Antti Hynonen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-OH06xqX2g...feature=related Acquila Clemmons interview, pretty convincing.

Ok, thanks Tom. I'll have to look at this a bit more.

Tom, Ok, thanks. I understand what you are saying, but I just don't see this rather steep angle in the Zapruder film. I just can't see the neck in a virtually horizontal level with the street. The way I have tried this position and looked at Zapruder, I just keep seeing a discrepancy of some 20 degrees with what you say and with what is on film, as to me it looks like on the film that the head still semi-erect.

Tom, How can you support a third (successful) shot that occurs in less than 2 seconds from the previous one? The entire single shooter theory lies on the weapon having been a Carcano, which is as we all know a bolt action rifle. With this in mind, that is, the time needed to "recycle" the weapon + the time needed to obtain an accurate aim again, a theorized time of less than 2 seconds, is very very short. On top of this, the third shot must have been by far the hardest shot as at this time the target was the farthest away and the target was partially slumped in the back seat. (Minimal area of head visible to the shooter at this point). Considering these, I'd say a successful third headshot with these "facts" in mind is virtually impossible.

Tom, When was Kennedy's head in this type of position?

Steve, Don't you find it unusual that Robert L. Stovall and John (SIC) Graef are both listed as residing at 522, Browder Street, Dallas? Or is there some sensible explanation?

I thought the only important one was 11/22/63, but let me guess Tim, Specter presented the SBT to the WC?

Numerous off-topic posts deleted off of this thread by me today at 8 am Forum time.

Tim, Good questions. I am not so sure Tague even knew he was hit until Buddy Walthers pointed it out to him. With that in mind, how reliable can his recollection be of exactly when he felt a sting in his cheek, and therefore how reliable is his version of the exact sequence of all the shots, including the accurate time stamp for the sting on his cheek? Nevertheless, I can offer my humble opinion regarding the shooting. Based on the video footage and the more or less "well" documented damage to the 3 victims, and the presidential limousine, I would say it is more likely than not, that there were infact more than 3 shots involved in this episode. That is an opinion based on evidence, other than the acoustic evidence. Shot 1. As to the sequence of the shots, I would say that the first shot struck the President apparently in the throat (could have been a ricochet bullet that struck him in the upper back that lodged itself on or near the spine and caused a fragment to separate from the main missile, which exited from the throat). Tom Purvis made a semi-plausible presentation on this. This fragment may have struck the limo above the windshield causing a dent and may have further struck JBC in the thigh. However, this is starting to sound like the SBT, and don't know if this is plausible. Shot 2. Hit JBC in the armit, pierced through his lung and smashed his wrist. Don't ask me where the fragements and other missile remains are. Shot 3 or 4. Missed, hit the curb and a fragment ricochet struck James Tague. Shot 3 or 4. Hit Kennedy in the head. Additionally there is a lot of (eye witness) evidence pointing to a shot from the grassy knoll: furrows in the grass on the south side of Elm, eye witness testimony of smoke on the knoll, a few witnesses on Elm even smelled gunpowder, an alleged missile was picked up by Buddy Walthers in the grass on south side of Elm. 1 and/or 4 could have been fired from other than TSBD.

Hi Frank, I fixed the typo. Anything else that you need changed with the title here? Regards, Antti

All off-topic posts deleted by me today, Monday March 10th 2008 at 12:49 p.m. Forum time. Further off-topic posts will result in moderation action.

Occipital - parietal region, is where the large defect in JFK's head was observed by numerous physicians and nurses, at Parkland Hospital, Dallas Tx, on 11/22/63 between 12:35-1:00 p.m. Central Standard Time.

Bill, I think you raise an important issue about moderation and our rules. Therefore I'd like to address it briefly, despite the fact that this discussion is absolutely off-topic. I agree that moderators can't work in a way which would allow them to deal with each type of case in a similar way. The limitations we moderators experience in this field is due to technical-, time- and time zone constraints. Besides visits to this Forum are a hobby for me, not a full time job. I think there should be a clearer set of policies and rules for example for penalties and moderation measures. These more detailed rules would enable less of the individual judgement based calls, which you are so unhappy with. The specific case you brought up and debated with Miles on a different thread (I think it was a different thread), had to do with my decision not to limit another members (Miles') analysis and criticism of your research. I wanted to allow it, not because I for some reason want to show favoritism towards Miles, but because healthy debate does include - and should include - critical thinking & questioning of the work of others. The Forum rule no. 4 and the sentence "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." does not mean one member should not be allowed to be critical of another's research, especially if the opposing claim is supported by other research or material supporting this opposing view. I mean, what is the point of having a JFK assassination debate forum, if the work of fellow members should not be critically analysed or debated? The key here is to debate according to the Forum rules, and to avoid the personal attacks which are present here far too often. I have done and will continue to do my best to weed it out. If you or anyone else has any good ideas on how to improve the Forum rules or moderation in general, or would like to continue this discussion, please do it on this thread. Thanks!

Bill, I think you raise an important issue about moderation and our rules. Therefore I'd like to address it briefly, despite the fact that this discussion is absolutely off-topic. I agree that moderators can't work in a way which would allow them to deal with each type of case in a similar way. The limitations we moderators experience in this field is due to technical-, time- and time zone constraints. Besides visits to this Forum are a hobby for me, not a full time job. I think there should be a clearer set of policies and rules for example for penalties and moderation measures. These more detailed rules would enable less of the individual judgement based calls, which you are so unhappy with. The specific case you brought up and debated with Miles on a different thread (I think it was a different thread), had to do with my decision not to limit another members (Miles') analysis and criticism of your research. I wanted to allow it, not because I for some reason want to show favoritism towards Miles, but because healthy debate does include - and should include - critical thinking & questioning of the work of others. The Forum rule no. 4 and the sentence "Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers." does not mean one member should not be allowed to be critical of another's research, especially if the opposing claim is supported by other research or material supporting this opposing view. I mean, what is the point of having a JFK assassination debate forum, if the work of fellow members should not be critically analysed or debated? The key here is to debate according to the Forum rules, and to avoid the personal attacks which are present here far too often. I have done and will continue to do my best to weed it out. If you or anyone else has any good ideas on how to improve the Forum rules or moderation in general, or would like to continue this discussion, please do not do it on this thread, but do it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...45&start=45 Thanks!

I'd place my money on the word "Custom" being in that side trim.

View Member Profile Add as Friend Send Message Find Member's Topics Find Member's Posts Today, 03:46 AM IP: 70.212.168.188 | Post #23 | Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 762 Joined: 11-October 04 From: Mason's Fort NM Member No.: 1680 Warn: (0%) Tosh, thanks for this additional info and the photo. You say that "Oswald was ONI at this time". By ONI, I assume you mean Office of Naval Intelligence. Am I right? How did you find this out? Interesting.

I believe the idea of a bullet going through a tree branch does make sense because the bullet that stuck Kennedy in the upper back would have needed to lose a lot of kinetic energy if it was to only penetrate a short distance and fail to exit as the pathologists originally believed. I wonder why this bullet, allegedly lodged in Kennedy's neck was not x-rayed or otherwise discovered or mentioned in any reports. It would have clearly made the "official story" stronger, meaning a single shooter from high and behind the victim. This should have been a fairly trivial matter to ascertain, even in 1963, even by less experienced autopsists. I recall reading that this shallow wound was "probed". If so, the instrument would have struck the bullet, no? One would think that the person performing the probing would have stated that the instrument used, struck something hard, likely a bullet. At any rate he should have made some type of note of this. Additionally I am confused as to what exactly would cause this tumbling bullet, that lost so much kinetic energy, to lose this fragment, once it had - as stated - lost enough energy to no longer have the required energy to traverse a human body? I see that it would be more natural for the entire bullet to remain lodged somewhere in the body, than for the bulk of it to remain lodged inside and for a small fragment to continue on a path of its own, no?

I am asking that those members who are violating Forum rules cease to do so immediately. Further inappropriate comments/violations of rules will result in automatic moderation measures. Please consider this the first and last warning on this thread. (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Thanks for sharing that. Had Dr. Perry been completely honest and willing to recall this issue, he would have mentioned his own views regarding whether this wound was an entry or an exit wound as well as his recollections of the dimensions of it. On the other hand I do know that the Parkland Doctor's have been spoken to about this issue on numerous occasions, therefore I can understand why they are reluctant to do it again and again. One old event in particular comes to mind and that's the Robert Groden documentary. I can't but help think of all the attending Doctor's who placed the palms of their hands in the occipital-parietal regions of their own heads to demonstrate the size and location of the head injury of JFK.

John, I'd have to think about that and what to say. Obviously, as I have already spoken to them (him), he will recall who I am and think it funny that I didn't bring the book/author issue up the first time I bothered him..... Mr. Simola seems to be a busy man, and I had to try a few times in order to get to talk to him. I got lucky 2 days after I managed to speak with his assistant and left a message for him regarding these documents. I'll think about it. Of course it would be easier, if there was in fact a book being written by someone who'd have a genuine interest in these documents. Perhaps a 2nd or 3rd edition? Larry Hancock or Gerald McKnight do spring to mind. I'd be willing to forward a letter with a full translation from either one to the "Suojelupoliisi" and act as an intermediary.

Peter, Yes, I believe this 3rd card proves that there was/is a file by the Finnish officials on LHO. However, these cards may well be the extent of the file. I suspect the addition of "alias Hidell" has been added after 11/22/1963. Other interesting legible notes here are, the one that states that Lee took (apparently the train) from Helsinki to "Vainikkala" and then on to Moscow. Vainikkala being the border town on the Finnish side just before entering Russia. This notation therefore means that the individual they have this "file" on did have his movements tracked at some point. My guess being in 1963 and 1964 during the WC.

Gary, This idea about saying that I am writing a book crossed my mind. However, I would prefer to not trick the police as when signing for the copies, I'd presumably have to state what book I'd be writing and when the expected release date would be occurring, and I'm not, how should I say it, the literary type. On another note, if there is a genuine author out there who would like to attempt to obtain these materials, please let me know of your interest and I can give you the name and numbers for the appropriate "Suojelupoliisi" -officials for getting in touch with them regarding an attempt to have these released early. I also had to downsize this attachment, but I do have an over 2 mb scan of the picture, which may be more legible than this attachment. So if interested, drop me a pm, with an e-mail address and I can send it to you. Antti

Attached something I have been working on obtaining recently. These are the previously unpublished visitor cards of Lee Oswald from Helsinki from 1959. These were filled in by Lee and the authorities in Finland in October 1959 while he was traveling through Helsinki on his way to Moscow, the USSR back then. When Lee was in Helsinki in 1959, he stayed at two different hotels. As per Finnish law he was required to fill in one of these "visitor cards" for each stay. For some reason there are 3 cards, one seems to be written by the Finnish authorities (at a later date) and is a translation into Finnish. The Finnish "Suojelupoliisi" or FBI still has these original cards. I have attempted to get copies of the somplete cards but have been unsuccessful. I just spoke to the division head of the department in charge of this material earlier this week, and he explained it would require a full 60 years from the time they were filled in, until they can be published. They will therefore become public information in October 2019. An exception, permitting early publication, would be a book etc. of some major significance, for which they may allow the early publication of these. Exceptionally, last Sunday, the Helsinki Newspaper, "Helsingin Sanomat" published sections of these Oswald cards. Unfortunately the newspaper did not release them in full. I have been in touch with the reporter in charge of the article, but she said she can not give me copies, unless the authorities agree to give them to me. They did not. Enclosed are section of these 3 cards and a current day view from Oswald's hotel room window at the Klaus Kurki -hotel. It would be interesting to analyse the published sections of these to make sure all the information within them is accurate. It appears that in the Finnish card, under "Worth" as in Fort Worth Tx, someone has written: "alias Hidell".

Tom, Regarding this shot to the upper right section of the back: How do you explain the related exit wound, given the picture demonstrated entry location? I can agree with the approximate entry as presented by you.

This I can buy Mr. Purvis. However, I remain unconvinced there was a successful 2nd headshot.