Antti Hynonen

The nurses undressed the President after he was pronounced dead. Upon removing the clothes off the victim, they should have noticed and mentioned the obvious (bullet) holes in the clothes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/henchlif.htm

I do not recall them discussing the back wound, only the small round neck wound, below the Adam's apple.

As of today all moderators have been instructed to set all posts in violation of Forum rules as invisible.

Breaking forum rules, includes posts with clear personal attacks, cursing etc.

If your post becomes suddenly invisible, it is because your post does not comply with Forum rules. Normally such posts will not be set to visible again.

The Education Forum rules are available on the Forum for all to see.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9792

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243

On behalf of the Moderators

Antti Hynonen

Posting here seems to work:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16835&st=20

I see that you have 2 posts on page 2. Is something still missing? I don't know what else I could do from my end to facilitate?

Antti

Testing to see if posting here works.

Replying to bolded section below.

I do not agree that Burton should limit his number of replies to a number less than those posted by White & Fetzer. Judging from posts from page 8&9 thus far, Burton has not posted significantly more than Fetzer&White together.

I see no need to moderate this thread at this time.

Antti

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a phony argument. You are very adept as "plausible deniability". This thread must have a bona

fide moderator who does not abuse his position, as you have done repeatedly. You not only remove posts

that are part of my argument, as you have done in the past with Jack's posts and now this one of "Tracks

of a Moon Rover", but do so on (what I take to be) fraudulent grounds. I contacted fotosearch, which is

the site where I discovered the photo. They made an inquiry, contacting the source that provided it to

them, and reported back that it WAS of a moon rover but WAS NOT taken on the moon. Your source has told

a different story. The photo is not being used for commercial purposes and there is no copyright issue.

You have repeatedly not followed our agreed upon format for this debate. I have asked you to consolidate

your responses into a single post, so they are not spread out like an ordinary thread. You have not only

strung them out but even posted links to arguments that appear elsewhere, which means that they are not

even present on the thread but only for those who want to pursue the links you provide. That is lazy and

disrespectful. This thread is intended to include all the arguments that are being presented RIGHT HERE,

ON THE THREAD. But of course it is simpler for you to create a situation that is more difficult for me

and for others who may have an interest in pursuing these things to follow. KINDLY CEASE AND DESIST!

Moreover, it have notice that you are non-responsive to my arguments. In relation to the moon rover tracks,

you have made no response to my point that it is extremely improbable that the space between the wheels is

neat and tidy, displaying no tracks, by reasserting the argument I have already presented--and by offering

up another photograph of an Earth-based vehicle that has no tracks, which appears to be defending yourself

against an argument about photographic fakery by presenting another faked photograph! And when I point out

the rectilinear propagation of light and that the suits worn by the astronauts are crinkly and most unlikely

to focus light to reflect it as shown, you instead merely claim that that is the explanation, when it's not.

Now I am willing to proceed with this exchange and to elaborate in greater detail, but there is no point if

you are going to continue to throw your weight around and make arbitrary decisions about what does and does

not appear here. The "Tracks of a Moon Rover" is a perfect example, where you have removed it when it has,

in my view, considerable interest, for more than one reason. We are not trafficking in this photo. We are

not marketing it. We are simply discussing it. It already appears on a web site where it is accessible to

the public. Your argument is specious. Repost the photo and replace yourself as moderator and I will make

further posts until I conclude that your unscrupulous conduct not longer merits participation. Let me know

when you have been replaced by a serious, firm but even-handed substitute moderator and I'll return to this.

Jim,

The photographer themselves said it was from a quad bike and taken at Golden Bay Beach in Malta.

Did you or Jack contact the photographer, as I suggested, and ask for permission to use the image? You were given their website address which had their e-mail address at the top.

That is the only portion where I have acted as a moderator in this thread, as we did not want to risk the Forum being accused of copyright violation.

Thanks.

Helps me in seeing the bigger picture.

Antti

Duncan,

Can you post (or post a link) to the original photos used in this study, please?

Thanks.

Antti

No problem, Antti.

Ist Pic

2nd Pic

Hi,

The whole thread is confusing, in particular the agreed "rules".

I have here Burton's and your agreement:

-------------------------------------------

Posted 24 August 2010 - 12:46 PM, Evan Burton:

I'd be happy with:

Jack posts claim

I respond

Jim addresses my reply

I respond to Jim last post

Jim makes final comments

Next image. Jim gets last word, we each make 2 posts regarding the image. It is still important, though, that Jim addresses my rebuttal to the claim, and I address the points Jim raises in his rebuttal. We must stay on topic. Gary will decide if a participant is not adressing claims or going off topic.

--------------------------------------------

Then I have your comment to the above:

--------------------------------------------

Posted 24 August 2010 - 03:40 PM; James H. Fetzer:

This is a good plan, which I endorse. I would like to see the thread "cleaned up" as I have recommended.

The moon rock issue has not been resolved. I mentioned it in post #7, he replied in #10 and I commented

in #12. There is much more to be said on this subject, which I will bring up again in relation to the "Moon

Movie" section. Clearly, it is a crucial question. I suggest deleting the other moon rock posts as well as

those in which Evan indulges in his penchant for the use of RED and so on, which Gary can easily delete.

If Gary thinks a section of the debate has had enough attention, he can recommend that we move on and

afford an opportunity for each of us to explain why that is or why that is not a good idea. Many thanks.

When Jack has several studies I would like him to post that are related to the same issue, such as those

related to the moon rover, it would be appropriate to post them as a group to illustrate the dimensions

of the issue being addressed. The idea of only posting one image at a time is really inappropriate, since

they are evidence that is supportive of a single argument, which, in this case, is that at least some of the

rover photos appear to have been faked. If Jack has five that I would like posted, it would be ridiculous

to have him post five separate photos with five separate sequences of argumentative exchange. So that

suggestion was a bad one. Otherwise, however, I would like to begin with Jack's moon rover photographs.

------------------------------------------------

According to this, Burton gets at least 2 posts per claim.

If the rules have changed again, I refuse to moderate this mess.

Antti

Gary / Antti:

1. Am I allowed to address the plethora of new LRV images Jack posts, one post per image?

2. Am I allowed to address the three-part post by Jim, one post per part? Or am I allowed only one post to address all three posts made by Jim?

I need to have this clarified because I can respond, as it determines what my responses will be.

Thank you.

Evan, I can not see why not. This thread was for you and Fetzer.

I have investigated these posts, and as far as I can tell, both posts 7 and 42 are intact. They are posts by Jack White, neither has been deleted nor made invisible.

Regards,

Antti Hynonen

Moderator

I had saved the page and have restored what was post

#7 as (new) post #42. I can't believe that he did that.

I have just discovered that my most important post

on the debate thread--in which I outlined what I was

going to cover during the course of the debate--has

been DELETED by Evan Burton, who did not notify me

that he intended to do that and which needs to be

RESTORED. This is quite outrageous. I am willingly

participating in this debate, but Burton has, time

and time again, abused his position as MODERATOR

and PARTICIPANT to take advantage of the situation,

not only by deleting Jack's original posts about the

missing moon rover tracks but even about what I plan

to cover during the course of this debate. Stunning!

Duncan,

Can you post (or post a link) to the original photos used in this study, please?

Thanks.

Antti

Jack, reviewing your old posts and following what you have said/claimed in the past is a normal way to conduct research and participate on this forum.

By doing this, another member is not "stalking you".

I agree an apology is in place!

Since my last post on this thread seems to have been some five years ago i feel I should at least update some of my research and thoughts.

1)During the Warren Commission days attorneys/investigators looking into the Silvia Odio incident speculated that "if" Oswald were with the men who visited Silvia Odio then those men may have provided a "cut-out" phone number for Oswald to use if it were necessary. I find it interesting to read that these investigators, who, I assume, were unaware of the "Raliegh Call" would consider the possibility that Oswald would have had a phone number of for a "cut out."

2)The Edwin Walker papers suggest that Walker was most interested in the Silvia Odio incident.....and made, it seems, more notes about the Warren Commissions work on this incident than any other portion of the Warren Commission materials.

3)Unlike Oswald's repeated attempts to contact Jonathan Abt, Oswald only made one attempt to contact "John Hurt." This suggest to me that Oswald was attempting to pass information to a "cut out." My research followed a line that would look for a person in the Raleigh area who would recognize the name John Hurt and would know to immediately pass the information along to people higher on the "food chain."

4)John B. Hurt was intrumental in translating the information that led to Operation Stella Polaris (which led to the Venona Secret) and the man that approved that operation at the end of WWII was in Raleigh, North Carolina.

5) Frank Rowlett and Meridith Gardner, the two men who would be tasked by the Warren Commission via the CIA via the NSA to investigate Lee Harvey Oswald for intelligence contacts, would both be close associates of John B. Hurt. Both Gardner and Rowlett were also the major NSA players in the Venona Secret materials.

6) In June of 1959 Richard Helms would be meeting with the same group of former OSS/Secret Intelligence operatives that were responsible for Operation Stella Polaris at the end of WWII. These meetings were coordinated by the same man who lived in Raleign, North Carolina. During these meetings Wilho Tikander (former OSS Station Chief in Stockholm during WWII speculated that an off the record intelligence operation was about to be launched by Richard Helms boys and would be conducted via Helsinki, Finland. Participating in these meeting was Whitney Shepardson who is closely linked to John J. McCloy and Demitri De Mohrenschildt (brother of George De M). Within four months Lee Harvey Oswald would enter the Soviet Union via Helsinki, Finland and in 1964 Richard Helms would be the CIA laison to the Warren Commission.

Thoughts:

It is my speculation that the Raleign Call was made by Oswald after he had suggested to his brother that he had contacts in high places.

I further speculate that Oswald may have been led to believe that if he made a person to person call to someone named John Hurt it would start the ball rolling to gather the help that he so desperately needed for the prediciment that he was in.

Oswald would have no idea of who John Hurt was or that John B. Hurt was associated with what was, at the time, one of the most closely guarded secrets of the United States (the Venona Project) during the Cold War.

If Lee Harvey Oswald had been provided with that name only a person at the highest levels of intelligence would have known what kaos would be created within the intelligence community when it was discovered that the accused assassin of the President of the United States had attempted to contact a person involved in the highest levels of intelligence.

The possibility that both Rowlett and Gardner, close associates of John B. Hurt, would be the ones selected to investigate Oswald for intelligence contacts is to much of a coincidence to overlook without further investigation (which I have done).

Hope these words generate additional thoughts

Jim Root

Jim,

Fascinating stuff.

It would be fantastic if we could somehow find out more about your section 6 and the Tikander, Shepardson, Hurt etc. meeting on the Helsinki aspect.

The time of events does tie in very nicely with Oswald's trip.

During a Dec. 27, 1963, meeting with Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Kennedy expressed his hope that the relationship

They need to check that date. It's probably 1962?

On Dec 27th 1963, Kennedy had been dead for a month.

see http://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/20...ied-gao-report/

John F. Kennedy’s direct diplomatic pressures for U.S. inspections of Israel’s Dimona reactor grew throughout 1962-1963. During a Dec. 27, 1963, meeting with Foreign Minister Golda Meir, Kennedy expressed his hope that the relationship was a “two-way street.” Meir reassured President Kennedy that there “would not be any difficulty between us on the Israeli nuclear reactor.” Kennedy delivered a final ultimatum to Israel on July 5, 1963, insisting that Dimona undergo serial inspections “in accord with international standards” in order to verify its “peaceful intent.” Simultaneously, the Kennedy Justice Department was waging an intense battle behind closed doors to register and regulate Israel’s elite U.S. lobby, the American Zionist Council, which was bringing in funds from overseas to lobby. Kennedy’s assassination in November traumatized the nation and led to the complete and permanent reversal of both initiatives.

According to Avner Cohen, in 1958 Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion had arranged with Abraham Feinberg, a “major Democratic fund-raiser,” to secretly finance a nuclear weapons program among “benedictors” in America. Abraham Feinberg, who backed Harry S. Truman’s successful whistle-stop election campaign, was personally succinct about his role in the U.S. political system: “My path to power was cooperation in terms of what they needed – campaign money.” Feinberg opened doors in Congress for up and coming leaders of the Israel lobby, including AIPAC founder Isaiah L. Kenen. According to Seymour Hersh, “there is no question that Feinberg enjoyed the greatest presidential access and influence in his 20 years as a Jewish fund-raiser and lobbyist with Lyndon Johnson. Documents at the Johnson Library show that even the most senior members of the National Security Council understood that any issue raised by Feinberg had to be answered.” His power and role in financing Lyndon B. Johnson’s election prospects temporarily quashed scrutiny of Israel’s nuclear weapons program – in the U.S. and abroad – at a critical moment.

On Oct. 14, 1964, less than three weeks before the 1964 presidential elections, Johnson’s top administrative assistant Walter Jenkins was arrested in a public restroom on sexual solicitation charges. At least $250,000 Abraham Feinberg raised for Johnson was located in Jenkins’ office safe. Johnson phoned his trusted aides Bill Moyers and Myer Feldman with orders to move the cash, which they did with the help of a heavy briefcase. Israel would later replenish Feinberg’s coffers (as it had with Zalman Shapiro through sales commissions) with multi-million dollar favors, such as major ownership in the nation’s Coca-Cola franchise.

I viewed the results first, and it now says already voted.

I never selected any choice.

Same here,

Results are:

Choice A [ 1 ] ** [100.00%]

Choice B [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Choice C [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]

Total Votes: 4

Mine appeared to be the 4th one, and no vote was entered by me either, you have already voted in this poll is what it says. And when I go back to vote, it does not let me cast a vote, bummer, I wanted to vote for C.

Thanks Duncan.

Hmmm.... much of the clothing does match the description from before.

The person in question seems to be wearing a light blue/gray jacket or sweater, and a red or reddish brown skirt and white socks.

What was Linda Phillis wearing that day?

Are there other photos or film where this person might be present, for a better id?

Mr. Gary Mack chimes in and tells me that Linda Willis did not have a camera that day.

Duncan,

That is exactly what I thought, a circular motion with her right hand. Were there cameras in use in 1963 that needed to be wound in such a way? Also there is a reflection of sunlight off of her forehead, it seems that it is of a blue or silver shade, not a skin tone, which in my mind could mean e.g. a camera.

I keep wondering whether another Dealey plaza film showing the assassination will pop up one day. I am hoping for one that would answer some questions.

I don't know if i've been staring at the gif too long, and may be seeing something that isn't there, but I'm sure I see the " Linda Willis " right hand making a circular forward motion, like you would do if you were winding up a movie camera.

I'm probably wrong, but keep looking at her right hand motion and tell me what you think.

Thank you for your reply.

I can "buy" most of your reply. Especially the short round/round that hit something else first, that explains the back wound , the short round theory explains the different sound. No problems there.

However, from what I have seen in terms of blows to the back (hits, stabbing etc.) I have to say Kennedy's reaction is not the same as any of those. In a hit to the back one would curl and try and reach the area affected (in the back), this is not the case in e.g. Zapruder.

It is possible that the wound below the Adam's apple is not an entry wound. Ok. If so, where is the entry?

I just can not conceive that after emerging from behind the highway sign, Kennedy is not reacting to the wound found below his Adam's apple, I think if we can assume and conclude anything from this case, then, in my opinion, the wound in the anterior neck and Kennedy's reaction before frame 313 are one of the most straight forward issues. One may say:" They go together like two peas in a pod".

Antti

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Antti,

Please forgive the long way around the barn here, but it is needed so please bear with me.

I have once again been looking very strongly at the SBT, and have been commenting on it. However it is not a position I am ready to fully accept yet.

Having said that, and maintaining my original position of the shooting event, I believe JFK is reacting to a very sharp blow to the back, a non-penetrating wound. A wound that went in no more than 2". What I see is a man who has taken a heck of a blow and has had the wind knocked from him. He does seem to be having some issue with breath.

Something to consider here is that the MC bullet when penetrating to a depth of 2" exerts 60 ft lbs of energy to make that penetration, this would be caused by A) the bullet striking something else first, of B ) A short round, one that lacks for what ever reason, the power of a full round.

Tom Purvis, whom I admire greatly believes the round hit something else first, I am not so sure. I think it is possible it is a short load. Tom however makes an excellent point that the bullet base of 399 does seem to fit the wound dimensions well. I chew on this often.

Think of how many witnesses say the first round sounded different. A short round would sound different.

This is the position I have held for quite some time. However, some of the work I have been doing in relation to the SBT brings some SOLID questions and have to be accounted for.

One of them being how in hades do we reconcile the fact that JFK is hit with a 55* impact angle and JBC a 57* impact angle. I do NOT buy the idea of a tumbling bullet, had that been the case then they would have easily probed JFK's wound. A tumbling bullet leaves a horrific wound path.

I also do not buy that the neck wound was one of entry. There is NO exit for it and the wound would have been horrific. We see no such thing.

Mike

Ok, fair enough.

What (wound or event) do you then suggest he is reacting to?

Please elaborate. Thanks.

Antti,

With all due respect I have to disagree. If he were reacting to a wound to the throat, he would be grabbing his throat. We never see this. His hands never go below his chin.

Mike

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his posterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

Thanks.

Posterior neck?

Don't you mean anterior neck, since you're citing the adams apple?

Yes,

You're quite right. I meant anterior. Sorry.

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his anterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

Thanks.

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

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

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

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

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

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

Seriously?

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

Either:

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

Or:

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

he was shot in the throat.

Either one is ridiculous...

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

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

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

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

before the head shots.

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

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

the folks listed above.

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

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

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

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

rides up more than a fraction of an inch.

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

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

mere incompetence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ice bullet? Flachette?

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

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

Ok, what do you suggest Kennedy is reacting to as seen in the Zapruder film as he emerges from behind the Highway sign?

In my opinion there is no doubt that he is reacting to what caused the small round hole in his anterior neck, below the Adam's apple.

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

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

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

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

"Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

After studying the medical evidence for several years full time, I came to the conclusion the throat wound was indeed related to the head wound. The Parkland doctors suspected the large head wound was an exit for an entrance in the throat. I suspect the throat wound was an exit for the bullet creating the small entrance near the EOP.

Since the Clark Panel and Lattimer, etc, concluded there was a bullet path visible on the x-rays coming from what they thought was the back wound up above, and since we now know the back wound was really at or below the level of the throat wound, it seems likely the X-rays suggest the missile creating the throat wound descended within the neck. If so, then it's just a matter of time before the medical community comes around to my way of thinking.

Do you consider the fragments in JFK's head immaterial, or insignificant?

How about those in Connaly's wrist and thigh?

Thanks!

Tom,

All good stuff!

Guess I need to come off some of those old MC rounds and get to shootin.

Mike

Actually, I have only two remaining (intact) WCC 6.5mm Carcano rounds, and have no intention of shooting either one.

As difficult as it was to part with (shoot) a portion of those found, if one is going to do "comparative testing", then one should not attempt to do so with any of the new NORMA ammo.

However, the actual Italian rounds are quite similiar in structure to the WCC round, and can be easily utilized to determine if (which it does) a copper-jacketed Carcano bullet actually loses stability and begins to tumble in flight after having been fired through a 1-inch thick oak limb.

Do you ballistics guys know how or why and of any other examples of a bullet fragmenting like the one that hit JFK's head?

And has anyone tried to account for all of the fragments?

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

I really don't believe that bullet fragmented until after it left the head, and struck the chrome. That wound is a text book FMJ.

Third at 7.8 seconds.

Last at 8.8 seconds.

Yes, what carcano can you recycle and fire relatively accurately in 1.0 seconds?

I think

Second at 2.2 seconds.

Audio of the gunshots.

http://98.155.2.255:8400/F480E/DEALEY8K.mp3

Timed with a stopwatch, I get these results.

First sound at 0.

Second at 2.2 seconds.

Third at 7.8 seconds.

Last at 8.8 seconds.

If you compare the individual time difference between shots 2/3 and 2/4 to the previously supplied D.B. Thomas document, sounds 2,3 and 4 work well.

The first sound comparison is off by approx 7/10 of a second.

chris

New members wanting to join the Education Forum need to contact John Simkin, (or perhaps Evan Burton can help nowadays too). A photo as an avatar as well as a biography are required. The bio needs to be linked to the new member's signature.

Antti