Cliff Varnell

Cliff,

So many things in this life can be difficult.

One has to appreciate it when things are made easy.

You cited 3 witnesses in your support of a shot entering the front of the throat, and 3 witnesses in support of the President "grabbing his throat"

In another post just a few posts back you asserted the fact that Clint Hill was a trained observer. I for one could not agree more.

What I do not understand Cliff if how you happened to completely miss the fact, that all 3 of your witnesses tell us that this happened right after they heard a shot. And 2 of your witnesses state the shot was from behind.

In fact, Nellie even tells us that she turned to look BECAUSE of the noise from behind.

But I guess that part of the testimony does not matter much really.

And since we know there was more than one shooter what precludes

Nellie responding to a shot fired from behind while JFK was responding

to a shot fired from the front?

They may have been confused what with all the poison darts flying around and stuff. I would imagine it was a very stressful time.

So you are claiming that it isn't possible to fire on a target simultaneously

from both front and back?

I'd say the shots from behind were purposely louder to draw attention from

the shooter in the front.

Not one of your witnesses supports the poison dart theory,

It's not my theory; it's the prosectors' theory. How many times

does this have to be pointed out to you before it sinks in?

which to most people is just nonsense.

Who cares? I wasn't aware you'd canvassed "most people" on this issue.

"Most people" didn't see the body. Humes, Boswell, and Finck saw the body

and thought it quite possible that he was struck with blood soluble rounds.

This analysis is supported by the neck x-ray, another piece of evidence

you like to pretend doesn't exist.

All of your witnesses say the Presidents reactions were from a shot.

So?

Poison dart indeed Cliff....Poison dart indeed.

If you would be so kind as to read the Final autopsy report and cite for me where they firmly state the ice bullet struck the throat, I would very much appreciate that.

The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military autopsy

protocol, and thus has no weight as evidence.

You are unaware --or in denial -- of the fact of conspiracy, so we can't expect you

to admit to the fact that the crime was covered up at the highest levels of the US gov't.

Dave,

Excellent post. I do not believe he is grabbing his throat at all, but other than that I agree 100%. I must have misunderstood your previous post, about the toxin, I thought you were subscribing to this madness.

Best,

Mike

Lee Harvey Oswald had connections to the American intelligence

community -- ONI, CIA, FBI.

This is a matter of public record.

Given this fact, why is it "madness" to consider known assassination

technologies of the Central Intelligence Agency?

It's foolish to dismiss it out of hand.

Cliff - of course he's grabbing at his throat. I believe he's hit there, frontally, just after the Stemmons sign. Why are his fists clenched, instead of clutching the throat? Possibly a near-simultaneous back wound.

My point is that he is not paralyzed as if by curare.

David, unless you were present for the CIA testing of blood soluble rounds

you are in no position to rule in or out any kind of shock reaction or

paralysis.

It is a matter of record that the CIA tested many different kinds

of blood soluble technology.

His hands descend, he turns toward Jackie. The hands go back up to throat level. Upon the head wound, the right hand flails forward, resembling a reach forward (it isn't one). I don't find these motions, nor his head and body movements, showing what others describe as paralysis.

What "others" are you referring to? Did they test with the CIA in the early 60's?

Let's not forget that this was the leader of a country, on parade. Dignity in movement would have been self-programmed in him. This was also a brave man, who knew the dangers he was heading into. Did he fail to shield his wife? So did Connally. Kennedy's throat and back wounds were more traumatic - thus more shocking to him - and the throat wound more debilitating, causing him to fight for consciousness and forget all but his duty before the public.

The throat and back wounds were not in themselves debilitating. The back wound

was shallow, hit no bone and no vital organs. Here's the lower cervical x-ray analysis

from the HSCA:

(quote on)

(quote on)

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been

a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right

lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air

overlying C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

(quote off)

Nicked trachea, bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse

process and and air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

Where is the traumatic damage in that, David?

And more importantly -- what happened to the bullet?

It didn't exit. It wasn't recovered during the autopsy. Indeed, the

prosectors were ordered to stay away from the neck wound.

He stopped grabbing for his throat because he was losing consciousness. That's when the right arm descends, and the wrist begins to go limp. Fighting for consciousness, both hands come up as if to protect the throat, and he turns to Jackie for support and attention.

Consciously, and perhaps more unconsciously than even he might have predicted, he bore his wounds with dignity, and held himself upright until the fading of sensation. That's the only "paralysis" that I see. The hand and body motions demonstrate not only continued ability to move, but also a reticence to move too much as the bullets struck him in front of a crowd.

This doesn't square with what Jackie saw (from the WC):

(quote on)

Mrs. Kennedy: ...I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises.

You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right, and all

I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face,

and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand.

(quote off)

Is "quizzical" the look that results from the throat injury you describe?

Mr. V.,

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by " jaunty hail-fellow-well-met routine".

And certainly we have had this conversation before.

If you look at the Zapruder film you see him desperately grabbing for his throat,

and then he stopped grabbing at his throat roughly two seconds after being

shot there.

Can you show me where this happens?

I did. I'll post it again, but I can only lead the horse to water...

Look at his left index finger, it's working on the collar. This is consistent

with what Linda Kay Willis told the Warren Commission (emphasis added):

(quote on)

Mr. Liebler: Did you hear any shots, or what you later learned to be shots,

as the motorcade came past you there?

Ms. Willis: Yes; I heard one. Then there was a little bit of time, and then

there were two real fast bullets together. When the first one hit, well, the

President turned from waving to the people, and he grabbed at his throat,

and he kind of slumped forward, and then I couldn't tell where the second shot

went.

(quote off)

This is consistent with what Clint Hill told the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

Mr. Specter: Now, what is your best estimate of the speed of the President's

automobile as it turned left off of Houston onto Elm Street?

Mr. Hill: We were running still 12 to 15 miles per hour, but in the curve I

believe we slowed down maybe to 10, maybe to 9...Well, as we came out

of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which

looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire

park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be

a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes

had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab

at himself and lurch forward and to the left...

(quote off)

This is consistent with what Nellie Conally told the Warren Commission

(emphasis added):

(quote on)

Mrs. Connally:...I heard a noise, and not being an expert rifleman, I was not

aware that it was a rifle. It was just a frightening noise, and it came from the

right. I turned over my right shoulder and looked back, and saw the President

as he had both hands at his neck.

Mr. Specter: And you are indicating with your own hands, two hands crossing

over gripping your own neck?

Mrs. Connally: Yes; and sit seemed to me there was--he made no utterance,

no cry. I saw no blood, no anything. It was just sort of nothing, the expression on

his face, and he just sort of slumped down.

(quote off)

I do see his hands come up but I see no grabbing of the throat what so ever. I never

see at any point where his hands go below the plane of the chin.

Look again. It's the left forefinger grabbing at his collar.

That is a reaction to throat trauma which resulted from the first shot,

just as the witnesses described it.

Nellie Connally, Linda Willis, and Clint Hill testified under oath that JFK

was grabbing at his throat, just like we see in the Zap.

Then you should have no problem quickly showing this as it is happening. At no time does JFK "grab" his throat.

Please view the following:

JFK was clearly grabbing or clutching at his throat in the sequence

studied above.

It certainly does not show him grabbing his throat. It does just as Gil has expressed, he is pulling his tie over with one hand, and has his other hand in front of his mouth.

It would appear that your objection is a matter of semantics. There is no difference

between grabbing at his collar and grabbing at his throat. His collar is at

his throat.

Are you seriously proposing that JFK grabbing at the collar at his throat

was unrelated to the throat wound?

Something I might add would be very uncommon for someone who was hit in the throat. Men hit in the throat almost always grab their throat. This is something we never see in the Zapruder film.

And yet the 3 witnesses close to Kennedy described that very thing

happening, and you acknowledge that he was reacting to a strike

in the throat.

Or do you think that the actions Gil described were unrelated to the throat wound?

Unbelievable!

The autopsy doctors also discussed that this may have been an exiting fragment. Which seems to make much more sense.

Again: was JFK reacting to throat trauma several seconds before

he was injured in the throat?

This is an amazing thing to promote, Mr. Williams. I'm not sure how

you manage it, if that's what you're selling here.

I have to admit, I find the whole ice/poison bullet concept to be best left to the "conspiracy elite" and Hollywood.

The prosectors found the ice bullet scenario the best explanation. It's the only

one that fits the x-ray, for instance.

They saw the body, Mr. Williams, you did not.

But instead of honoring Clint Hill for magnificently performing his duty to his country

we have the likes of a thousand pet theorists who insist the guy screwed the pooch

and didn't know the difference between 6 inches and 4 inches.

This may be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

So if the man was off by 2 inches then his magnificent performance of his duty is lessened?

When was the last time you ever saw Clint Hill congratulated for the

work he did at the Bethesda morgue? He isn't congratulated for that

work -- in fact, he's dismissed as having been way off.

&That you or any other normal adult doesn't know the difference between

6 and 4 inches is THE most ridiculous nonsense I've come across in

some time, Mr. Williams.

How many kindergartners would make that mistake?

How absolutely ridiculous.

If contentless dismissals were currency you'd be well off on that alone.

Im sorry Cliff you tend to be a bit to "as the world turns" for me.

I guess there are drama queens and then there are DRAMA queens.

Wow. You went from "nice to meet you" to heavy insults in no time flat.

Self-project much?

The location of the back wound should be beyond dispute at this point. I'm sure Cliff must be tired of belaboring the point, and I'm tired of supporting him every time he does, while many here ignore the imporance of it.

Too bad you can't deal honestly with this simpe fact. There was a fold of fabric large enough to obscure the JFK's jacket collar in Betzner. That is unimpeachable. Varnell is wrong. That too is unimpeachable.

Right off the bat, attacking someone's honesty, eh Craig?

You've produced 2 "proof of concept" photos. One photo shows fabric which

had been rolled. The second photo shows fabric which had been pulled up.

Neither of these involve "bunched" fabric, which eases. "Ease" is the term

of art in clothing design for fabric when it bunches.

Imagine this: a "bunch theorist" who doesn't even know what "bunch" is!

Again: where in the Dealey Plaza photos does JFK's jacket elevate 2 inches?

Poor Cliff, his false reality shattered....Betzner....unimpeachable.

More photo analysis sans photos.

Lamson's Folly is examined here:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry188704

Cliff, you are being ridiculous.

Pat, you are being evasive. I addressed 3 points but you sort of responded

only to 1.

Again: please post your fact-based argument that JFK's clothing was elevated

two inches in any of the Dealey Plaza films/photos.

You have concluded that JFK's throat wound was related to the head wound.

Again: did JFK start reacting to throat trauma before he was actually

wounded in the throat, OR did the round which entered his throat circa Z190

take 6 seconds to exit?

You are the one who repeats the same arguments and never takes the time to lean anything new, not me.

That your pet theory is wafer-thin and based entirely on your cherry-picking one or two pet witnesses is exposed by your embarrassing assertion that Clint Hill was a "trained witness." Please explain what "training" would prepare Hill to recall the exact location of a wound he saw but for a few seconds, and why his "training" should lead us to believe the presumably "untrained" autopsy doctors, who photographed and measured the location of this wound, would be incorrect.

Wow.

Your rhetoric here, Pat, is worthy of Len Colby: contentless dismissal, check;

grotesque misrepresentation of my argument, check; parlaying a mis-quote into

a non sequitur, check; implied witness-bashing, check; feigned ignorance of the

facts in the case, check!

Let's take these points one at a time.

Pat Speer: You are the one who repeats the same arguments and never takes

the time to learn anything new, not me.

I repeat the same arguments over and over while relying on the facts of

the case -- you never mount a fact-based rebuttal, ever, so why should I

change?

Pat Speer: That your pet theory is wafer-thin and based entirely on your cherry-picking

one or two pet witnesses is exposed by your embarrassing assertion that Clint Hill was a

"trained witness."

This is a two parter, let's take the second part first.

I cited Clint Hill as a "trained observer," not a "trained witness." Are you denying

that Secret Service agents are "trained observers"?

Do you seriously propose that Clint Hill didn't know the difference between

6 inches and 4 inches? He probably wouldn't have made that mistake in

kindergarten! Surely after being trained to make accurate observations as

a Secret Service agent it's highly unlikely that he'd have made that mistake

while given the solemn task of observing JFK's wounds.

I find your attempt to attribute this to some "pet theory" of mine amusing,

and not a little desperate.

As far as "cherry picking one or two pet witnesses" goes, I'm genuinely suprised that

you are so unaware of the witness testimony in regard to the back wound.

To wit:

1) Dr. Admiral George Burkley, JFK's personal physician and the man

who observed the body at both Parkland and Bethesda, wrote on the Death

Certificate that the back wound was "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra."

This was signed off as "verified," according to proper autopsy protocol.

2) Dr. Thornton Boswell prepared the autopsy face sheet diagram which shows

a wound location consistent with the holes in the clothes. The diagram was filled out

in pencil and marked "verified," also in pencil, also in accordance to proper autopsy

protocol. The "14cm from the mastoid" notation was made in pen, which is a

violation of proper autopsy protocol.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif

Only in the JFK assassination would anyone insist that improperly prepared material

trumps properly prepared material. But then, here we are...

3) Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told David Mantik in a 1992

interview that the back wound was at T4. (Harrison Livingstone's Killing the Truth,

pg 721)

4) James Curtis Jenkins was a lab tech at the autopsy and made this statement to

David Lifton:

(quote on)

I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura

[the lining of the chest cavity]...You could actually see where it was making an indentation...

where it was pushing the skin up...There was no entry into the chest cavity...it would have

been no way that that could have exited in the front because it was then low in the chest

cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying

blood from the heart] or the bronchus in the lungs.

(quote off)

5) Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the

Pathology Department at Bethesda November 1963. This is from Boyers'

signed affidavit:

(quote on)

Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more specifically just

under the scapula and next to it.

(quote off)

The location just below the upper margin of the scapula is consistent with T3:

6) SSA Will Greer in his WC testimony (Vol 2 pg 127) placed the back wound

“in the soft part of that shoulder,” consistent with the testimony of Boyers.

7) SSA Roy Kellerman testified before the WC (Vol. 2 pg 93) that the wound

in the back was “the hole that was in his shoulder.” Kellerman expanded on this for

the HSCA with a diagram which placed the back wound in the vicinity of T-3.

8) FBI SA Francis O'Neill said that the first location for the back wound that

Humes gave was "below the shoulder." Here's O'Neill's HSCA wound diagram:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/oneill1.gif

9) FBI SA James Sibert also diagrammed a lower back wound:

http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif

10) Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe stated that the back wound was a lower

marking on the Fox 5 autopsy photo (Killing the Truth, pg 721).

11) Parkland nurse Diana Bowron stated the same thing to Livingstone: the back

wound was lower than the "official" wound in the autopsy photo (KTT, pg 183).

12) Bethesda lab assistant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone that he saw

"what appeared to be an entry wound several inches down on the back." (Livingstone's

High Treason 2, pg 206). This location is consistent with T3, not the base of the

neck.

13) Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back wound "right

between the scapula and the thoracic column," although he thought it was an exit

(KTT, pg 720). This location is also consistent with T3.

Now, let's get to my favorite testimony, that which Pat Speer refers to as "one or two

pet witnesses":

14) Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett wrote in a note the evening of 11/22/63:

(quote on)

I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder.

(quote off)

4 inches below the right shoulder. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4" below the

bottom of the collar. Glen Bennett nailed the back wound.

15) Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, tasked with bearing witness to the location of JFK's

wounds, testified before the Warren Commission:

(quote on)

...I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the

spinal column.

(quote off)

6 inches below the neckline. Fact: the bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 5 & 3/4" below the top

of the collar. Clint Hill nailed the back wound.

Which brings us to the next point in your analysis, Pat, where you wrote:

"Please explain what "training" would prepare Hill to recall the exact location of a wound he

saw but for a few seconds, and why his "training" should lead us to believe the presumably

"untrained" autopsy doctors, who photographed and measured the location of this wound,

would be incorrect.

First off, I said nothing about "untrained" autopsy doctors, Len Pat. While it's

true that the prosectors had no hands-on experience conducting an autopsy on a

gunshot victim, they were still trained, competent pathologists.

Second, the autopsists initial descriptions of the wound were accurate:

the autopsy face sheet properly filled out in pencil, and Humes' observation recorded

by the FBI agents (see above).

After 11/22/63 the back wound was moved up three times. The final

autopsy report has two separate wound locations:

1) "just above the upper border of the scapula" (consistent with T2).

2) "14cm below the right tip of the mastoid process" (consistent with C7/T1).

Gerald Ford famously moved the back wound up again for the Warren Commission.

None of this nonsense follows proper autopsy protocol, however.

Col. Pierre Finck to the ARRB:

(quote on)

JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to

determine the accurate location of this posterior wound.

(quote off)

The most competent member of the autopsy team disputed the propriety

of their own conclusions!

Clearly, Burkley followed proper autopsy protocol when he used the

third thoracic vertebra as a point of reference for the back wound.

As far as the autopsy photos go, Pat, you appear blissfully unaware of the

controversies surrounding them: they were NOT prepared according to

proper protocol and there is NO chain of possession for them.

Lastly, your snide dismissal of Clint Hill's brave service to our country as merely

lasting "a few seconds" is par for your course. What proof do you have that Hill

only took "a few seconds" to study JFK's wounds?

Cliff, virtually every "point" you make is discussed and dismissed in chapter 11 on my webpage. You might want to read it sometime.

You have the ability to cut and paste your rebuttals, if you had any. We've had

this discussion before and you never move beyond repeating the same assertions.

Again: where in the Dealey Plaza photos does JFK's jacket elevate 2 inches?

Again: how does a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt ride up two inches when

none of them have 2 inches of slack?

Please feel free to quote from your website.

FWIW, I give you some well-deserved props in chapter 12. You are right. The clothing entrance proves the back wound was too high to support a single-bullet scenario. You are wrong, however, to push that the wound was at T3.

Clint Hill was wrong? How so? The man was sworn to do a solemn task -- bear witness

to the nature and location of John F. Kennedy's wounds.

But instead of honoring Clint Hill for magnificently performing his duty to his country

we have the likes of a thousand pet theorists who insist the guy screwed the pooch

and didn't know the difference between 6 inches and 4 inches.

The man was a trained observer and he nailed the location of the wound

within 1/4 of the bullet holes in the clothes -- the clothes you can't show were

bunched up two inches.

As far as Kennedy receiving his throat wound before 312/313... who said it came at 312/313?

I guess I don't follow your argument. I thought you said you've concluded that

the throat wound was related to the head wound, which, last I looked, occurred

around Z313...?

Unless I am missing something here, how can a man be paralyzed by a toxin, and still be moving his arms?

If you look at the Zapruder film you see him desperately grabbing for his throat,

and then he stopped grabbing at his throat roughly two seconds after being

shot there.

This action is consistent with the prosectors preliminary conclusion.

Most men that I have seen with injuries to the throat, do not just raise their hands to the level of the throat, they grab it. This clearly did not happen.

No, Mr. Williams, that is clearly what happened.

Nellie Connally, Linda Willis, and Clint Hill testified under oath that JFK

was grabbing at his throat, just like we see in the Zap.

Item: in looking at the stabilized Zapruder and Costella's edit for this thread, it seems to me that the motions of JFK's hands and arms, especially the right hand between (circa) frames 240-320, give lie to the notion that JFK is paralyzed by a toxin.

Watch as Kennedy's right hand unclenches, drops limply through reaction to trauma, then rises to the level of his throat again - as if the pain there is so intense (possibly felt more as his head declines), he is guarding the area in a childlike expression of woundedness.

Please explain how this is inconsistent with a paralytic reaction? He went

from desperately grabbing at his collar to hardly moving at all.

Sure looks like paralysis to me!

Care to explain why he stopped grabbing at his throat?

The right hand remains throat-high until the head wound, after which it seems to reach out involuntarily. Hardly the motor behavior of a man paralyzed by more than painful and shocking wounds.

Please view the following:

JFK was clearly grabbing or clutching at his throat in the sequence

studied above.

Nellie Connally described him as "grabbing" at his throat.

Linda Willis described him as "clutching" his throat.

And then he STOPPED grabbing at his throat. And we're to believe that

it is a mere coincidence that JFK stopped grabbing at his throat about

2 seconds after he was struck, the same amount of time it took for

CIA-tested paralytics to take affect?

And when we add this to the mix...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

Me, I'm not a co-incidence theorist.

Anyone that would make the conclusion, after examination that this was a wound of entry does one thing. Shows their absolute ignorance of wound ballistics. This is obviously a wound of an exiting fragment.

Anyone who would make such a conclusion without answering the points

I've outlined in my previous post shows their absolute ignorance of the facts

of the case.

I'll put these to you again, Mr. Williams:

Did JFK start reacting to a throat wound more than 5 seconds before

he sustained a throat wound?

Or:

Did it take 6 seconds for the round to exit after striking circa Z190?

I am very interested to see what Mr. Varnell surmises in regard to this wound.

We've already had this discussion, Mr. Williams.

I surmise nothing. I cite from the credible historical record.

I see you've lost your jaunty hail-fellow-well-met routine.

Ice bullet? Flachette?

Such was the conclusion of the prosectors the night of the autopsy.

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

(quote on)

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

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

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

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

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

(quote on)

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

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

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

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

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

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

3 doctors examine a corpse and reach a "general feeling" that is corroborated

by a neck x-ray, several photos and a film taken during the crime, and the testimony

of the people with the best view of the victim.

Only in the JFK assassination would the preliminary conclusions of such

doctors be summarily dismissed.

I would be very interested to do a quick run up of the energy transfer required and expected movement of the target.

Here's a lead provided by Steve Kober, a follow-through on the research

of Tom Wilson.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

Put on your research pants, Mr. Williams, and check out devices that

fire blood soluble rounds.

One thing is for certain, this was no entry of a projectile(bullet) of any type I have ever heard of.

That's what you get for not reading the evidence I cite.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

Although the Parkland doctors briefly speculated that the bullet creating the throat wound had entered the chest, the consensus was that the head wound was an exit for the bullet entering the throat, i.e. that a bullet traversed the length of the neck.

This was a factor in my acceptance that this was indeed what happened.

Not following you. And if you are suggesting that the bullet entered the neck and then ended up inside Kennedy's skull? What head wound are you describing?

First day evidence was the best evidence - supported by a myriad of 'events' connected to the whitewash. Jenkins waffling is an all too familiar approach.

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

After studying the medical evidence for several years full time, I came to the conclusion the throat wound was indeed related to the head wound.

Seriously?

So, one of two things occurred prior to the bullet exiting the head:

Either:

1) The round that entered the throat circa Z190 took six seconds to exit,

Or:

2) JFK started reacting to a wound in his throat several seconds before

he was shot in the throat.

Either one is ridiculous...

The Parkland doctors suspected the large head wound was an exit for an entrance in the throat.

The Parkland doctors didn't have the opportunity to view the Zapruder film

or review the witness testimony of Nellie Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Clint Hill,

Linda Willis or Roy Kellerman -- all of whom describe JFK reacting to a hit well

before the head shots.

I suspect the throat wound was an exit for the bullet creating the small entrance near the EOP.

Totally ignoring the neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, Altgens 6, and the testimony of

the folks listed above.

Since the Clark Panel and Lattimer, etc, concluded there was a bullet path visible on the x-rays coming from what they thought was the back wound up above, and since we now know the back wound was really at or below the level of the throat wound,

What can be proven is the back wound was at T3.

Show us where JFK's jacket was elevated more than a fraction of an inch

in Dealey Plaza, Pat. Show us how a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt

rides up more than a fraction of an inch.

Tell us how 15 or so witnesses -- most of whom had a good, prolonged view of

the body -- all got the back wound wrong. Was it a mass hallucination, Pat, or

mere incompetence?

it seems likely the X-rays suggest the missile creating the throat wound descended within the neck.

Are you unaware of the damage shown in the neck x-ray?

Bruised lung tip, hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and a

subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. That's a straight front to back

path from between the 3rd and 4th trach rings to C7/T1.

There was no exit. There was no bullet recovered. These are irrefutable facts, Pat.

My gosh....I fell for it..................

Thanks B. A....can't tell you how much better I feel...a reflection

of our deep regard for the work of Bill Kelly etc...

Don't worry Cliff, I'm gonna hold your feet to the fire for years to come.

Michael...my toes are smokin'!

My gosh....I fell for it..................

Thanks B. A....can't tell you how much better I feel...a reflection

of our deep regard for the work of Bill Kelly etc...

My comments in burgandy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Henry Heiberger of the FBI reported

copper on the jacket.

Mr. V,

I stand corrected it was copper on the jacket. However the same point would stand as copper is not blood soluble.

What is more likely, Mike: 1) that J Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up, or2) a conventional round hit nothing but

soft tissue in the neck and did not exit?

What conventional round would behave that way, Mike?

Frankly I would think the more likely is a conventional round striking the target and not exiting, although I would NEVER put anything past a cross dresser LOL.

To answer you as to what kind of conventional round would do such a thing...a short round sure would. It would penetrate a short depth and stop. However then we have to address a missing bullet.

How do you account for a subcutaneous air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1

if the round only went in a short depth?

Why didn't the round show up on x-ray?

I believe this was also discussed at autopsy and was abandon once communication came that advised of the anterior neck wound.

What was discussed at the autopsy was the fact that there were no exit wounds

and no bullets found. The prosectors asked the FBI men if such blood soluble

rounds ("ice bullets") existed. FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab in order

to investigate the lead given to him by Humes & Co.

This event rightly deserves the title -- The First Investigation.

The First Investigation lasted only so long as it took FBI SA Chuck Killion

to inform Sibert that the Magic Bullet had been found in Dallas and was

on the way to DC.

At that point the JFK cover-up kicked into high gear.

Why, have you tested this technology yourself? Is that what people do?

How does a paralytic cause one to flop around? Isn't the goal the opposite,

to paralyze the target?

That's what the CIA conceded in 1975 -- targets paralyzed in two seconds,

exactly what we see in the Zapruder.

No I certainly have not. However it is my understanding that one is paralyzed with this method in that they lose complete use of musculature.

And your understanding is based on what, exactly?

Unless you have access to all the paralytics tested by the Central Intelligence

Agency in the early 60's you have no basis for an opinion one way or the other

as to how a subject is paralyzed.

The muscles become flaccid and do not respond. This is what I am saying. If the President lost muscular control, then how could he hold himself up? How were the assassins to know he would not just slump forward out of their sight and ability.

His back brace.

As an example people who are in wheel chairs and fully paralyzed have a band around thier head to hold them upright in the chair, as they do not have the ability to hold themselves upright.

Excellent argument for my point of view. That is precisely the motivation

to use blood soluble rounds which cannot be detected on x-ray. There was

overwhelming force, but it did not appear to be so.

Same with the head shot -- triangulation of fire, three simultaneous shots,

three hits, but only the sound of one report.

3 simultaneous shots to the head would have blown the single assassin theory out of the water.

1) Not when you're controlling the autopsy. All of Kennedy's wounds

blow the single assassin theory out of the water, and yet here you are

taking the single assassin theory as a matter of faith.

2) You are assuming that the killers wanted to set up a lone nut. This

is a root fallacy. I and others argue that the killers intended to

make the murder look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy.

In trying to set up a patsy would it ever do to have the target hit by so many rounds? Would you want it to look like a squad of the gestapos finest had opened up on him? Certainly not.

If the squad could be tied to Fidel Castro?

Most certainly!

So you say. But since you've never had experience ambushing an

American head of state I dare say your confidence is misplaced.

You speak of the first-shot/kill-shot scenario as guaranteed.

Again, you discount the possibility of nervous shooters merely wounding

the President, allowing him to duck out of the line of further fire.

No professional is going to assume first-shot/kill-shot when the target

is President of the United States.

I assure you my friend a professional shooter would NOT be nervous. Training eliminates this.

Since when have you or anyone else trained to shoot an American President?

.

The target is nothing more than an inanimate object. You do not concentrate on the target as such, but you concentrate on a small area of the target, and this is the spot you are going to place the projectile in. There is and has to be a mental separation. Every professional is going to assume a one shot kill, every time. Professionals simply do not pull the trigger if there is any question. This is ingrained from day one. This is the most difficult part of sniper training, teaching the young guys to be patient and wait until all the pieces of the puzzle align to make the shot. The reason you would use multiple shooters is to guarantee that SOMEONE had a shot. To assure that at least one shooter had a shot, not so that ALL shooters could open up like the OK corral. The professional snipers strength is not in their numbers it is in their discipline and ability.

I appreciate your agreement that professionals would seek "insurance" and a "guarantee"

and obviously that's what occurred in Dealey Plaza.

A far better insurance would be to paralyze the target first, to preclude

the first shot merely wounding the target who could then flop down out

of the line of fire.

No way. The best insurance is one well aimed shot, and having shooters in multiple locations to assure someone had that perfect shot.

And if John F. Kennedy leans over to chat with Nellie Connally as this "perfect shot"

is squeezed off the shot misses, Kennedy ducks down, and the Williams gang

goes to the gallows.

I don't buy it.

And yet you concede the contingency planning requiring insurance.

Certainly. But not insurance by overwhelming fire power, that is not how it works. It is insurance of loaction, that at least one shooter has that one well aimed shot.

I hate to say it, Mike, but you don't seem particularily interested in the

hard facts of the case that don't conform to your conclusion.

I'll ask you again: what kind of conventional round strikes the throat , nicks the

trachea, bruises the tip of the lung, causes a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, and leaves an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, with no exit?

Your input is appreciated!

Cliff, it is not that I am uninterested at all. It has nothing to do with what conforms to my conclusions. It has everything to do with what conforms to my training and ability to read operational situations. This shooting smacks of an novice. There is not one single bit of any of this that even remotely indicates a professional elimination. A group of moderately trained individuals possibly, if a second shooting local could be proven.

But you can't come close to squaring your conclusions with the hard facts of the

John F. Kennedy assassination. Your short shot scenario does not satisfy the physical

facts of the case. JFK was struck in the throat by a round that did not exit and was

not in the body.

Until you deal with this fact, your training is betrayed by a conclusion formed

prior to thorough investigation.

Morning Cliff,

The issue I have with a paralytic, is simply how does one make one, and use lead? There is lead on the jacket. Certainly lead is not blood soluble.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Henry Heiberger of the FBI reported

copper on the jacket.

What is more likely, Mike: 1) that J Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up, or2) a conventional round hit nothing but

soft tissue in the neck and did not exit?

What conventional round would behave that way, Mike?

Of course the question also has to be raised, how would they know his physical reaction to a paralytic?

They had tested it on humans.

It's all right here:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

When hit with a paralytic JFK could just as well have flopped to the floorboard of the car,

having lost muscular control, and become unavailable as a target.

Why, have you tested this technology yourself? Is that what people do?

How does a paralytic cause one to flop around? Isn't the goal the opposite,

to paralyze the target?

That's what the CIA conceded in 1975 -- targets paralyzed in two seconds,

exactly what we see in the Zapruder.

The military principle involves more than overwhelming force, it involves the presentation of overwhelming force. In the instance of a covert operation, the objective is to have highly trained and very skilled persons who are an overwhelming force, but do not appear to be so.

Excellent argument for my point of view. That is precisely the motivation

to use blood soluble rounds which cannot be detected on x-ray. There was

overwhelming force, but it did not appear to be so.

Same with the head shot -- triangulation of fire, three simultaneous shots,

three hits, but only the sound of one report.

It becomes readily apparent our shooter was not included in the class above. Had they been it would have been a one shot situation. The argument that they had to fire three shots to frame the patsy does not hold logic. They well could have framed the patsy with one shot.

So you say. But since you've never had experience ambushing an

American head of state I dare say your confidence is misplaced.

Fire one round hide rifle, leave shell casing. Exact same scenario as many theorize, but with only one casing rather than 3.

The theory of firing paralytics, and additional unneeded shots as part of a base plan is against all theory and tactics. The more facets you have the higher percentage of risk of failure.

You speak of the first-shot/kill-shot scenario as guaranteed.

Again, you discount the possibility of nervous shooters merely wounding

the President, allowing him to duck out of the line of further fire.

No professional is going to assume first-shot/kill-shot when the target

is President of the United States.

The optimum plan for an operation like this would call for an elevated shooter behind the location, and a street level shooter in front of the location (insurance).

A far better insurance would be to paralyze the target first, to preclude

the first shot merely wounding the target who could then flop down out

of the line of fire.

I would speculate that this insurance would not be needed as these are very simple shots.

And yet you concede the contingency planning requiring insurance.

I hold now as I always have that this was quite the slipshod operation. It smacks of being poorly planned and impulsive. It smacks of being carried out by someone with moderate ability, be it physica ability (their own), or material ability(their weapon).

I hate to say it, Mike, but you don't seem particularily interested in the

hard facts of the case that don't conform to your conclusion.

I'll ask you again: what kind of conventional round strikes the throat , nicks the

trachea, bruises the tip of the lung, causes a hairline fracture of the right T1

transverse process, and leaves an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1, with no exit?

Your input is appreciated!

Got me!

Nice...

Cliff,

Having just finished reading much of the autopsy info. The only reason blood solubles

were mentioned was because they were unable to locate an exit for the back wound.

Mike,

Not only was there no exit wound, there was no bullet.

Same with the throat wound. Entrance wound, no exit, no bullet.

The neck x-ray -- as I posted up-thread -- shows nothing but soft tissue damage

and an air-pocket instead of a bullet.

What firearm round strikes no hard tissue and yet does not exit, Mike?

The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds,

consistent with known CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics.

The prosectors blood soluble scenario is the ONLY one that accounts for all known

reliable facts.

Properly prepared medical evidence is reliable; improperly

prepared medical evidence is unreliable.

Isn't this a matter of common sense, Mike?

At the time this was speculated they did not even realize there as a throat wound.

Finck didn't realize there was a throat wound -- but Humes probably did.

Dr. Robert B Livingston of Los Angeles insists he called Humes prior to the

autopsy to discuss the throat wound (see Assassination Science, pgs 170-1).

Livinston relates that the FBI men told Humes to hang up.

Consider this: the brain was removed, the lung and heart were removed, the

organs of the neck were not removed. No examination of the neck was

allowed, and Humes probably didn't feel he was allowed to discuss the throat

wound.

The there was "communication" with Parkland and information led to them finding out about the

throat wound. It was then that they determined this could be the exit. (however they were n

ever able to probe it, which is a moronic blunder to the SBT).

Dr. Finck DID probe the wound, Mike.

Floyd Riebe, ARRB deposition, May 7, 1997, (emphasis added):

Q: Do you recall anyone having used any probes in the body during the autopsy?

A: I think Dr. Finck did for that wound in the back. But he didn't go in very far. And they

didn't let it go from there.

Pierre Finck, ARRB deposition, May 24, 1996:

Q: Dr. Finck, do you recall having seen any x-rays at the time of the autopsy?

A: X-ray films of the head, yes. And I recall asking for more x-ray films and I don't

remember when I saw them, probably during the autopsy. There was a radiologist

present, and it was his job to interpret the x-ray films. But I am the one who asked

for more x-ray films in addition to the ones of the head. That I recall.

Q: Why did you ask that additional x-rays be taken?

A: To detect the possibility of presence of projectiles in the body outside of the head.

The head had been x-rayed, and I wanted to have a more complete survey.

Q: Is this because you were attempting to locate the path of the bullet that entered in

the upper thoracic?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you looked for the bullet, where was it that you were looking in the body?

A: Well, there was no bullet in the body, in addition to the fragments in the head, we did

not see a bullet in other parts of the body and that was the reason for asking for more x-ray

films, having an entrance and no exit at the time of the autopsy.

Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November 22nd-23rd, did you

have any conclusion in your own mind about what had happened to the bullet that entered

the upper thoracic cavity?

A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the following morning, and

he found out there was a wound of exit in the front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy,

we were not aware of that exit wound in the front of the neck.

Q: Can you explain to me why there was no prosector who apparently had believed that the

thoracic wound would have exited from the throat? Why was it that that was not being

considered as an option?

A: I don't know.

Q: Did you insert a probe into the wound in the back?

A: From what I remember, we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful.

Q: Did the angle of the probe show that the bullet, at least of what you were aware of at the

time, went down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?

A: Can you repeat that?

Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into the wound, begin in a

direction that pointed down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?

A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing was unsuccessful.

So how can I determine an angle if the probing was unsuccessful?

Q: How far into the wound did the probe go?

A: I don't know. We said it was unsuccessful from what I remember, and not how far it would go.

Secret Service SA Roy Kellerman, Warren Commission testimony:

“There were three gentlemen who were performing this autopsy. A Colonel Finck—during the

examination of the President, from the hole that was in his shoulder, and with a probe, and

we—were standing right alongside of him, he is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument

and I said, ‘Colonel, where did it go?’ He said, ‘There are no lanes for an outlet of this entry in

this man’s shoulder.’”

I do not recall any time them discussing blood soluble rounds in relation to both wounds.

So? We are still left with the following hard facts:

1) There was a shallow wound just to the right of the third thoracic vertebra.

No bullet was recovered; the round did not exit.

2) There was an entrance wound in the throat that nicked the trachea, bruised

the tip of the lung, left a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process

and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit. No bullet.

3) The Zapruder film shows JFK frantically grabbing at his throat before

sezing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds.

4) According to Church Committee testimony of weapons developer

Charles Senseney and CIA director William Colby, the CIA tested

blood soluble paralytics on humans -- the subject was paralyzed in

two seconds.

If you're a hard-fact man as you say you are, Mike, it should be pretty

obvious what happened.

So the question begs to answer.

Why go through all the paralytic shooting, etc etc.

First-shot/kill-shot was not a 100% sure thing.

And the treasonous bastards who killed Kennedy were all about making it

A Sure Thing.

Keep It Simple Stupid: first paralyze the target, then hit the target with a toxin

before blowing his brains out.

Isn't there a military principle about using "overwhelming force"?

Why take a chance on one of "those shooters" missing and messing the whole thing up?

How so? All the paralytic needs to do is penetrate the body. If the shot

misses the target completely, so what?

You have a much more daunting scenario with a first-shot/kill-shot, which

leaves no margin of error for a nervous shooter.

Could they not have just as easily framed the patsy with one well aimed shot?

Of course they could. Why not just hire a pro, make a single shot kill, and frame

the patsy accordingly?

Ever fire a round at a head of state, Mike?

Ever commit murder and treason?

Ever bet your life on someone's nerves in that situation, where one

guy's steady hand is the only thing between you and the gallows?

Of course not. All contingencies were accounted for.

Would Oswald have looked less guilty because he only made a single head shot? Of course not.

Why add so many dimensions, that all run the risk of compromising the whole operation?

What risk? The rounds were blood soluble and could not show up on x-ray.

The 6th floor of the TSBD can be proven to be the location of the shots. This is a mathematical certainty.

There is a little saying in the military KISS

Keep it simple stupid.

Please do not take this as me calling you stupid. This is not how it is meant at all Sir. I am simply saying that while planning anything the simplest plan is often the one that has the most chance of success.

And what tactic has a greater chance of success -- first-shot/kill-shot, or a first

shot that can hit the target anywhere on the body?

The latter, obviously.

I would think the lead on the clothing would be a huge indication that the blood soluble rounds theory is lost.

It wasn't lead, it was copper. The FBI man who conducted the clothing examination

was a fellow named Henry Heiberger. Agent Heiberger has four daughters. My sister

went to college with one of the Heiberger daughters. According to what Ms. Heiberger

told my sister, Henry Heiberger lived his life with an elevated concern for the safety of

his family.

Draw what conclusions you will, but I don't find an FBI examination of the clothing

dispositive. It is far more likely that J. Edgar Hoover cooked the examination to

conform with the official cover-up than the possibility of, say, a conventional round

striking no hard tissue in the neck and not exiting.

The simplest explanation is that the prosectors got it right the night of the

autopsy. Two entrance wounds. No exit wounds. No bullets.

Pretty obvious, I think.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/04...ase-closed.html

Conspiracy conceded.

Gary Mack, the manager of the 6th Floor Exhibit, owes the world an apology for

repeatedly claiming there is no hard evidence of conspiracy in the murder of JFK.

Mr. Kelly,

I have my issues with LHO being our man quite frankly. The evidence against him is circumstantial at best, and inadmissible at worst.

My very honest opinion is this is NOT a professional shooter. If it had been there would have been a single round fired. Game. Set. match.

Mike, I deeply respect your expertise in this area and I'd be the last

person to challenge you generally on this subject.

However, consider this: the plotters of the assassination could not be

100% sure that the shooters -- who were committing high treason and

murder and had never shot at an American President -- would not be just a

bit nervous. If JFK were merely winged on the first shot he might hit the

floor.

They could not discount this contingency 100%.

I submit they took no chances. They had access to the most

modern technology -- blood soluble paralytics and toxins.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

There is evidence that a shooter on the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex Building

fired a blood soluble round.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl=

There were few misses in the JFK assassination, imo.

The first shot likely struck him in the throat with a blood soluble paralytic -- the

Zapruder film shows him seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds circa

Z190 to Z230. This is consistent with the CIA testing of blood soluble paralytics.

Immediately after the autopsy the prosectors huddled together and

arrived at a "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood souble

rounds.

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

(quote on)

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

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

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

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

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

(quote on)

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

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

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

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

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

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

The second shot was a blood soluble toxin fired from the Dal-Tex (or so I'd speculate).

It was a kill shot, just to the right of midline about the level of the third thoracic

vertebra.

The head shots came from a triangulation of fire (or so I'd speculate). They didn't miss.

3 hits. The head wound evidence is so conflicted and tainted it doesn't get you anywhere

trying to figure it out.

I would not even presume to surmise what Oswald would do. The boy had issues that is sure enough, but to what I am not qualified to give any better guess than anyone else.

In normal operations we have a spotter, he is our security, and is generally armed with an m4 or some variant. We also have a pistol. Basically the snipers best security is a damn good "hide", his own ability to enter and leave an area undetected, and his insistence that one shot be fired.

Think if you will about a bird in your back yard chirping. If he chirps just once we often cant locate him, however if he continues to chirp he is soon located, and so it is with a sniper. One shot, then relocate.

One of the main things in considering location is escape. This is and should always be preplanned.

Best to you SIR,

Mike

And this is exactly what happened. The first shot came circa Z190 fired from Black Dog

Man.

How do we know?

Because Rosemary Willis and the Willis 5 photograph strongly indicate as much.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm

According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo (below) Black Dog Man had

"near the region of his hands...'a very distinct straight-line feature.'"

According to Rosemary Willis Black Dog Man was a "conspicuous" person who

happened to "disappear the next instant."

In the Zapruder film we can see at what point "the next instant" occurred:

at Z214-17 Rosemary does a rapid head-snap in the direction of Black Dog Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394

Black Dog Man took one shot and was out of there in less then a second.

The damage to JFK's neck as shown in the neck x-ray is also consistent

with the conclusion that he was struck with a blood soluble paralytic in

the throat.

The round nicked his trachea, bruised the tip of his lung, left a hairline

fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket overlaying

C7 and T1. Minor soft tissue damage, no exit, no round recovered.

Same with the back wound: shallow, no exit, no round recovered.

The simplest explanation carries the day -- the autopsists got it right

the night of the autopsy:

Two wounds. No exits. No rounds recovered. Blood solubles.

This is the first post you have made that I agree with almost 100%-- But, it does bring us back to the sniper's nest. Even if we agree that LHO as the sniper was an unlikely scenario, what about that location? This is not a point of probable extraction, by any stretch of the imagination, for anyone under the circumstances. Moreover, if the TSBD sniper (if there was one) was an amateur as you postulate, HOW DID HE GET OUT UN-MOLESTED in the aftermath?

Greg,

There is no postulation. I am a professional shooter. Had this been the work of a professional shooter it would have been one shot. Escape would have been much simpler, as i doubt his location would have been identified any where near as quickly. (A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!). I never did agree that LHO was the sniper. I said the facts are , what the facts are. Circumstantial at best. I do not in anyway believe he was incapable of this shooting. These shots were less than 100 yards. This is easy pickins as it were.

I would suspect that he got out unmolested because he fit in. He was not out of place in that area. This does nothing to help the LHO cause.

Best to you!

Mike

"A professional would not have the damn rifle sticking out of the window!"

On the contrary, good sir! If setting up patsies were one's profession and one wanted

to establish shots from the patsy's "sniper's nest" then wouldn't one have someone hold

the rifle out the window and fire 3 rounds into the blank spaces in Dealey Plaza just to

establish the official "shooter" location?

None of the 3 shots fired from the "Oswald sniper nest" hit anything, imo, other

than perhaps Tague.

There are some of us that do not hold that every thing is faked forged or altered.

I didn't say "everything was faked or forged."

On the contrary, it is YOU who disputes every witness to the back wound,

who disputes the physical evidence found in the clothing defects, who disputes

reliable evidence in favor of the patently unreliable.

Did the Dozen plus witnesses all suffer the same hallucination, Mike?

How do you account for the location of the bullet defects in the clothes?

I simply point out that there is medical evidence which was not prepared according

to proper autopsy protocol, and there is evidence which WAS prepared according to

proper autopsy protocol.

You and others insist that the improperly prepared medical evidence

TRUMPS the properly prepared medical evidence.

There is no logic to this conclusion of yours whatsoever.

Witness testimony to me will ALWAYS take a back seat to hard fact. The shape and size of the wounds coupled with the angle of said wounds through the victims clearly allows for a reverse trajectory to be plotted.

Hard fact: the bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the jacket collar,

a location consistent with an in-shoot about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.

Hard fact: more than a dozen witnesses placed the back wound in the vicinity of the

third thoracic vertebra or lower.

Hard fact: two pieces of properly prepared medical evidence -- Burkley's

death certificate and Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram -- were both

signed off as "verified" and both indicated the back wound was "about the level of

the third thoracic vertebra."

Hard fact: the 7mm X 4mm measurement written on the autopsy face sheet

was written in pen, a violation of proper military autopsy protocol which

dictates that measurements must be recorded in pencil.

Fact takes a back seat to unreliable evidence in this discussion, I'm afraid.

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Greg,

This entire discussion is based on the illogical assumption that improperly

prepared medical evidence (the autopsy photos, the notations on the autopsy

face sheet written in pen) trump properly prepared medical evidence

(Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet notations written in pencil).

These assumptions also ignore the physical evidence of the "low" back wound indicated

by the bullet holes in the clothes, the sworn testimony of a half-dozen Federal agents and

the statements of more than a half-dozen witnesses among the Bethesda staff -- all of

whom put the back wound in the vicinity of T3.

The HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound was "high" on the basis

of the Fox 5 autopsy photo, which Mike put into evidence up-thread.

Here's what they also said about the autopsy photos (emphasis added),

from Vol. 7 of the HSCA report:

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of

negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly

impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned

in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of

critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim; such as his name,

the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

What a scam the HSCA pulled! Their conclusion on the "high" back wound

was based on a "deficient" photograph of such poor quality that accurate

measurements were "difficult or impossible to obtain."

By what tortured logic is such inferior evidence deemed dispositive?

To render the autopsy photos even more unreliable, the woman on record as having

developed the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spender, testified before the ARRB

and insisted the extant autopsy photos were not the ones she developed.

From the ARRB deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer, June 5, 1997:

Q: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all of the colored images,

both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives

related to the autopsy of President Kennedy.

Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy

that are not included in the set you have just seen?

A: The views that we produced at the (Naval) Photographic Center are not included.

Q: Ms. Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President

Kennedy's autopsy that are not included in the set you've just seen?

A: I can personally say they are not included...

...I had brought along a photograph that was produced approximately 10 days prior

to the time that we printed the autopsy photographs that we produced at NPC, and

because of the watermark and stuff on it does not match those that I viewed, and NPC

bought all of a run, which meant that every piece of paper within the house would

have the same identical watermark and logo on it. I can say that the paper was not

a piece of paper that was processed or printed out of the Photographic Center within

that time frame.

There was obviously no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos,

a well-ignored fact in these parts.

By what stretch of logic does anyone draw conclusions on the basis of poor quality,

improperly prepared photographs for which there is no chain of possession, or any

evidence whatsoever that the subject of the photo was JFK?

Thank you for that. I am always a bit suspicious when the leaks suggest a mob connection with the assassination.

Given Jack Ruby's extensive mob ties, why would you be suspicious of a mob connection

to the assassination?