Robert Prudhomme
-
Posts
4,105 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Robert Prudhomme
-
-
What evidence is there of a power failure? The elevators not working?
-
And I recall everyone saying I was out to lunch, when I had the audacity to suggest Baker did not enter the TSBD immediately after his run across the Elm St. extension.
-
Paul,
EAW conducted a private investigation into the shooting and testified before the WC about this and he never mentioned LHO in terms of being the shooter. Furthermore, if he was the shooter then he used a different weapon as all the contemporaneous reports metion a steel - jacketed bullet. Media coverage said it was a .30.06 bullet.
The German newspaper contacted him and said that it was LHO, not the other way around. There is no evidence that I am aware of that supports the contention that LHO fired at EAW.
Rob, I'm interested in what you mean by Walker's "private investigation."
As for his WC testimony, Walker presumed that the WC had already concluded that LHO was his April shooter, because that is what Marina Oswald had testified under oath, and it was a matter of record. Walker did not challenge that, he presumed it.
Furthermore, Walker was not alone in his WC testimony, but his attorney, Clyde Watts, was with him to tell him what to answer.
When it came to this question -- "Did you know Lee Harvey Oswald at any time in 1962 or 1963 before the JFK assassination," it was mandatory, according to Clyde Watts, that General Walker reply, "No, not at all, in any way, shape or form."
So, Walker didn't have to propose that LHO was his April shooter -- he only had to presume Marina's testimony, and the record was never questioned by Walker.
But when Walker was asked if he himself had anything personal to do with LHO, or even knew about LHO's existence in 1963, General Walker was obliged to say, "No," otherwise that would have exploded the entire JFK conspiracy -- and Walker was not alone in that conspiracy, and had agreed with all the conspirators to maintain secrecy.
That's my reading on of the evidence.
It is factually certain that no expert could link the Walker bullet with LHO's rifle. It is likely, then, that LHO used somebody else's rifle -- and we should join General Walker in the search for the second shooter. The DPD record still maintains that there were two shooters -- and so a different rifle is implicit.
As for the German newspaper article, I respectfully challenge your belief that the newspaper called General Walker and was the source of that article. That is merely General Walker's WC testimony -- however, the German FBI (BND) contacted the German writer himself (Helmut Muench, whose pen-name was Hasso Thorsten) and Helmut Muench confessed that General Walker was the actual source of that story. This is fully documented by the FBI from the BND, and is available on the Mary Ferrell web site.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Paul
When you claim something is fully documented, is it not customary to provide us with a link to such documentation?
-
RP: What if the darts missed and he ducked down?
How would he know a dart missed him?
RP:Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle?
Umbrella? Who said anything about an umbrella? Not me! Free Louie Witt!
One of these perhaps:
Oh wow, a .45 ACP with a scope on it! LOL (a scope no less! on a frickin' handgun!)
And from where did they fire at JFK with that thing, Cliff?
Did it fire the dart from a standard .45 ACP cartridge or are you still believing in rocket propelled darts with tail fins on them?
(say, if only the narrow front end of the dart entered the wound, and not the back end with the fins sticking out, would the back end of the dart still dissolve in the blood?)
-
"How would he know where the bullet went? That was the big mystery!"
You really don't read anything at all, Cliff.
Lipsey described the autopsy doctors discussing following a wound track that ranged downward into JFK's chest and then disappeared.
And Lipsey is a proven prevaricator.
James Curtis Jenkins interviewed by David Lifton, Best Evidence, pg 713
<quote on, emphasis added>
Jenkins: I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe...through the pleura [the lining of the chest cavity].
Lifton: Explain that to me. You could see the probe that he was putting in the wound? You could see it through the pleura?
Jenkins: You could actually see where it was making an indentation.
Lifton: ...an indentation on the pleura.
Jenkins: Right...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 too low in the chest cavity...somewhere around the junction of the descending aorta or bronchus in the lungs.
Lifton: Did you hear Humes say he could feel the bottom of it with his fingers?
Jenkins: Yes, I did.
<quote off>
Add James Curtis Jenkins to the long list of witnesses the Pet Theorists must bash.
I'm sorry but, the medical reports and WC testimony from Drs. Perry and Carrico, Parkland Memorial Hospital, cannot be interpreted in any other way than JFK having a serious respiratory emergency in his right lung known as a "tension pneumothorax", which could only have been brought on by a projectile entering his right pleural cavity. It also means, unfortunately, that your witness Jenkins was not telling the truth when he claimed he saw a probe pushing against an intact parietal pleural membrane on the right side of JFK's chest cavity.
It is only an inch or slightly more from the outside skin of the human back, at the level of the T3 vertebra, to the parietal membrane. Don't you find it rather miraculous that the projectile that entered JFK's back was able to open a wound track right up to this membrane, to which a probe could be inserted, yet the projectile never penetrated this membrane? It's about the thickness of a sheet of paper on a deer, and can easily be cut through with a knife.
It's a shame you are either unwilling or unable to comprehend medical evidence, Cliff. Perry and Carrico basically told us everything we need to know about the back wound, yet you continue to ignore them. Or are they prevaricators too?
-
The Umbrella Man was not acting in any official capacity in Dealey Plaza that day.
OTOH, Lt. Lipsey had a very high profile position as aide to Maj. Gen. Wehle, and it might be a little bit more difficult for Lipsey to simply fudge the details of his whereabouts in Washington, DC for 3-4 hours, especially on the night of JFK's autopsy.
We can argue back and forth, but I think it's very significant that Sibert and O'Neill, according to their report, were completely unaware of the presence in the room throughout the autopsy of a uniformed military officer, particularly one whom an Army general (Wehle) came in periodically to relieve. (According to Sibert and O'Neill, Wehle entered the room once, to confer with the Secret Service.)
We also have to believe that Sibert and O'Neill were completely unaware of another uniformed officer in the room, Lt. Sam Bird.
It comes down to whom do we believe, Sibert and O'Neill or Lipsey.
Ron,
The whole room was buzzing with people. I doubt very much that Sibert and O'Neill kept any kind of comprehensive list.
To suggest Lipsey wasn't there is ridiculous.
That's par for the course around here, Sandy. There are all kinds of ridiculous suggestions on this forum.
-
Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."
That's a flat out prevarication.
From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:
<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 for the HSCAt:
<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>
Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.
So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?
"High speed rifle bullet"?
The blood soluble dart weapons were a different animal.
Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?
Excuse me?
From their Report.
<quote on>
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.
<quote off>
Why don't you take your blood soluble darts and stick them where the sun don't shine?
Not mine. That scenario belongs to the three doctors and the two FBI men.
You can't tell the difference between evidence and the ether of your own imaginings.
Do you really think anyone in their right mind (except for you) is going to bring a dart gun to an assassination, and shoot darts in JFK's neck and back, and wait patiently for paralysis to set in before shooting a real rifle at him?
Only if they didn't want him to duck down in case the first volley missed.
Here is a REALLY good question for you, Einstein.
What if the darts paralyzed him and he fell over on his side? Wouldn't he have made a better target when he was sitting up?
"Paralyzed" and "fell over on his side" are mutually exclusive events.
What if a first volley missed and he ducked down out of range?
First-shot/kill-shot was not 100% guaranteed.
What if the darts missed and he ducked down? Are you actually going to try to tell me a dart fired from an umbrella is more accurate than a high powered rifle?
-
God, I wish this forum had an Ignore button.
-
"How would he know where the bullet went? That was the big mystery!"
You really don't read anything at all, Cliff.
Lipsey described the autopsy doctors discussing following a wound track that ranged downward into JFK's chest and then disappeared.
The autopsy doctors would NOT have dissected all of JFK's organs looking for a projectile WITHOUT some indication of a wound track to indicate the projectile had passed that way.
Trying to explain this to non-hunters is enough to drive a person insane.
-
Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."
That's a flat out prevarication.
From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:
<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 for the HSCAt:
<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>
Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.
So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?
"High speed rifle bullet"?
The blood soluble dart weapons were a different animal.
Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?
Excuse me?
From their Report.
<quote on>
During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. HUMES located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column.
This opening was probed by Dr. HUMES with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger.
<quote off>
Why don't you take your blood soluble darts and stick them where the sun don't shine?
Do you really think anyone in their right mind (except for you) is going to bring a dart gun to an assassination, and shoot darts in JFK's neck and back, and wait patiently for paralysis to set in before shooting a real rifle at him?
Here is a REALLY good question for you, Einstein.
What if the darts paralyzed him and he fell over on his side? Wouldn't he have made a better target when he was sitting up?
-
BTW, how did the HSCA know to seek Lipsey out as an autopsy witness?
Maybe he approached them. "Hey, you fellows (as he refers to his interviewers) may want to talk to me. I was at the JFK autopsy!"
And they, of course, would just blindly accept that he witnessed the autopsy, and not bother checking out his story before committing his "prevarications" to history.
Right.....
They needed a high back wound witness.
Desperately.
Cliff
You are getting worse by the day. You're not even making sense anymore.
A high back wound witness, possibly, but then he tells the HSCA over and over the bullet went down into JFK's chest or abdomen, and Humes spent most of the autopsy looking for this bullet.
I'm sure the SBT people were just thrilled when they read Lipsey's interview.
-
BTW, how did the HSCA know to seek Lipsey out as an autopsy witness?
Maybe he approached them. "Hey, you fellows (as he refers to his interviewers) may want to talk to me. I was at the JFK autopsy!"
And they, of course, would just blindly accept that he witnessed the autopsy, and not bother checking out his story before committing his "prevarications" to history.
Right.....
Didn't they "blindly accept" the "Umbrella Man," whose testimony regarding his actions was clearly contradicted by the photographic evidence?
The Umbrella Man was not acting in any official capacity in Dealey Plaza that day.
OTOH, Lt. Lipsey had a very high profile position as aide to Maj. Gen. Wehle, and it might be a little bit more difficult for Lipsey to simply fudge the details of his whereabouts in Washington, DC for 3-4 hours, especially on the night of JFK's autopsy.
-
"BTW, how did the HSCA know to seek Lipsey out as an autopsy witness?
They needed someone to prevaricate about the location of the back wound."
And, if you don't mind my asking, just who exactly would "they" be?
The HSCA concluded the back wound was toward the base of the neck but they couldn't find anyone but him to place it there.
Lipsey certainly wasn't a good witness for the WC apologists. He made a mockery out of the Single Bullet Theory, as well as Humes' autopsy report.
Vichy CTs love the guy because of his fictional "high" back wound.
I doubt that you are aware of this Cliff but, Lipsey also told the HSCA the "high" back wound put a projectile into JFK's chest cavity, despite the autopsy report claiming no projectile entered the chest cavity.
WTH is a "Vichy CT" and just how could Lipsey's description of the back wound help anyone in the LN camp?
-
"BTW, how did the HSCA know to seek Lipsey out as an autopsy witness?
They needed someone to prevaricate about the location of the back wound."
And, if you don't mind my asking, just who exactly would "they" be?
Lipsey certainly wasn't a good witness for the WC apologists. He made a mockery out of the Single Bullet Theory, as well as Humes' autopsy report.
-
BTW, how did the HSCA know to seek Lipsey out as an autopsy witness?
Maybe he approached them. "Hey, you fellows (as he refers to his interviewers) may want to talk to me. I was at the JFK autopsy!"
And they, of course, would just blindly accept that he witnessed the autopsy, and not bother checking out his story before committing his "prevarications" to history.
Right.....
-
Doesn't anyone recognize a coverup in progress when they see one, and that the FBI were just helping things along?
-
Richard Lipsey: "I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."
That's a flat out prevarication.
From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:
<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 for the HSCAt:
<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>
Lipsey is a serial prevaricator.
So, the FBI enquired about a bullet that would dissolve or completely "fragmentize". While they were on the phone, did they mention the fact this high speed rifle bullet magically penetrated JFK's back less than an inch, and did all of its dissolving or "fragmentizing" within an inch of the surface?
Isn't it funny neither Sibert or O'Neill say a single word about how deep the back wound bullet penetrated?
-
"The only photo I have been able to find of the nick in the tie, with the tie laid out flat, has the NARA measuring scale cropped out of it. (You can decide for yourself why anyone would crop that away.)"
Ashton
Would you please post that photo for us, and indicate to us where on the tie the nick is?
Also, is this where you see the nick to be, or is there evidence cited by the FBI or the WC stating this is where the nick is?
-
Cliff,
You raise an interesting issue.
The Sibert-O’Neill Report includes a list of those who were at the autopsy, and Lipsey is not on the list. The report specifically states that the two FBI agents and three Secret Service agents “were the only personnel other than medical personnel present during the autopsy.”
It mentions General Wehle once:
“Major General WEHLE, Commanding Officer of U.S. Military District, Washington,D.C., entered the autopsy room to ascertain from the Secret Service arrangements concerning the transportation of the President’s body back to the White House.”
You would think that Sibert and O’Neill would have noticed Lipsey at least once, particularly when he and Lt. Sam Bird (also not on the list) were eating their hamburgers.
Perhaps they only wanted people "present" who were in on the coverup. If they didn't put Lipsey on the list, 53 years later, "researchers" such as Cliff can then call him a prevaricator.
BTW, how did the HSCA know to seek Lipsey out as an autopsy witness?
-
Three shots had to become two shots. I'm surprised Lipsey never met with an unfortunate "accidenr".
-
Paul, I agree that the assassination was intended to look like a Cuban Communist ambush, to incite an invasion of Cuba. But we disagree on why this scenario was abandoned.
But I don't want this thread, which is about Lipsey and his testimony, to be hijacked.
You're right about this, Ron.
So, bringing it back to Lipsey -- Lipsey didn't realize that he was supporting the CTers -- he thought he was supporting the LNers.
I think that's what Robert wanted to bring out with this thread.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Precisely, Paul. In fact, I don't think Lipsey was actually "supporting" anyone, CTer or LNer. I don't think it even occurred to him that anyone was doing anything underhanded at the autopsy, even years later in the HSCA interview.
"SECTION 2
LIPSEY: And once again, and I'm sorry, the best I can tell you is my recollection after all these years and obviously some speculation on my part.
The only thing, and it's certainly not going to hold up under any court of law-type thing. But, I can remember when the Warren Commission was formed. Everybody's writing books about it. All the comments on how many times he was shot and the angles. I remember Walter Cronkite doing this big CBS thing on who shot him -- how many directions it came from. I can remember vividly in my mind on literally hundreds of occasions, saying these people are crazy. I watched the autopsy and I know for a fact he was shot three times. And the doctors were firmly convinced they all came out of the same gun because of the type of wounds or the entrances, whatever. I wish I could be more specific. I remember going back to the autopsy. I can remember specifically the next week, the next month. Over the period of the next year or so. Which was when I really remember what went on in the room. These people were crazy.
I can remember in my own mind, they're trying to read something into it that didn't happen. One book came out that he was shot from three different angles, another report came out he was only shot once, another that he was shot seven times. All kinds of…Everybody had their own versions of what happened, how many sounds they heard, and the angles of the fire they came from. I definitely remember the doctors commenting they were convinced that the shots came from the same direction and from the same type of weapon -- and it was three shots."
He does not seem to have ever put a lot of deep thought into the assassination and what he learned at the autopsy. This is why I find him so believable.
Robert,
Regardless of which direction or directions the shots came from, the fact that Lipsey recounts the autopsy doctors' talking about three separate shots to JFK is the critical thing, right? (Taking into consideration the fact that Tague, down by the Triple Underpass, was hit by a piece of concrete blasted off the curb by an errant shot, the fact that there wasn't enough time for four shots from the Carcano, and the implausibility of the Magic Bullet Theory, right?)
Do you believe that all of the shots that hit JFK came from the rear? From the same window? (Just curious.)
-- Tommy
Nope.
-
Has this tie been completely laid flat and ironed out, or is this a photo of it as it was removed from JFK's neck?
Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed? Does the tie only appear to be 3-3.5 icons wide at this point, simply because the tail was not flattened out? Can you see the nick anywhere else in this photo, or any other photo of the tie where the tie has been opened up and laid flat, outside of this closeup photo?
Isn't it a bit odd that the tie was never laid out flat, and the specific spot on the tie with the nick pointed out?
Robert, it looks to me like the tie has not been ironed. It's still a bit scrunched up where I believe the tail was within the knot. Ironing the tie would not add the 1 1/2 extra icons needed for the tail, where it exits from the bottom of the knot, to have the 5-icon rows we see in the nick area.
You ask: "Is that the nick, about 3 inches up from where the tie was severed?"
There is no reason to believe it is, and there are reasons to believe it's not.
Okay, show me a photo, then, of the tie laid out and indicating where the nick is.
-
If this was the tail of the tie, which all of the evidence clearly points to it being, it would have been the piece that passed through the knot, and would not have been part of the "wrapping" of the knot.
Well hold on there cowboy. I can't think of any evidence pointing to that being part of the tail. What evidence is there?
None, and it is utterly impossible that it was the "tail of the tie"—the narrow part of the tie coming out at the bottom of the knot and hanging down behind the presentation part of the tie. The briefest glance at the image above proves that conclusively. The direction of the nick is 90 degrees in the wrong direction for any such interpretation.
Euclid and Sir Isaac Newton agree wholeheartedly that the nick had to be in some part of the knot. It is extremely unlikely that it was in the "back" of the knot, because on both sides of the back of a four-in-hand knot, the fabric is at a significantly greater angle than the front wrap-around presentation side of the knot.
All the twisting and turning and stretching going on is being done by people whose religious faith in a front throat shot will not allow them to simply look at the simple facts and admit the most simple truth: There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat.
Ashton
Tell me how you know the projectile (bullet, fragment, marble, etc.) was travelling the direction you believe it was. If the photo above shows the tail of the tie, why could it not have been folded over (a vertical fold as we are looking at this photo) into a crease at the site of the nick, as it entered the bottom of the tie knot, and the projectile have passed (from our perspective of the photo) horizontally across the tail, with the full diameter of the projectile equalling the height of the nick in the photo?
-
Yes, Paul, how did Walker know it was Oswald who shot at him? And, if he knew it was Oswald, why woud he say this knowledge was denied to him by the FBI and the DPD in his 1981 writing?
There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
No, I would like YOU to tell us all about this, Cliff.
You want to keep shoving this garbage down our throats, back it up with explanations!