Glenn Nall

From Michael Parks

From: mparks@cyberramp.net (Michael Parks)
Subject: Docs, AMKW, part 3
Date: 23 Sep 1998

From the files of Anna-Marie Kuhns-Walko. All emphasis is my own.

Start quote

NOTES FROM TAPED INTERVIEW

Name: Richard A. Lipsey

Date: January 18,1978.................

Began interview at 11:40 A.M.

Place: Steinberg's Sporting Goods Store, Baton Rouge, La (Richard A. Lipsey, President)

Staff Members Present: Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan, Jr.

THIS MATERIAL IS ON TAPE; THESE ARE NOTES FROM THE TAPE.

Side One 1. Aide to General Wehle - responsible for all funeral
arrangements - saw the majority of the autopsy.

2. Signed a document in his office - about one week later - secrecy
document pertaining to the autopsy - 15 year period - he wished to be
excluded from this agreement if we had the power - we explained that we
wished him to cooperate on a voluntary basis and that it was the
Committee's opinion that no harm would come to him - these orders came
through his office from a Colonel Holden.

3. Born on October 7, 1939 - Salma, Alabama ----Selected as an aide to
General Wehle who was Commanding Officer of the Military District of
Washington ----Activities included social activities at the White House.
Wehle, as Senior Commanding General of Washington, would handle all
ceremonial, and military functions in Washington.


Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Two

4. Met the body of President Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base and placed
the body in a hearse - also had a decoy hearse - flew to Bethesda by
helicopter - took JFK to the back.

5. Jackie and family - entered the front and went upstairs to the
Presidential suite.

6. General Wehle told him not to "leave this body".

7. Said he often thought about the autopsy in subsequent years.

8. Besides the doctors, Lipsey could only remember one other person in the
autopsy room - Lt. Sam Bird, First Lieutenant - head of the Old Guard,
which was always responsible for the casket and body in any ceremony.

9. First autopsy he ever saw - didn't bother him at all, however.
Believes the autopsy lasted approximately 3-4 hours. After that, the
morticians entered - remained there while they prepared the body. Wehle
would come in occasionally. Sent Wehle's car to collect some clothes at
the White House for JFK.

10. Saw JFK after he was totally dressed. Did not recall when the x-rays
were taken.

11. Obvious that one bullet "entered the back of the head and exited on
the right side of the head." TWO OTHER BULLETS ENTERED AT THE
"LOWER PART OF HIS NECK" AND ONE EXITED AND THE OTHER BULLET
HIT HIS CHEST

Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Three

CAVITY AND TRAVELLED (sp) DOWN INTO THE BODY. HE DOES NOT FEEL
THEY EVER FOUND THE THIRD BULLET - IT DID NOT EXIT THE BODY.

12. STATES THAT THE DOCTORS REMOVED ALL HIS INTESTINES - SAID
THAT THE DOCTORS SLICED THESE UP AND TOOK PICTURES OF THESE.

13. Remembers the doctors discussing the third bullet - went in the back
of the head and was deflected down his chest cavity. Does not feel they
found any "whole" bullets - but just speculation. Feels that there was no
question that all the bullets came from the same place.

SUMMARY OF HIS RECOLLECTIONS:

14. One bullet that went in the back of the head and exited and blew away

part of the face. The other entered at the top of the neck. The other entered

at the bottom of the neck or high back. If you looked at JFK from the left side

you couldn't notice any damage; from the right side part of the head was blown away.

he says this on the taped interview: "i feel that there was no... really... entrance wound - maybe i said that - in the rear of his head; there was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head, but I believe all of that part of the back of his head was gone. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head.

Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Four

The bullet that entered the lower head or upper neck came out of the front
of the neck. ONE BULLET DID NOT COME OUT; ALL THEY TALKED ABOUT FOR
TWO HOURS WAS THE ONE BULLET.

15. He concluded that a bullet exited from the throat because he saw where
the doctors were working and listened to their conclusions.

16. Cut all the organs apart in the chest region while looking for a
missile.

17. Mentioned that Sam Bird, just after the assassination, on Tuesday or
Wednesday night, made a tape recording of everything he had seen and done
in relation to the death of President Kennedy. The morticians finished the
body sometime around 3 or 4 in the morning. Took the body back to the
White House - took the body to the East Room - had a private service for
JFK.

18. Does not recall if Bird discussed the autopsy on the tape. Has not
talked to Sam Bird since he left Washington - January, 1974. Lived across
from each other at Fort Myer in the Officers BOQ - was a permanent type -
if Bird is still alive, he is probably in the Army. Does not recall any
discussion concerning the type

Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Five

of autopsy to be performed. Does not recall any discussions with anyone
else during the autopsy either. Said he was in position to hear the
conversation of the doctors but that he didn't always pay close attention -
interested in the parts he wanted to be interested in.

Side Two 1. Lipsey stood approximately 12 to 15 feet from the autopsy
table. The autopsy doctors first examined the entire body. Feel the doctors
discovered all of the wounds during the preliminary examination. Based his
recollection of the wounds on what he saw and what h heard. Remembers
seeing the blood in the throat area - all he saw was the blood.

2. No real entrance in the REAR OF THE HEAD; feels one bullet blew away an
entire portion (entrance and exit). Does not recall any discussion of the
nature of the bullet that caused the head wound. Could not recall the
nature of the wound to the trachea - never got close enough. All he saw of
the wound to the back of the head was blood. Does not recall any discussion
of the wound in the

Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Six

throat being caused by anything other than a bullet. Does not recall any
discussion of a tracheostomy (sp) incision.

3. Cannot recall the doctors specifically saying that the wound in the
throat was caused by a bullet - but he feels they were convinced that a
bullet exited from the front of the neck. Were using an angle from the
entrance in the rear of the head to the throat to look for the other bullet
that entered high in the neck. Both entrances looked the same. Doctors
spent more time looking for the bullet that entered the lower neck-high
back than anything else. Recalls that they said that the bullet could have
gone anywhere. WERE FIRMLY CONVINCED THAT THIS BULLET DID NOT
EXIT IN THE FRONT OF THE NECK. They probed for the path of the bullet
for a short distance until they lost the track and then removed the organs
in an attempt to find it.

4. Cannot recall if they photographed the interior chest. Does not recall
when they took the photographs. Does not recall if they X-rayed the lower
extremities. Recalls the doctors looking at the X-rays during the autopsy.
Related X-rays to things they were doing.

Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Seven

5. DOES NOT RECALL ANY DISCUSSION THAT THE BULLET FELL OUT OF THE
SAME PATHWAY THAT IT ENTERED OR ANY DISCUSSION OF CARDIAC MAS-
SAGE. Does not recall anyone making any calls from the autopsy room - he
made a call from the other room - his parents - does not recall anyone else
making a call from anywhere. DOES NOT RECALL ANY MESSAGES COMING
IN FROM THE KENNEDY FAMILY.

6. Not specifically in charge of security within the room - just had
responsibility to watch the body. Does not recall any orders concerning
admittance to the autopsy room. Does not recall anyone taking attendance.

7. Does not believe the doctors returned any of the organs to the body.
The brain was one of the organs. FEELS THEY DID REMOVE SOME METAL
FRAGMENTS FROM HIS BODY BUT HE HAS NO IDEA WHEN OR HOW BIG THEY
WERE. We had Lipsey diagram the wounds on a face sheet.

8. Does not recall anyone taking notes. Does not recall any Federal agents
in the room. Does not recall anything about the reinterment of the body, or
even when it occurred.

9. FEELS HE KNOWS "FOR A FACT" THAT JFK WAS SHOT THREE TIMES
AND THAT THE BULLETS CAME FROM BEHIND.

Notes - Lipsey Interview Page Eight

Definitely remembers the doctors commenting that the bullets came from
the same spot and direction and that there WERE THREE SHOTS. ABSOLUTE-
LY, UNEQUIVOCALLY, THEY WERE CONVINCED THAT HE HAD BEEN SHOT
THREE TIMES.

10. On the face sheet, the blown away portion of the top side of his head
represented an entrance and exit. Another bullet entered the lower head
and exited the throat. ANOTHER BULLET ENTERED THE UPPER BACK AND
DID NOT EXIT. The bullet entrance in the lower head was distinctly another
bullet. NO QUESTION IN HIS MIND THAT THE DOCTORS FELT THERE WERE
THREE SEPARATE WOUNDS AND THREE SEPARATE BULLETS. Identified the
entrance in the lower head (upper neck) as just inside the hairline. Has not
discussed the autopsy with anyone, not even his wife.

Ended interview at 1:15 P. M.

End quote

I wonder who performed the interview - whose notes are these?

last night i watched Costella's presentation on the Film Hoax from 2003 - i was thoroughly impressed. i don't necessarily agree with some of his final explanations, but find it hard to argue, of course, with his science. wow.

although Chaney wasn't mentioned in the presentation, i have come across this story elsewhere, and didn't realize it was Fetzer/Costella who'd presented it, as well.

the idea that so many fully reliable witnesses testify that Chaney rode to the front of the procession while it's not being seen on the film is quite 'explosive' (i struggle with predictable words, but 'explosive' seems to fit well here).

or Conclusive. as the title of the thread mentions.

this is a WOW thing, for me.

The Chaney racing ahead and speaking to Curry incident happened after they'd left the plaza, on the onramp to the freeway. As to why they acted as though this had happened just after the shots, we can only guess. But I don't think it's a coincidence that the NIx film shows "bodyguards" Chaney and Jackson slamming on their brakes to avoid getting shot, and that they were not interviewed by the commission.

But that's just me.

In fact, Pat - i just listened to Chaney describe the event on camera just after the shooting, and he says, first of all, that he saw K hit "in the face" by the "second bullet", and then that K "slumped over into Mrs. Kennedy's lap" and that he realized they were being fired upon, and went ahead of the President's car to look for Chief Curry.

the other M/C cop states the same thing. It's pretty obvious this is supposed to have happened right then and there.

Thanks Craig -

Interesting stuff and a great link http://www.ideastrai...gResolution.pdf.

We could maybe do with an area on the forum for FAQ's / Guides / How to's on topics such as this that are to do with research methods and common technical mistakes & assumptions, rather than the assassination debate per se.

I think this is a great idea - i'm very interested in the expert knowledge and skills that are available in this forum, and don't know exactly how a particular item would be found, such as port-mortem procedure, etc. As much as is available, in any case. It'd be nice if there were a Medical Examiner or two lurking around...

not doubting you at all, Pat - in fact, you're one of the ones seem more legit to me.

interesting about this - Fetzer said something about the Currymobile actually pulling over to allow the Limo to race ahead - i wonder where this happened, and where all this is documented? There really were several people mentioning the problem with Chaney. And those testimonies of Chaney and the other cop really did make it sound like it's what he did as soon as it happened (the shots).

i see what you do mean in Nix, too. The both slow quickly, then the inner cop seems to slow more (NOT Chaney speed up). And it's at that point that either 1) NO cop races forward to warn Curry, or 2) NO cop races forward to warn Curry. I'm saying that it's pretty cut and dry - IF they say this is where he did go forward, there's a problem. I'd love to see trustworthy material on this.

http://vincepalamara.com/new-jfk-autopsy-photo/

I tried to post the image but it kept saying it was too big, so I gave up and posted it to my one blog (the link)

Vince, i was watching Fetzer's opening to the Film Hoax Seminar in 03 and he mentions a few writers including you, if my memory serves well enough. Of course he mentions Jack White (whose presentation i really struggled with) and John Costella (whose presentation I was enthralled with, or in...).

Jim went on to point out, frame 375 I think it was, where it looks as if K is leaning over but a piece of the wound is still visible - slightly. When I see that my brain is telling me that that's part of the flap it just saw a few seconds before where it's appearing to be temporal - sometimes I have trouble seeing something on some film/photo that others are describing as fairly obvious, and this is one of those times. I'm pointing out that, even though my brain was coached into thinking that wound - at 375 - is from his front right skull, the piece that's being held in your photo does somewhat look like it could be (not IS, all ye who stand ready to pounce!) the part that is visible in the film.

how about you? have you decided that 375, or whatever frame it is, is actually the back of K's head where a wound is visible?

i understand the anonymity required for something like this, but its legitimacy is of course going to be what's attacked like there's no tomorrow. would be nice to be able to attach some kind of authenticity to this thing. it sure LOOKS like Kennedy's hair, and what the described wound would be expected to look like - if not a little high (strictly from the descriptions, this doesn't appear to involve the occipital plate much, does it?)

Just sayin':

Pat, i'm not crying foul, just making an observation, extending my curiosity... isn't that a big leap to jump straight to Groden's (what's the story on this mysterious cat???) apparently common "games" from what is on the surface just a photo of a head wound that's claiming to be JFK's?

and as regards the inventories, i'm curious as to what that's about - are they just descriptions of as yet unseen photos? what i mean is, isn't it true that a verbal description of a photo could be substantially different than what the photo really looks like?

of course, we all want to finally see some real proof like something like this would be, and we'd all love it if this turned out to be legit - but it should go without saying that what's more important is legitimacy and the truth. From our end, games and false claims -- and the tendency to run blindly straight to any "new" revelation" -- only serve to destroy our credibility (something not as valuable to others I know) as legitimate theorists and make us laughingstocks to those people who are "on the fence", and to those on the dark side (whose source for humor really matters to me none whatsoever).

That being said - that photo looks a LOT like a wound that's been described by many who have claimed to have seen it, very much like the sketches a couple of the doctors made early on.

Is it not possible that this is one that the descriptions in the inventories just might not fit right - or isn't it possible that the inventories missed one or two...?

i'm just sayin'.

hear, hear!!!

As I have stated from time to time, my position is that everyone acknowledges there were at least two splices in the "camera original" of the Z-film(s). Thus, the question is not whether or not the film(s) were altered but to what extent and with how much malevolent intent were they altered.

At the same time, I must say that the most vicious arguments seem to between those who believe the film(s) were altered and those who do not. Making a plea to authority or a plea to the masses is simply a fallacy and anyone who needs to use them is demonstrating that they do not find their own position strong enough to argue on a level field. The same with ad homs. The result of trying to bully a discussion one way or another is that everyone goes around the same circle again.

Why not try something different? :-0

As I have stated from time to time, my position is that everyone acknowledges there were at least two splices in the "camera original" of the Z-film(s). Thus, the question is not whether or not the film(s) were altered but to what extent and with how much malevolent intent were they altered.

At the same time, I must say that the most vicious arguments seem to between those who believe the film(s) were altered and those who do not. Making a plea to authority or a plea to the masses is simply a fallacy and anyone who needs to use them is demonstrating that they do not find their own position strong enough to argue on a level field. The same with ad homs. The result of trying to bully a discussion one way or another is that everyone goes around the same circle again.

Why not try something different? :-0

i wondered what he meant, too. Surely he knows what a "bump" is...?

Greg's sharp, a bit ornery, though.

i wonder why a forum like this brings out people's personalities instead of, ideally, just knowledge and opinion - oh - never mind...

for the record, everyone, a "bump" is just a means of keeping a thread in front to invite more commentary. hardly provocative.

last night i watched Costella's presentation on the Film Hoax from 2003 - i was thoroughly impressed. i don't necessarily agree with some of his final explanations, but find it hard to argue, of course, with his science. wow.

although Chaney wasn't mentioned in the presentation, i have come across this story elsewhere, and didn't realize it was Fetzer/Costella who'd presented it, as well.

the idea that so many fully reliable witnesses testify that Chaney rode to the front of the procession while it's not being seen on the film is quite 'explosive' (i struggle with predictable words, but 'explosive' seems to fit well here).

or Conclusive. as the title of the thread mentions.

this is a WOW thing, for me.

It'd be nice if Mark and Bob would have the decency to spell Colin Crow's name correctly. I have done so in all of my posts here. So why would anybody think there was an E in his name? ~shrug~

CLEAR proof that this person's entire interest is to provoke and divert. and in this of all threads.

he is wasting my time, and some of yours. let's not support/promote his agenda, huh?

i'm done with this thread, and with his comments as much as possible.

Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has.

Tomorrow morning I will announce a casting call to be held at the Fabulous Fox Theater for my new screenplay, agreed to be produced by Oliver "Roger" Stone's third cousin Ruprecht Stone entitled The Never Before Seen Re-enactment of What Might Have Been An Anti-LNer Synopsis Had Anyone Been Able To Come Up With More Than Two Acts - it will be a very short play.

I will be filming the play once its run has ended - should be by Friday - and will provide "edited" copies of the masterpiece as long as I can get the actors to distort themselves into the required positions enough to be convincing.

I anticipate this re-enactment, like the others before it, to be a complete flop, along the lines of Ishtar and Jaws XVIII. I hope you are as excited as we - well, I - are.

You heard it here first, and no, i haven't had a drink in 3 years.

"you've got to tackle the only two major Government investigations into President Kennedy's death, both of which said the SBT is true."

That's funny all by itself - this fact all by itself is enough to make most come down on the side of conspiracy. something like "We're from the government, we're here to help."

in my reading the other day i came across two Watergate Axioms, or something... one being about not believing anything until the government officially denies it.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we can rest comfortably on the theory posited by the government because not one but two major government investigation teams investigated the world's most heinous crime committed within the bowels of the us government.

well, if you put it THAT way, D. I never looked at it like that.

i think I gotta differ with you on something here, Bob - because Dr McClelland saw the President's brain right through the open wound - enough so that he states some fell out onto the table - it is my firm belief that, unlike normal people's, JFK's cerebellum was situated anterior to his right ear, where the exit wound was indisputably made by Oswald's third shot from the 6th floor with his most accurate and lethal Mannlicher Carcano EYEtalian High Performance Sports Rifle.

See how nicely that fits now? Explains everything, and we can all go home.

DVP wins.

They muddy the water, to make it seem deep.

that's exactly what i read before - how UTTERLY appropriate.

And you think that [silly signature] makes me look bad?

You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it.

I'm not the one that said I don't have the freedom to think for myself.

I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind".

That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear.

the fact that you ignored the six previous times he asked you about it says a lot more, Dave.

We both know that the boxes making up the barricade did not have his fingerprints "all over them"... they found prints much later on ONE box - in fact since the crime scene was not kept clean at all we have no idea what transpires from the time Day leaves and returns later to dust for prints... and even that palm print is suspect.

Turns out that by the time he returns the DPD has multiple, fresh palmprints and fingerprints from Oswald fromhis arrest...

Mr. BELIN. Could you relate what transpired to cause 649 to be torn from 648?

Mr. DAY. After I returned to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository after delivering the gun to my office, we processed the boxes in that area, in the area of the window where the shooting apparently occurred, with powder. This particular box was processed and a palmprint, a legible palmprint, developed on the northwest corner of the box, on the top of the box as it was sitting on the floor.

Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Mr. BELIN. Is there any other processing that you did with the rifle?

Mr. DAY. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. At what time, if you know, did you release the rifle to the FBI?

Mr. DAY. 11:45 p.m. the rifle was released or picked up by them and taken from the office.

Mr. BELIN. Was that on November 22?

Mr. DAY. November 22, 1963.

Also turns out that these vital pieces of evidence are left there for days, positioned and repositioned, photographed as the "At the time of shots" window when it was nothing of the sort.

Mr. BELIN. Do you know when that was placed on there?

Mr. DAY. That was placed there November 26. The box was not removed, just the cardboard was removed on November 22 excuse me, November 25 I should say that he put his name on there. I returned to the School Book Depository on November 25 and collected this box.

The rest of that BS about it being his rifle, ... you can't prove. As proven repeatedly and again in my next essay, the trail of C2766 stops at Harborside... there is no proof other than for a June 1962 shipment, that C2766 ever left that depot.

Point to one other box in the SN barricade where they supposedly found his prints....... the boxes "on the window sill" as mentioned above, cannot even be authenticated as the same...

"OSWALD'S rifle.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142)."

Since no one can physically get that bag into and out of that corner that day... you'll need to do much better than CE142... There is no proof that bag was ever even there, no proof that it's the same as the one CLAIMED to be carried by Oswald ala Wesley and his sister... but helluva nice try Dave

Between the last time Oswald was seen, 12:10 on the first floor without a 3+ foot paper bag in his hands and the shots, Mr. W here is on the 6th floor.

Without tools and without being seen, Oswald retrieves the bag and assembles the weapon

WHERE and HOW David?

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Where did you eat your lunch?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe.

Mr. BALL. Facing on what street?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Facing Elm Street.

Mr. McCLOY. What floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Sixth floor.

Mr. DULLES. You ate your lunch on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. And you were all alone?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. What did you sit on while you ate your lunch?

Mr. WILLIAMS. First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler.

Mr. BALL. A two-wheeler truck, you mean?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I remember sitting on this two-wheeler. By that time, I was through, and I got up and I just left then.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to ask one question here. When you were on the sixth floor eating your lunch, did you hear anything that made you feel that there was anybody else on the sixth floor with you?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir; I didn't hear anything.

Mr. DULLES. You did not see anything?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I did not see anything.

Mr. DULLES. You were all alone as far as you knew at that time on the sixth floor?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. During that period of from 12 o'clock about to--10 or 15 minutes after?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I felt like I was all alone. That is one of the reasons I left--because it was so quiet.

the tactic of the defeated is to ignore the challenge by changing the subject to a counter-challenge. the obligation rests here for the challenged (no pun intended) to respond, otherwise what credibility he has is further damaged.

the irony in arguing with people of this nature is that they very clearly don't seem to place much value on their own credibility, yet still expect others to.

it reminds me of the knight who was tasked with protecting the bridge in The Holy Grail. He's had both arms and both legs detached and still thinks he's in the battle.

out of curiosity, is there any reason there should NOT be any of LHO's prints on the 6th floor of the building in which he was present every day for two weeks?

IF there were fingerprints NOT on that rifle, why is that alarming?

IF his thumbprint was on his own rifle, why is that alarming?

"You say it is 'largely a myth' [that Ford moved the wound from his back to his neck] and then to proceed to tell us that, he did, in fact move the location from his back to his neck. "

not sure who said that, but i'd say he's not thinking, just writing and using proper sounding phrases in order to sound credible.

See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post.

So what?

You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory.

You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak).

I.E.,

I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT.

That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be.

Instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre.

Pat,

Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)...

CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225.

So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly.

Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum at the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection".

Let's see a CTer produce a re-enactment that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened. And that's why the WC was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the SBT in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963.

"You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak)."

Sorry. You're not. What astounds many is that you present yourself as unable to see the difference between the validity of your material and that of others.

It is frankly not to be believed.

Robert - NOPE. Wouldn't give him enough time to show me the car.

i can't help it:

"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to tie Oswald to the assassination or to the "Sniper's Nest" on the sixth floor of the Book Depository...

(Let me pinch myself yet again, because such a statement is just ludicrous.)

OSWALD'S rifle.

FIRST ACCEPTING THE STANDARD DEFINITION OF PROOF VERSUS THAT OF CONJECTURE (WHICH IS WHERE THE WHOLE PROBLEM LIES, REALLY - DVP'S UNWILLINGNESS TO ADMIT THE DIFFERENCE) VS THAT OF SUGGESTION -

THIS PROVES THAT HIS RIFLE WAS: A) FIRED, AND B - ON THE 6TH FLOOR THAT DAY. THAT'S ALL IT PROVES. IT SUGGESTS THAT OSWALD USED IT ON THE 6TH FLOOR THAT DAY, BUT IT DOESN'T PROVE IT.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

THIS PROVES THAT SHELLS FROM THAT GUN WERE ON THE FLOOR - THAT'S ALL IT PROVES, ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF PROOF. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THIS WILL HAVE TO SHOW A NEW DEFINITION OF THE WORD PROOF. I'M OPEN TO THAT.

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

THESE ARE NOT OSWALD'S BULLET FRAGMENTS, THEY ARE BULLET FRAGMENTS FIRED FROM A GUN THAT OSWALD (QUESTIONABLY) OWNS. THIS DOES NOT PROVE OSWALD WAS ON 6. IT PROVES THAT BULLETS FROM THE MC WERE FIRED AT THE LIMO. CANNOT CONNECT OSWALD UNTIL HE'S PLACED ON 6 POSITIVELY, WHICH IS NOT BEING DONE. BRENNAN DOESN'T DO IT. (SOME THINK HE PLACES OSWALDS CROTCH THERE, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER STORY)

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

A - NO, THEY WERE NOT. (I HAVE NOT YET CONSIDERED YOU UNTRUTHFUL - PLEASE CONSIDER STRONGLY THE ASSERTIONS YOU MAKE IF YOUR CREDIBILITY IS IMPORTANT TO YOU - I DOUBT THAT IT IS, BUT IT MIGHT BE)

B - EVEN IF THEY WERE, THAT PROVES THAT OSWALD WAS IN THE TSBD. THAT'S ALL IT PROVES. IN ANY MURDER CASE FINGERPRINTS DO NO GOOD WHEN THE SUBJECT IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN AT THE MURDER SCENE LEGITIMATELY AT ANY POINT.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW YOU CAN SAY "ALL OVER".

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142). Like it or not, CE142 is an official piece of evidence, seen by multiple policemen in the SN, and it is irrevocably tied to Oswald via his 2 prints. Pretend it's a fake, but LNers will keep reminding CTers it exists all the same.

THE PAPER BAG WAS PROVEN TO NOT HAVE CONTAINED THE RIFLE BY DPD SHORTLY AFTER ITS DISCOVERY.

And there's, of course, Howard Brennan, who supplied "witness identification" evidence of Oswald's guilt. I know CTers hate Brennan's Johnny-come-lately positive IDing of LHO, but that's in the record too. So you'll have to deal with it (and toss it aside), much the same way I have to deal with Luke Mooney's account of seeing the chicken bones on a SN box. So, life ain't always easy, is it? For LNers or CTers. :)"

BRENNAN'S TESTIMONY CARRIES NO WEIGHT. YOU KNOW THAT.

after a good description of the difference between phys. evidence that suggests a person's complicity vs. direct evidence that PUTS a person somewhere, any one want to tackle this...?

maybe i will in a bit.

in fact, you know all of this.

but instead of diverting attention to the case itself, you actually help me sort through these little pieces and place them in proper perspective - you're helping me practice my presentation. what you think of my input means less than nothing - what i think of how i worded something means everything as i am able to improve and realign the pertinents.

thank you, David. et al.

i can't help it:

"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to tie Oswald to the assassination or to the "Sniper's Nest" on the sixth floor of the Book Depository...

(Let me pinch myself yet again, because such a statement is just ludicrous.)

OSWALD'S rifle.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142). Like it or not, CE142 is an official piece of evidence, seen by multiple policemen in the SN, and it is irrevocably tied to Oswald via his 2 prints. Pretend it's a fake, but LNers will keep reminding CTers it exists all the same.

And there's, of course, Howard Brennan, who supplied "witness identification" evidence of Oswald's guilt. I know CTers hate Brennan's Johnny-come-lately positive IDing of LHO, but that's in the record too. So you'll have to deal with it (and toss it aside), much the same way I have to deal with Luke Mooney's account of seeing the chicken bones on a SN box. So, life ain't always easy, is it? For LNers or CTers. :)"

after a good description of the difference between phys. evidence that suggests a person's complicity vs. direct evidence that PUTS a person somewhere, any one want to tackle this...?

maybe i will in a bit.

Robert, you've described exactly the pattern of behavior (at the risk of sounding like a psych) i've been seeing here.

It has become obvious that this person KNOWS he has no hope of convincing anyone of anything in line with the WC, et al, yet persists in trying to do so.

It has become obvious to me that he has left the realm of reason -- so obvious that i have to ask why he has made it so obvious. It's as you say, that his goal is not to convert but to just muddy the waters. (i saw a great quote by some great person about just muddying the waters in order to achieve a deception - i'll look it up. or maybe DVP knows it).

I'm not a naturally paranoid person; I cannot but help wonder if activity like this really isn't at the beck of 'someone else'. If not, then this person has in actuality lost the ability to reason, and at the moment i doubt that that's the case - but he sure makes me think twice about that.

it's more likely that LHO was not in MC than that he was. I'd almost bet the farm that he wasn't.

you really think you're brilliant, don't you. i'm being serious - you think you're a genius and that allows you to talk to other people like they're children...?

news flash: ___________________________________________ (add your own)

"too simple for you"

how is it you're getting away with talking to people like that when i was reprimanded for calling you a shill?