Cliff Varnell

Got me! Nice...

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

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.

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. 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. "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.

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.

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.

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: 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: 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?

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

Mike, The photo you're asking about was not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocol. The HSCA singled it out as especially "deficient as scientific evidence." The ARRB established that there was no chain of possession for that photo. There is nothing in it to indicate it is a photo of John F. Kennedy. Why study improperly prepared medical evidence when there is properly prepared evidence such as Burkley's death certificate and the autopsy face sheet?

Michael, Your critique is most welcome, as always. My responses in burgandy. Fair enough. In that case the truth is known, imo. It was known in large part the night of the assassination. Cliff, again I think you miss the context of "truth." This is John Simkin's statement that formed the title of this thread and to which I initially responded. This goes back to my original question as to context: I wrote: (quote on) Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going to happen. (quote off) You said you were disappointed that I would define "truth" in such a manner, so at this point I have no idea what you mean by "truth." My observations are in this context: (quote on) As a self-admitted hobbyist I find the assassination becomes more and more clear the longer I study it. But that's just me. (quote off) Although we cannot claim to know the truth behind the assassination as "settled fact," I'll argue that we can certainly reach a reasonable, supportable conclusion as to the people behind JFK's killing, albeit one that falls short of "historical truth." In my reading of the case such a reasonable conclusion is at hand. I've clearly underlined the subjective nature of this conclusion -- "But that's just me." Surely, the truth to which you are referring ("known in large part the night of the assassination") is a different issue. Since you're disappointed in my definition of "truth" as "settled fact" (objective), and you're not buying what I'm selling here as "that which is clear to me" (subjective), I don't have a handle on what constitutes "truth" in your book, Michael. And besides, if what you claim is true, the prima facie case for conspiracy preceded Salandria: By "case" I mean the prima facie evidence of conspiracy presented to the public as such. Vince was the man. Inspired by Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi spoke truth to power when he humiliated Specter over the clothing evidence in 1966. I'd peg that moment in history as when the SBT was officially debunked: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/f...th_Specter.html I don't see what this has to do with the topic. I know you think it does. Well, of course I do. I'm sharing what has "become more and more clear to me," that which has allowed me to reach a "reasonable conclusion" about the perps behind the JFK assassination. I'm sticking to the known credible historical record as best I can. But at any rate, there are much more reasonable explanations. For what? The fact that JFK suffered a shallow wound in the back, the round did not exit and no bullet was recovered? The fact that JFK was struck in the throat with a round that did not exit and was not recovered? Two wounds. No exits. No bullets. What McKnight calls "the perplexing mystery." I can buy pre-autopsy surgery to the head. I cannot buy pre-autopsy removal of a round which entered the throat and left an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. Such an operation -- in addition to the known surgery to the head -- would have required much more time that the autopsy time-line allows. And if JFK were struck in the throat with a round as small as a .22, surely he would have suffered a lot more damage than a nicked trachea, a bruised lung-tip, a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket. All soft tissue damage, no? A .22 would surely have exited, no? Then we have the Zapruder film, which shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in roughly two seconds. Perhaps it's a coincidence that the autopsists suspected blood soluble rounds and the CIA had indeed tested such rounds, which paralyzed the target in two seconds? Perhaps we can chalk it up to coincidence that Tom Wilson describes in the Altgens 6 photo a device on the second floor of the Dal-Tex which, according to Steve Kober's research, resembles a patented device that fires blood soluble rounds? I'm not such a firm believer in coincidence, and I find it far far more likely that the prosectors got it right the night of the autopsy. See Gerald McKnight's chapter on the autopsy. McKnight offers no solutions to the "perplexing mystery." In fact, he pooh poohs one of the common explanations for the back wound -- that the bullet fell out. Couldn't happen, according to McKnight. Your claim above misrepresents, but I don't really want to get into it with you. Why not? Tell me, what am I misrepresenting? Cliff, on another thread you wrote: Your guy, Gaeton Fonzi (whom I've met and respect) wrote about the autopsy in The Last Investigation. In the chapter entitled Haunting Questions, Fonzi writes: "Perhaps Humes' diagram (of JFK's wounds) is inconsistent with his original notes. But it was a question that was never answered -- it couldn't be, Humes burned his original notes...." You refer to the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors as proper evidence, yet ignore the fact that Humes burned his without any authority to do so. I make a distinction between what Humes/Boswell/Finck said and did on 11/22/63 and what they said and did after. By almost all accounts those men were not qualified to (and did not) perform a proper autopsy. Not being qualified to perform a proper autopsy doesn't make any one a bad doctor. Humes had the presence of mind to note pre-autopsy surgery to the head; afterward they came to a preliminary conclusion subsequently supported by the neck x-ray, the Zapruder film, and the historical facts surrounding CIA testing of blood soluble rounds. They did the best they could with the limits placed upon them. Then they were dragooned into the cover-up. But let's give them credit for properly filling out the autopsy face sheet diagram, observing the pre-autopsy surgery to the head, and reaching a well-supported preliminary "general feeling." All of that occurred on 11/22/63. Everything they did after served the official cover-up. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...g_1a.htm#_edn39 You call some of Horne's work speculative, which he admits it is. I'm glad to hear that he does. The other day James Fetzer stated as fact that Humes performed the pre-autopsy surgery. I challenged him on that point, and I don't believe he responded. In my opinion so are many of your conclusions, which you continue to assert as if they were established facts. To the contrary, from the beginning here I made a sharp distinction between "settled facts" and that which "seems clear to me." I posit no speculation as fact, sir. And if you ever catch me doing so in any post, feel free to jump in and set me straight. Cliff, you cite Rosemary Willis as the most important witness in the case. Arguably, yes. Crucial witness, as is her father and sister. You claim that if you get ONE expert in this case it would be Tom Wilson. You bet. Expands the scope of the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. I prefer that to the jihad conducted by many experts against the Dealey Plaza photo evidence. And that because Werbell developed a weapon, he was a "perp." There's a bit more to that now, ain't there? From Noel Twyman's Bloody Treason, an interview with Gerry Hemming, pg 665: ibid., pg 701: These are the same type of speculations that you criticize others for. Now you've lost me. Citing Richard Helms as a perp is much more out and out speculation than WerBell. And I don't see how my touting Rosemary Willis as a witness and Tom Wilson as an expert is the equivalent of stating opinions as fact. None of these issues are simple, really. It couldn't be more straight-forward, to my eye. Properly prepared medical evidence trumps improperly prepared medical evidence. Once that fact is grasped, the case falls neatly into place...But that's just me. Except that there was a conspiracy and as John Simkin concluded, As settled historical fact, I'm afraid I must agree.

Question: how much energy and time do we need to debunk something that apparently grew still-born from Tink Thompson's imagination: that JFK's throat wound was caused by an exiting fragment from the head wound(s)? Answer: hardly any time and energy at all...

And David Lifton. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry181092

And you reveal an utter incapacity to make any kind of coherent response to the case I've laid out. You keep wanting to cite experts; I counter with actual evidence. Show me where Robinson identified Humes as the one who performed surgery to the head. Explain to me how a guy could be part of the cover-up and then give the FBI information that directly points to the Central Intelligence Agency! I can explain the case for conspiracy to a 5 year old. You guys cannot. Nonsense. The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent: 1) The autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil shows the back wound at T3/T4, consistent with the holes in the clothes. Signed off as: "Verified." 2) Burkley's death certificate put the back wound in the vicinity of the JFK's "third thoracic vertebra," also consistent with the clothing holes. Identifying the wound according to its vertebral level follows proper autopsy protocol. 3) The contemporaneous notes of two Parkland doctors, wherein the the throat entrance wound was properly recorded. Another half-dozen Parkland witnesses later described the throat entrance wound, as well. 4) The neck x-ray. The damage is consistent with a shot from the front which nicked the trachea, bruised the lung tip, left a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process and an airpocket. No exit. No bullet recovered. 5) The FBI autopsy report was a properly prepared investigative document. All of the above is consistent with the witness statements and Dealey Plaza photo evidence from Z186 thru Z255 -- a sequence during which no tampering of the Z film has been claimed. - We knew this from the FBI autopsy report, first noted by Humes and recorded by the FBI guys, Sibert and O'Neill. The head x-rays would be inadmissible under any circumstances given the pre-autopsy surgery to the head. The autopsy photos were not produced according to proper autopsy protocol, and are thus rightly dismissed. The final autopsy report was not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocol, and is thus rightly dismissed. I've already gone over this...Interesting how I make these points and you respond by pretending I haven't already covered them, that I know nothing about it. Odd rhetorical technique here, Jim... None of the head wound evidence is worth warm piss. Why do people obsess on obviously faked evidence, Jim? You guys are studying the cover-up, not the killing! Jim, I'm beginning to draw the conclusion you don't bother reading anything I write. What part of the following don't you get? Me: According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames of the Z-film circa Z313 were tampered (with). This I can buy. I've challenged alterationists to point out tampering during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been asserted, much less argued.

I don't see anyone telling the FBI that treasonous obstruction of justice had just occurred if that person was the perp of such a crime. This defies my understanding of human nature. Humes, Boswell and Finck were not brought fully into the cover-up until after the autopsy, when the Magic Bullet was brought into consideration. As with the autopsy face sheet, the contemporaneous observations of Humes/Boswell/Finck were golden. After midnight 11/22/63 the prosectors turned into creatures of the cover-up; prior to that it was another story. And no, I don't buy Horne's case against Humes. I find all of this easy to sort out. There was medical evidence prepared according to proper military autopsy protocol. There was medical evidence NOT prepared according to proper military autopsy protocol. Of the former we include the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death certificate, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, the neck x-ray. The FBI autopsy report was a properly prepared investigative document, as were the depositions of the FBI agents taken for the HSCA. In the improper pile we find the autopsy photos, the head x-rays (anything related to the head wounds is conflicted and readily dismissed), and the final autopsy report, which listed the back wound improperly. The properly prepared medical evidence is consistent and redundant with the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds. Jackie described the limo as moving very slowly. Irrelevant. Nothing you or I assert trumps the credible historical record: 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) Humes, Boswell and Finck were hot on the trail of the perps, only to be side-tracked by the FBI in 1963 and JFK assassination experts 46 years later. Where am I spot on with Thompson, other than a general defense of the authenticity of the Dealey Plaza photo evidence? I denounce Thompson's unnecessary obfuscation about the throat wound as heartily as I denounce Mantik for framing the throat/back wounds as open questions that require "expert analysis." A "Cause for Doubt"? How mild! The evidence of the T3 back wound and throat entrance require no equivocations. These hard facts are not "cause for doubt," they are absolutely dispositve of conspiracy in the murder of JFK. The preliminary conclusions of the prosectors carries more weight than someone who didn't see the body and is speculating at best. No way does Livingston make a definitive diagnosis on a body he didn't examine. The obvious lies to which I referred are 1) JFK was struck at the back base of the neck, and 2) JFK's throat wound was an exit. Those are obvious lies which require no "expert analysis" to rebut. And your message that the SBT requires an "expert" to debunk is factually incorrect. And your characterization of the potential for clothing "bunch" is also factually incorrect. Or their eyes might glaze over at the unnecessary complexity of your argument. One of the standard complaints about CTs is the overwhelming complexity of some arguments. Not if it were properly reported! It's a lot easier to impress the public with a simple demonstration than a complex argument. That much should be obvious. JF: The culture of the United States is all about the here and now. Yesterday is old news. We were lucky to get it out. Celebrate! (/quote) Ah yes, the prima facie cases for conspiracy are old hat! We must be hip to all the new expert analysis which cites other expert analysis and eschews that boring old stuff like actual witness testimony, actual photographs, actual documentation. Sorry, Jim. Yours' and Tink Thompson's "micro-analyses" are old news. If I get ONE expert in this case -- I'll take Tom Wilson.

Thorburn requires significant damage to the spinal cord. No such damage showed up on x-ray. From "Lattimer and the Great Thorburn Hoax" by Wallace Milam http://www.assassinationweb.com/milam-thor.htm Through Ms. Cranor's efforts, I finally obtained a copy of Dr. Thorburn's original article. It was only then that the extent of Dr. Lattimer's scientific charade became evident. Eighteen years after his work was prostituted, it is finally time to let Thorburn speak for Thorburn: In June, 1886, Dr. William Thorburn received a patient at his infirmary in Manchester, England. A workman had lost his balance and fallen while standing on a scaffolding whitewashing a wall. The back of his neck slammed against a bench while his feet remained caught in the ladder. As a final blow, the bucket of whitewash fell back upon him. Dr. Thorburn, who did not see the patient until he was brought to the hospital four days later, observed the man as his condition deteriorated over the next three weeks. After the workman's death 26 days after the accident, Thorburn performed a post mortem examination and then wrote about the incident as "Case I" in Cases of injury to the Cervical Region of the Spinal Cord. (18) Dr. Lattimer sees such parallels in the injuries and reactions of the workman and Kennedy that he calls the President's response "an almost classic demonstration of what might be called a Thorburn position." (19) But if he read Dr. Thorburn's article at all, he must have noted many significant differences: a. Thorburn's workman was rendered immediately unconscious (20); Kennedy was not. b. According to Lattimer and his disciples, Kennedy's arms flew immediately into place and locked there. Thorburn's patient had no such immediate reaction. On regaining consciousness, his legs were paralyzed, but "his arms were partially so." (21) The engraving of the injured workman, showing his arms laid outward (Fig. 1-a), depicts his condition four da s after the accident, a fact which Lattimer deliberately distorted. (See below.) c. While one of Kennedy's vertebra and his spinal cord may have been grazed (HSCA's medical panel concluded that a bullet did not hit one of Kennedy's vertebra and that the damage "if any, was purely negligible." (22), the workman suffered "complete transverse destruction of the spinal cord.... "(23) d. The possible damage to Kennedy's vertebra occurred at the level of C-6 or C-7 (and even possibly T-1) according to the HSCA medical panel. As we have seen, Lattimer first claimed the bullet struck neither vertebrae nor the spinal cord. Then he narrowed the choices to C-6 or C-7, finally settling on C-6. He specifically ruled out C-5. But Thorburn's victim had a dislocation between the 5th and 6th cervical vertebrae with complete paralysis of all nerves below C-5, the spinal cord being completely destroyed "immediately below the level of origin of the fifth cervical nerves." (25) As will be seen, Lattimer took steps which hid these facts as well. e. Finally, the engraving of Thorburn's patient (Fig. 1-a) shows the position of his arms to be quite the opposite of Kennedy's. The workman's arms are abducted, falling to his side, away from the throat and midline of the body, while Kennedy's arms are adducted, his hands in front of his throat. That Thorburn is the standard Posner/McAdams LONE NUT drivel should give you pause, Jim. The damage on the x-ray is inconsistent with Thorburn Reflex. You and Livingston are not entitled to your own facts, sir. And you haven't convinced me that Livingston took into account the neck x-ray. How do I "defer" to Tink Thompson in any way, shape, or form? Occam's razor: 3 military doctors came to a preliminary conclusion that was subsequently proven correct. Best explanation. Covers all the evidence you ignore. Rosemary Willis/Willis5/Zapruder trump Doug Weldon. A non-sequitur by any other name still... I cite witnesses. I cite photographs. The witnesses and the photographs agree on the major points concerning JFK's throat and back wounds. You cite other "experts." Such is the "expert culture" of the JFK False Mystery Industry. Ah yes! They substituted an x-ray that shows minor soft tissue damage, no bullet and no exit -- facts which directly implicate people associated with the Central Intelligence Agency. How do you figure? Are you saying that separate shots could not possibly account for both? What evidence do you have that precludes two separate shots, Jim? Your opinion don't trump William Colby's description of the technology. JF: If you are trusting Humes and Boswell and Fincke, you have no idea what you are talking about. HUMES PERFORMED SURGERY TO THE HEAD BEFORE THE START OF THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY AND THEN LIED ABOUT IT. (/quote) I don't buy it. Typical blood-lust in the JFK False Mystery Game: let's turn conspiracy witnesses into perps! No question Humes was dragooned into the cover-up. But his observations of surgery to the head and "general feeling" about blood soluble rounds tells us a great deal about Kennedy's killing. Those observations, taken down by the FBI guys, occurred before the prosectors were enveloped in the cover-up JF: Haven't you heard of Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB? (/quote) His case against Humes is highly speculative. JF: I just interviewed David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, on "The Real Deal". His review of Horne's work on the medical evidence may be found archived on my public issues web site at http://www.assassinationscience.com. That JFK's military aide was moved from the limo was an obviously necessary step to prepare for the shot through the windshield. I am stunned you don't grasp this. (/quote) I'm stunned you think the plotters planned to shoot through the windshield! I'm not stunned that you cite Doug Horne, David Mantik, and Doug Weldon because that's all you have. I cite Rosemary Willis, and her rapid head-snap toward Black Dog Man Z214-17. I cite Jackie Kennedy, who described the look on JFK's face as "quizzical," wholly inconsistent with the t&t windshield high-powered rifle scenario. I cite the Zapruder film and its consistencies with the testimonies of Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis -- JFK was grasping at his throat. I cite Willis 5, and the HSCA analysis of Black Dog Man in which a "very distinct straight-line feature" is observed "near the region of his hands." I cite Altgens 6 and Tom Wilson's description of a device in the Dal-Tex which is similar to devices used to fire blood soluble rounds. And yes, I cite the preliminary conclusions of the autopsists which points directly at individuals connected to the Central Intelligence Agency. JF: Do you understand that the autopsy X-rays were altered, that another brain was substitute for that of JFK, and that the Zapruder film was recreated to remove the limo stop and other events? Are you even aware of the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning? What do you think happened? SPELL IT OUT. Your position strikes me as quite bizarre. Tell me more. (/quote) Mitchell WerBell III designed two sound-suppressed weapons which fired blood soluble rounds with high accuracy. There were few misses in Dealey Plaza. Three misses from the 6th Fl snipers nest were intentional. The throat shot was perfect. A blood soluble paralytic fired by Black Dog Man circa Z190, which caused JFK to seize up paralyzed by Z230. The back shot could have been a couple of inches more to the left (closer to the heart) but otherwise a direct hit on the body with a blood soluble toxin. There was a triangulation of fire at his head, all three bullets hit. I find the best explanation for the pre-autopsy events at Bethesda here (admittedly hearsay and inadmissible, but "best explanation" nonetheless): Elbert Israel was the name of the orderly. 3 shots to the head given quick treatment by a doctor other than Humes, that's for sure. According to Tom Wilson and the Hollywood 7 several frames of the Z-film circa Z313 were tampered. This I can buy. I've challenged alterationists to point out tampering during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru 255 (Altgens 6) and none has been asserted much less argued. I don't have a theory, I just cite the abundant and redundant evidence in the credible historical record.

You don't effectively combat a lie by repeating it, Jim, as that establishes a false equivalent. Why argue against a complex falsehood when you can argue for the simple truth? The public was getting the bottom line from the first generation critics until Tink Thompson came along and denied the prima facie evidence of conspiracy. An army of Thompsonite pet theorists have followed in his foot-steps, all denying either the low back wound or the throat entrance wound or both. I don't find it helpful when "experts" treat these obvious lies as deserving of "international peer-review". You and Thompson seem to share the notion that the case needs this kind of "micro-analysis." It doesn't.

Oh, I think it would be a very big deal indeed if a mainstream journalist came out and announced that the case for conspiracy had first been made back in 1966! It would be a very big deal to show that both the mainstream news media and the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community (which I refer to in my dour moods as the JFK False Mystery Industry) have been chasing their collective tails for decades. Yes, that would make fine mainstream news! It would spare the world the endless pointless debates over the head wounds, the acoustic evidence, the neutron activation analysis, and many many other worthless dead-end rabbit holes favored by the JFK False Mystery Industry. Well, that's the beauty of prima facie physical evidence. A team of five year olds could demonstrate the location of JFK back wound on the basis of the clothing evidence. What I appreciate are facts. And the claim that you and a team of experts finally debunked the Single Bullet Theory is not a fact. You also make comments about clothing "bunch" which are also not facts. The movement of JFK's clothing as required by the SBT is flat out impossible, as Salandria pointed out decades ago. It would be great if someone got that word out! Not for the prima facie case for conspiracy, which started with Salandria and the clothing evidence. But the location of the back wound was changed before Gerald Ford got to it. It went from T3 (or T3/T4) up to just above the upper margin of scapula, as per the final autopsy report. But that location is closer to T2, so Ford moved it again. The more powerful case against the SBT is the T3 wound, which does not require "expert" analysis. The simplest explanation carries the day, Jim. But Gaeton could explain his position to a five year old, who could then explain it to his 3 year old brother. Prima facie evidence trumps that which requires complex explanations. I don't agree with the word you are getting out -- that the SBT requires highly technical rebuttal. You and Tink push this micro-analyzing crap to the detriment of historical truth, imho.

But your data points have nothing to do with the throat wound. The notion that the eight other "data points" support the a) data point is a non-sequitur. 1) There was an entrance wound in the throat. 2) There was a shot thru the windshield from the front. THEREFORE 3) The shot that struck the throat also struck the windshield. Non sequitur, Professor. There is nothing that establishes the throat shot as the t&t windshield shot. Nothing. You are conflating an argument for a t&t hole in the windshield for an argument that the t&t hole in the windshield was caused by the same round as the one that struck JFK in the throat. The latter does not follow the former, Jim. What "improbable explanations" do you have me endorsing? I am proposing that the autopsists got it right the night of the autopsy. What is so "improbable" about 3 military doctors drawing a preliminary conclusion which turned out to be correct? Simplest explanation, actually. I've already covered these points. None of them add up to throat-shot/t&t-shot. If JFK were struck in the throat with a high powered round it would certainly do more damage than a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket. This "anticipated trajectory" to which you refer is defied by Willis 5 and BDM's position. Factually incorrect. 1975 Church Committee testimony of William Colby (emphasis mine): So a shallow wound in the back between 1 to 2 inches right of his spine at the level of his third thoracic vertebra induced Thorburn Relex? No, Jim, Dr. Livingston is entitled to his opinions but he is not entitled to his own facts. His diagnosis was based on the fraudulent notion that JFK was struck at the back base of the neck. Such is not the case. Livingston needs to do his homework. Even the Thompsonites find the Thorburn scenario ridiculous. And neither of them knows where JFK's back wound was. IOW, neither of them know the first thing about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Your unproven assumptions are dazzling, Dr. Fetzer. Many data points directly support the conclusion that JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds, which was the preliminary conclusion of the men who actually examined the body. The damage shown in the neck x-ray is utterly consistent with this scenario: JFK suffered a nicked trachea, a bruised lung tip, a hair-line fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit wound. No bullet recovered. Same with the back wound: shallow with no exit and no bullet recovered. JFK's actions in the limo are consistent with this conclusion: he was struck circa Z190 and was seized up paralyzed with a "quizzical" look on his face by circa Z230. According to Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 there was a man in the Dal-Tex who appeared to be aiming a device Steve Kober has identified as similar to devices that fire blood soluble rounds. The statements of close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, Linda Willis corroborate what we see in the Zapruder : JFK "clutching" at his throat during the crucial sequence Z186 (Betzner 3) thru Z255 (Altgens 6). The evidence of JFK being hit with blood soluble rounds is substantial; and that is not the idle theory of a hobbyist. That conclusion was drawn by the men who were there. Assertions are not argument. You ignore the witness testimony, the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, the neck x-ray, the historical record of CIA operations, and the conclusions of the autopsists. What you promote instead is unrelenting non sequitur, and zero relevant facts. Quote your fellow experts all you want, Jim. I prefer the actual evidence.

And an exit wound made by a fragment from the head shots, at that? Rubbish, truly. One gets the impression there are parts of the Zapruder film Tink Thompson has yet to watch. But what about the mote in your own eye, Jim? I find the following to be an egregious piece of fluff: I hate to burst your bubble Jim, but Gaeton Fonzi conclusively proved the SBT false back in 1966 when he confronted Arlen Specter with the JFK clothing evidence. http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fon...th_Specter.html Back in '66 Salandria won debates by challenging his opponents with the clothing evidence. But like Peter Dale Scott, Vincent Salandria is a universally respected figure whose essential conclusions are near-universally ignored. JFK's T3 back wound and throat entrance wound are prima facie evidence of conspiracy, and require no *team of experts* to establish.

A shot or shots other than the throat shot. A shot or shots other than the throat shot. Consistent with the reasonable conclusion that Mitchell WerBell III designed a sound-suppressed weapon that delivered a blood soluble flechette to JFK's throat circa Z190. How do those establish that the throat shot came through the windshield? How does any of this establish the throat shot as the one that went through the windshield? Beg the question much? None of which establishes a connection between the throat shot and the t&t shot. This speculation of yours and Weldon's ignores the throat x-ray, the witness testimony of Rosemary Willis, the fact that JFK seized up paralyzed in two seconds consistent with known CIA weapons testing and consistent with the preliminary conclusions of the autopsists immediately after the autopsy. This has not been established. G and H are irrelevant and I seriously question the idea that JFK's aide would have prevented BDM from hitting Kennedy.

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

Cliff, I'm disappointed that you think that even approximates what I meant by the truth. I don't think that's what John Simkin meant either. Fair enough. In that case the truth is known, imo. It was known in large part the night of the assassination. Immediately after the autopsy, right before the cover-up enveloped them completely, the autopsists huddled together with the 2 FBI guys and came to the "general feeling" that JFK was struck with blood/water soluble rounds. This conclusion is supported by the neck x-ray which shows a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying C7 and T1. No exit wound, no major damage, no bullet recovered. The Zapruder film shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds. Close witnesses Nellie Connally, Clint Hill, and Linda Willis describe JFK as "grasping" or "clutching" his throat, just as we see in the Zap. Prior to the assassination the CIA had tested blood soluble flechettes which paralyzed the victim in two seconds. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt Steve Kober researched Tom Wilson's analysis of Altgens 6 and found a match with the weapon Wilson described in A Deeper, Darker Truth: a weapon that fires blood soluble rounds. Coincidence? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=15516&hl= In 1963 the universe of people with access to this technology had to be very small: Richard Helms, William Colby, Sidney Gottlieb, Charles Senseney and Mitchell WerBell III. I'd add WerBell, and very possibly Richard Helms, to my perp list. Richard Cain Sam Giancana John Martino Frank Fiorini/Sturgis J. Edgar Hoover Richard Helms Mitchell WerBell III William Alexander Carlos Bringuier Dr. Jose Ignorzio David Atlee Phillips Jerry and James Buchanan I think it reasonable to consign John Martino to a minor courier role as discussed in Someone Would Have Talked; Dr. Ignorzio was a nobody; the Buchanan brothers were likely bit players in the initial Castro-did-it cover-up; Carlos Bringuier likely a bit player in the sheep-dipping of Oswald. Here's a revised list of serious perps/accessories. Richard Helms J. Edgar Hoover Sam Giancana Mitchell WerBell III David Atlee Phillips Richard Cain Frank Sturgis William Alexander I find this list a reasonable conclusion derived directly from the historical record. Not a complete list, but a good start...imho... I don't find longevity dispositive of innocence. I think we can eliminate Martino, Ignorzio, the Buchanans, and Bringuier on this basis -- bit players. These guys? Richard Helms J. Edgar Hoover Sam Giancana Mitchell WerBell III David Atlee Phillips Richard Cain Frank Sturgis William Alexander I'd find it hard to believe they weren't involved in the planning, execution, and (attempted) Castro-did-it cover-up. I'm not trying to compile a complete list, but draw conclusions based on the historical record. Thank you, Michael! Your views always carry weight with me, sir!

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394 According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of his hands. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm There is no innocent explanation for this. Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound. There ARE innocent explanations, like retouching. Most photos of this area are retouched, most specifically the Nix film. So Rosemary Willis was "in" on it? I can see Maurice Bishop recruiting the 10-year old Rosemary Willis to participate in this confusion. Even more crucial to BDM's absence is Rosemary Willis' description of him as "conspicuous" and a person who happened to "disappear the next instant." What do you think Rosemary's CIA code name was, Jack?

Too late to obtain justice? Agreed. Too late to obtain the truth? If by "truth" you mean something that is reported in the NY Times and included in history books as settled fact -- agreed, it's not going to happen. As a self-admitted hobbyist I find the assassination becomes more and more clear the longer I study it. But that's just me. I subscribe to William Kelly's "proof in the propaganda" view: JFK's killers were the guys who immediately started pushing the Oswald-as-Commie-agent meme. Names in bold: Larry Hancock, Someone Would Have Talked, pg. 13: ibid, pg 288: William Kelly, the "Black Propaganda Ops" thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...c=11191&hl= To paraphrase Hannibal Lecter: "It's all there in the case file, Clarice. Everything you need to catch them, these men you seek..." Or so my hobby has led me to conclude.

Readily explained by a shot from Black Dog Man circa Z190. According to Rosemary Willis this was a "conspicuous" person who managed to "disappear the next instant"." Rosemary's ultra-fast head-snap Z214-217 establishes the timing of BDM's sudden disappearance. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2394 According to the HSCA analysis of the Willis 5 photo Black Dog Man had "a very distinct straight-line feature" in the region of his hands. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol12_0006a.htm There is no innocent explanation for this. Somehow those two "micro-analyzing" EXPERTS Tink Thompson and Jim Fetzer manage to ignore the most obvious evidence of the timing and nature of the throat wound.