets [like those used in the RFK assassination] the final cavity is very little larger than the (expanded, if applicable) [it is applicable in this case. J.H.] diameter of the bullet." [Emphasis added.] If the low velocity bullet in this case mushroomed to 1 cm wide and left a “final cavity very little larger than the diameter of the bullet,” as Sturdivan contends, then the permanent cavity would be “very little larger” than 1 cm. Yet the “opening” in the cerebellum was “2 x 2 cm.” [AR9] Unless Sturdivan contends that 2 cm is “very little larger” than 1 cm, or retracts his statement that “final cavity is very little larger than the diameter of the [low velocity] bullet,” then even under his own interpretation, the bullet that made the hole must have been substantially larger than a .22 caliber round. Sturdivan, a Wound Ballistics Researcher, cannot have it both ways. Now, compare Noguchi’s direct observations of a “2 x 2 cm” opening in the cerebellum, a “partially collapsed 2 x 2 cm” wound tract through the cerebellum, and a “2 x 2 cm” raised rim of tissue at the bullet entry site in the cerebellum. On balance, Noguchi’s conclusion that the cerebellar tissue herniated up through the entry hole in the skull is backed up by the consistency with which he described the condition of the brain. It is also backed up by the neurosurgical literature, which describes the swelling of the brain and subsequent herniation though open avenues of escape. Against that, we have Sturdivan claiming that, “The ridge of swollen tissue was only an indication of tissue damage.” Recall Sturdivan’s claim that “the damage surrounding the track will cause swelling without extrusion.” [Emphasis added.] Here Sturdivan appears to be making the claim that the swelling tissues would not herniate through the entry hole. Not only did Noguchi reported just such herniation at the entry site, he noted the same effect elsewhere on RFK’s brain: "An elliptical groove over the superior surface of the anterior [forward] lobe of the cerebellum indicated upward herniation of the structures through the incisura [surgical hole] of the tentorium cerebelli." [AR10] The operating surgeons removed two elliptically shaped portions of the dura over the cerebellum to facilitate access to the brain and Noguchi reported that the cerebellar tissue herniated through those surgical incisions [AR7] leaving tell-tale “elliptical grooves” [AR10]. Obviously, RFK’s brain continued to swell after the surgery and the tissues found a point of release; the surgical openings in dura. If what Noguchi reported was accurate, and we have no cause for doubt, the upward swelling mimicked the shape of the surgical holes through which the tissues extruded…just like it did with entry wound two hours earlier. In the end, we must side with either the autopsy prosector and his detailed, consistent descriptions, or Sturdivan’s latter-day misdirected theorizing based upon a near complete ignorance of the medical evidence in this case. QUOTE OFF Recall Melvyn Ayton crowing, "Sturdivan domolishes Hunt's thesis." Did Melvyn look at what I and Sturdivan wrote with a critical eye?? Obviously not. John Hunt

Here is one of two attempts by Melvyn Ayton to reconcile the “Official” LAPD damage to the RFK shooting. Wrote Melvyn: Quote On There are a number of possibilities that can be used to explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Remember Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea said there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. [sic] A ********number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets.*********** There were four stray bullets: 1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy's jacket without striking him 2.The through and through bullet that exited from his chest. 3. The bullet that struck the ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles. 4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace. In its official inventory of the bullets fired by Sirhan the LAPD claimed that Schrade was wounded by the bullet that went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of RFK's suit. Moldea maintains this is wrong. Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade. Moldea also believes that the shoulder pad bullet probably struck one of the four shooting victims and this is consistent with the fact that Sirhan's revolver could only fire 8 shots. I believe the following scenario is entirely plausible, although there are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots - as Vincent Bugliosi said, "If (Wolfer's) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer's) report is correct." BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead. BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm - this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling [sic] upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit. BULLET 3 - The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered. BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered. BULLET 5 - The bullet that went through Goldstein's left pant leg without striking him - this bullet could have hit Stroll - the bullet was recovered during surgery. BULLET 6 - The bullet that hit Weisal [sic (The victim’s name was Weisel)] in the abdomen and which was recovered during surgery. BULLET 7 - The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace. BULLET 8 - The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and which was recovered. Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above 'scenario'. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door divider were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets. [Ayton is 100% wrong here. The small object in the door behind the ***podium*** was too small to have been caused a bullet. No measurements for the size of the holes in the ***pantry*** divider were ever listed. Not once. Ayton just made that up. J.H.] The hole In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea ably demonstrates. Quote Off This is supposed to be Ayton’s “entirely plausible” scenario accounting for the wounds and damage using no more than the 8 shots Sirhan was capable of firing. The trouble is, Ayton’s loose grasp of the RFK assassination evidence is betrayed by several obvious, critical errors, two of which I will outline here. CRITICAL MISTAKE #1 The first (and most embarrassing) error is that Ayton gave us an “entirely plausible" 8 shot scenario…except he FORGOT to account for an ENTIRE wound set; A careful reading of his scenario reveals that Ayton left out the shot that went in RFK's right rear armpit and came out through the front chest!!! Oops!! Ayton Add in the shot Ayton left out and Melvyn just gave us a 9 shot scenario while attempting prove an 8 shot scenario. CRITICAL MISTAKE #2 Wrote Ayton: “BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling [sic] upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting - the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit" Ayton’s second critical gaff?? He linked the shot that went into the ceiling and ricocheted back into the pantry with Elizabeth Evans’ headwound. The LAPD ran that trajectory on the night of the assassination and it lead to the divider at a point above everyone’s head. The attached graphic demonstrates the absurdity of Ayton’s RFK SBT shot, with the LAPD version included for reference purposes. Once we divorce the ceiling shot from the Evans shot, we add yet another bullet to Ayton’s “entirely plausible” 8 shot scenario. The brings Melvyn up to 10 shots. Oops!! I posted this same message at alt.assassination.jfk and Ayton never attempted a rebuttal. Dan Moldea and Ken Rahn would not attempt to explain the Moldea scenario using Moldea’s "Schrade Shot" conclusion. Now along comes Melvyn Ayton, who gave it a go. Although he tried to rehabilitate Moldea, laughably, Ayton leaves us with a scenario that demands 10 bullets at a minimum. Now that's rich!! John Hunt

AYTON : I will send you a copy of Larry Sturidvan's examination of Hunt's ridiculous claims he makes in his JFK Lancer article. Daniel, Melvyn (melvynayton@aol.com) posted redacted versions of Sturdivan's "take" on what I wrote on the aajfk newsgroup. I addressed what Sturdivan wrote in detail and Melvyn did not rebut a word of that. In fact, he never responded in any way. I will post my reply to Sturdivan later on tonight. Melvyn is one of those types who believes the expert without looking at it in a critical fashion. Melvyn heard what we wanted and it was off to the races. Had Melvyn applied a little critical analysis, he might have recognized that Sturdivan's remarks are WAY off the mark. After I post the redacted quote posted by our own Melvyn, I will post my responses, which I sent to Sturdivan, with whom I am friendly. Sturdivan promised to address his misreading/mischaracterization of what I wrote. He never did. John Hunt

John, I wrote at http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/moldeas.htm that: Quote on "Ironically, in a book which concluded that Sirhan B. Sirhan acted alone, Moldea actually offered a shooting scenario that demands two shooters! “ And what was Moldea's fatal mistake? He concluded that one of the victims (Paul Schrade) was struck in the forehead by a bullet that struck nothing else first.” Quote off Melvyn Ayton claimed that I was wrong—that “several” scenario’s could explain the crime in an innocent fashion. I challenged Melvyn to give us that workable scenario for 8 shots with the “official damage* starting with Moldea's "Schrade Shot” ( see http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/moldeas.htm) Melvyn tried twice, failing convincingly both times. I rebutted what he wrote in detail with graphics. Oddly, Melvyn has never offered a single word in rebuttal. He simply re-posts the same faulty analysis as if it had never been challenged. Rather than come through with the goods, Melvyn took umbrage with this portion of my essay: Quote On HUNT: "In order to sort out his [Moldea's] scenario, we need to be aware of additional points of damage that Dan Moldea ignored; three bullet holes in the pantry's ceiling tiles." Quote off The key words are "his scenario." What I wrote was accurate; Moldea did indeed ignore the ceiling tiles as they relate to his non-sinister scenario. Nowhere in his book does Moldea apply his conclusion that Paul Schrade was hit by a shot unto itself to the rest of the scenario to see if it works. In blind defense of Moldea, Melvyn Ayton insinuated that was not the case. Wrote Ayton, "Hunt goes on to claim that Moldea did not address the issue of the ceiling tiles. However Hunt has simply not read pages 86, 137-138, 166, 186, 231 and 259 of Moldea's book." Firstly, I did not "claim" that Moldea did not address the ceiling tiles, for clearly he did, although just barely. Ayton's insinuation that I'd not read the book was based upon his misreading of what I wrote. Having said that, first Moldea, then Ken Rahn and, now, Ayton, have all cited the pages listed in Moldea's index: 86, 137, 166, 186, 231 and 259, as proof that Moldea did address the ceiling tiles. Of the seven pages cited in defense of Moldea, one (pg.137)does not even reference the ceiling tiles in any way, shape or form. Moldea, Rahn and Ayton all parroted Moldea's index, which incorrectly cites page 137 as referencing the tiles. It does not. Page 138, on the other hand, does. It reads: "In short, Wolfer said, under oath, that no bullet holes were discovered in anything but the ceiling tiles and the victims." Is telling what Wolfer testified to us under oath “dealing" with the ceiling tiles?? No. On page 166, Moldea writes: "Among these were the whereabouts and condition of the following: "Ceiling tiles with bullet holes to determine their location in the pantry and the angle of entry and exit of the bullets." Is relating that Paul Schrade's lawsuit called for a search for the missing original ceiling tiles "dealing" with the ceiling tiles?? No. On page 186 Moldea writes, "Of course, this [1975] photo opportunity yielded no additional bullets, since the door frames, center divider, and the ceiling tiles-which, according to numerous witnesses, contained bullet holes-had been destroyed six years earlier in 1969." Moldea tells us that the ceiling tiles were destroyed and not in the pantry in 1975. Is that "dealing" with the ceiling tiles?? No. On page 231, Moldea writes, "From the outset, Wolfer had been adamant that he never confirmed bullet holes in anything but six people, as well as two entrances and one exit hole in the ceiling tiles suspended above the kitchen pantry." Is quoting Wolfer on where he found bullet holes "dealing" with the ceiling tiles?? No. Further down on page 231, Moldea quotes Wolfer's testimony: "WOLFER: I made reports accounting for all the bullet holes. I found them in the ceiling tiles, I found them in all [sic] bullet holes in the ceiling." Moldea tells us that Wolfer referenced the ceiling tiles under oath. Is that "dealing" with the tiles?? No. On page 259, Moldea quotes from an interview with SID officer, David Butler, "During my interview with him, Butler gave me a briefing about bullet flight paths and the problem with the shots Sirhan fired that went through the ceiling tiles." Moldea quotes a reference to the ceiling tiles uttered by a witness recounting the evidence. Is that "dealing" with the ceiling tiles?? No. And now we come to the LAST reference to the ceiling tiles cited by Moldea and his "defenders." That last reference is actually the first in the book. On page 86 Moldea writes: Quote on The flight paths of the bullets are difficult to match with medical records, particularly in the cases of Evans and Schrade. According to Wolfer's reconstruction, the Evans bullet penetrated a thick acoustic ceiling die, ricocheted off the ceiling, exited through a second tile, and then struck Evans, who was fifteen feet away, with enough force to lodge in her forehead. This description contradicts the official medical of her wound, which says, "The bullet entered the scalp of the forehead just below the hairline, off center to the right and traveled upward to approximately one inch above the hair line" (emphasis added by Moldea). Quote off Here Moldea merely quotes from Wolfer's trajectory accounting and then tells us that the shot was supposed to hit Evans in the forehead, but that the upward path in her head "contradicted" Wolfer's assertion. In the only words by Moldea himself on the subject, he casts doubt on the official version!! There you have all the reference to the ceiling tiles in Moldea's book. Recall Melvyn’s claim that, "Hunt has simply not read pages 86, 137-138, 166, 186, 231 and 259 of Moldea's book." It is obvious who has not read those pages. In the near future I will post Melvyn’s two attempts to reconcile the “Official” damage to the RFK shooting. I will also show you and Ayton (for the fourth time) where he went wrong. John Hunt * The “Official” LAPD damage: 1. RFK - Shot in the head, no exit. 2.RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit, with the bullet coming to rest in the flesh beneath the skin at the base of the back of the neck. The bullet was recovered at autopsy. 3.RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit one inch above shot No. 2. The bullet exited through right front chest below the clavicle. 4.RFK - Entry and exit of a bullet which passed through the rear right shoulder of RFK's suit jacket. The entry and exit were both behind the yolk seam at the top of the shoulder, and penetrated only the outermost layer of fabric. 5.Paul Schrade - Shot in the forehead above hairline near the apex of the head. Bullet fragments remained in the head, with a majority exiting through an exit defect several centimeters behind the entry point. 6.Ira Goldstein - Shot in the left buttock/thigh. The bullet was recovered during surgery. 7.Ira Goldstein - Entry and exit of a bullet that passed cleanly through his left pant leg without striking him. 8. Irwin Stroll - Shot in the left shin. The bullet was recovered during surgery. 9.Elizabeth Evans - Shot in the center of the forehead one inch below the hairline. Fragments of a bullet recovered during surgery were too light to comprise a full .22 round. There was no exit point in the scalp. 10. William Weisel - Shot in the left abdomen. The bullet was recovered near the spine during surgery. 11. Ceiling Tile Hole #1 - A bullet penetrated an acoustic ceiling tile (A), proceeding into the drop-ceiling interspace. 12. Ceiling Tile Hole #2 - That bullet (No. 11) struck the concrete ceiling above the tiles, and ricocheted back down into the pantry through a second ceiling tile (. 13. Ceiling Tile Hole #3 - A bullet entered the same tile as No. 11 above (A), but, we are told, did not exit back down into pantry. That bullet was "lost in the ceiling interspace," and apparently never recovered.

Schulman declined to repeat his contemporaneous account that he had seen the security guard fire because h was browbeaten by the LAPD like Sandy Serrano. I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient! Sturdivan, expert that he is, made serious errors which I have already pointed out to you. Bring it on, Melvyn. Joh Hunt

Robert Kennedy's Headwounds, Part 1: The Case for Conspiracy http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/rfk_pt1.htm John Hunt

The Hypocrisy of Ken Rahn: http://mysite.verizon.net/johnhunt01/The_H...of_Ken_Rahn.htm John Hunt

The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet by John Hunt Introduction In 2004 I petitioned the National Archives and Records Administration for access to most of the Kennedy assassination artifacts related to the conveyance of evidence to the FBI Laboratory. After a lengthy struggle, and literally hours before I was due to set off for the National Archives (NARA), I won an important battle. Steven Tilley, then Director of the JFK Collection, finally granted most of my requests. I, a non-scientist, would be allowed access to the historic artifacts because NARA deemed my proposed examination to be, to use their term, "unique" in the history of the JFK case. For reasons beyond the scope of this essay, I was literally stunned by NARA's unexpected last-minute acquiescence. I was also elated. With a wide smile I slipped the two magnifying glasses I would use in tandem into my already-packed luggage. 1- I traveled to NARA for my fifth extended stay and so it came to pass that on July 30, 2004, I conducted an examination that had never before been performed in the JFK case; I attempted to track the JFK ballistic evidence through time via its chain of custody as marked on the evidence itself. What I found startled me. Read the rest here: http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html

John, from your studies, whats the earliest identification of CE-399 as THE bullet. cheers steve. It was introduced on March 16, 1964 during Humes' testimony. The first (and only) testimony that CE-399 was the bullet in question came during Robert Frazier's testimony on March 31, 1964. John Hunt

John: Your article validates the fact that there was more than one bullet put into evidence; the infamous magic bullet that is in the Archives, and a mysterious bullet that Elmer Todd initialed. The question also has to be asked, "was there pre (official) autopsy surgery performed on JFK's body? Your article brings up many questions that have to be answered before we can call this, "case closed." Bill C It's too bad he's dead. It would have been interesting to show him a photo of CE-399 and ask him "is this the bullet that you marked??" The fact that he was supposed to have ID'd the bullet in 1964 means either the FBI kept the original bullet, or the sources indicating that Todd marked the bullet are wrong. The fact that he Took the bullet when the record tells us he did, and because none of the participants could make that identification, would seem to corroborate that notion that he ID’d “a” bullet. As for the bullet having come from the body, that is unlikely. The bullet Todd marked definitely came from Parkland Hospital. The question is, Where did CE-399 come from?? Stay tuned. John Hunt

Thank you, and thank you. It was fun to see the look on the faces in Dallas this November when I presented that piece. John Hunt

PHANTOM IDENTIFICATION OF THE MAGIC BULLET Think CE-399's bone fides are intact?? Go here: http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm John Hunt

Pat, Sorry I missed your presentation in Dallas. I was very much looking forward to it. I skimmed your on-line presentation and was quite impressed. You and I have done much the same work independent of one another. I thought you might find the attached (I hope) FBI Lab document interesting. It is one of those I showed in Dallas. This report on the Harper fragment was authored by FBI spectrographer, Henry Heiberger. He notes that the bone was delivered to Burkley at “4:30 PM” on the 27th by SA Cornelius McWright. Notice also that Heiberger made the notation “Spectro – None made. Advised not to + no indication of where to take sample.” As we saw in Dallas, there was lead on the X-rays. John Hunt P.S. One small correction; Harper took the fragment to his uncle, Jack Harper, not his father.

A resident of Tiverton, RI, John Hunt, has been investigating the JFK and RFK assassinations. Hunt is currently writing a book on the ballistic and medical evidence related to John Kennedy's headwounds based upon years of in-depth study and utilizing new evidence discovered in HSCA and FBI files in the National Archives.