Kenneth Drew

Will this one do? Cliff

We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade, or does anyone disagree? So what do we know about JFK's wounds? Only what we know from eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who had no reason to lie or fabricate. There was a back wound with no way to know where the bullet wen, absent a real and credible autopsy. There was a throat wound that the doctors who attended JFK took to be an entry wound. Again, no way to tell where the bullet went. There was a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, characteristic of an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front. There were other head wounds seen at Bethesda that were not seen at Parkland, which suggests exactly what Humes uttered as heard by the FBI agents, surgery to the head area, which can only mean alteration of the body prior to the so-called autopsy. That is basically what we know IMO, which means a conspiracy. What the government shows us with its photos and x-rays and its final "autopsy" report (after the first one I believe was burned) is worthless, one photo being an obvious fake and thus none of them being trustworthy. We can argue forever, to the delight and amusement of the conspirators, about the exact nature of the wounds and type of weapons used. We know enough to know there was a conspiracy, but little else with respect to medical evidence due to the theft of the body from Dallas, after which any hope of knowing more died.

You are exactly correct Ron.

Please note that all of Pat's photos are lateral views.

I suggest the following experiment:

Get a hand held mirror; stand in front of a wall mirror with your shoulders perpendicular so that you have a reflection of a lateral view.

Glance over and notice that the top of your shirt collar appears to be a little under the level of your ear lobes.

Now turn your back to the wall mirror and hold up the hand mirror so that it reflects a posterior view of the back of your head.

The top of your shirt collar will appear to have dropped a couple of inches!

That's because the lateral view Pat must use is an optical illusion.

I called John Hunt out for this garbage back in '99...Zombie Pet Theories...

I suggest the following experiment: Is there a purpose for this? I don't see how that duplicates what went on in the automobile. As I said, if you want to know where the bullet hit him, just look at a photo of his back after the shooting.

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

If it was a fabrication, then Humes certainly fabricated early on, by probing the wound with his finger and claiming it didn't go anywhere. This would make Humes much more of a conspirator than he is generally given credit for, as he would have known virtually from the outset to conceal the use of exotic bullets.

I'm not saying that's not the case. I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy.

The autopsists took the idea of a high tech weapon strike seriously.

The FBI men took the idea of a high tech weapon strike seriously -- they called the FBI Lab to investigate.

We can see JFK in the Zap react in a manner inconsistent with a First-Strike/Kill-Strike hit, but totally consistent with a paralytic strike.

So we're gonna summarily dismiss the high tech weapon scenario in favor of a scenario loaded with defective rounds and incompetent shooters?

I don't get it. (Actually, I do. I don't think many people born before 1970 are capable of taking this high tech weapon scenario seriously.)

We can see JFK in the Zap react in a manner inconsistent with a First-Strike/Kill-Strike hit, but totally consistent with a paralytic strike. Who thought that up?

So we're gonna summarily dismiss the high tech weapon scenario in favor of a scenario loaded with defective rounds and incompetent shooters? Is one fantasy so much different from the other?

I don't get it. (Actually, I do. I don't think many people born before 1970 are capable of taking this high tech weapon scenario seriously.) Were you born before 1970?

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

I have no idea.

Well, I can tell you, the bullet would be moving at little more than a crawl.

For comparison, the .38 Special "Colt Cobra" revolver that Jack Ruby used to shoot LHO had a muzzle velocity of between 800 and 900 fps, depending on the weight of the bullets. This bullet entered the left side of LHO's abdomen and almost managed to exit the right side before it came to a halt, passing through several organs and blood vessels on the way through. With this in mind, we know 800 fps would not be the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's back, as this bullet would likely have been found in the forward part of JFK's chest cavity.

Realistically, I believe a bullet would have to be travelling around 300 fps (204 mph) in order to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch.

While this might be feasible if the rifle muzzle was a few inches from JFK's back, a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign.

1. Bullet drop. If the rifle is sighted in to hit a target at 100 yards (or whatever range you choose) firing bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the shooter will have no idea he has chambered a "bad round" and will aim as if he is shooting a normal cartridge. At such a reduced velocity, the bullet will not have enough energy to reach its target or, for that matter, anywhere close to it. In fact, at such a low velocity, the bullet will have dropped so much, it is more likely to hit the back end of the limo than anything else.

2. Bullet stability. The spiral riflings inside a rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to a bullet that gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight. Without this spin, the bullet will tumble in flight, end over end. Not only will this prevent the bullet from making a neat entrance wound as seen on JFK's back, the tumbling bullet presents an un-aerodynamic surface that will quickly rob the bullet of velocity; making it go even slower and causing it to impact even further back from the limo.

3. Barrel blockage. Will a bullet travelling this slow have enough energy to even make it out of the barrel?

In summation, I believe the "shallow" back wound caused by a "bad round" to be a fabrication, and further evidence of a well contrived conspiracy that involved the autopsy doctors at Bethesda. Unfortunately, JFK researchers were taken in by this ruse, for the sole reason it served the purpose of discrediting the Single Bullet Theory. I believe there is ample evidence the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated there.

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign. When did it get established that the shot was fired from the 6th floor?

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

If the holes in the shirt and jacket answered that question, you wouldn't need to ask

The holes in the clothes raise the question -- they don't answer it.

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

I will agree that it is of value as evidence that a bullet went through the material of the shirt and jacket. nothing else

And yet you say it is a good question to ask -- what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Your admission that this is a good question puts the lie to your claim the physical evidence is meaningless.

I'm with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and E. Martin Schotz. This ain't about me.

Schotz said the clothing evidence was as valuable as all of the 26 volumes of the Warren testimony, or close to it.

Yet no one can say what that value is?

I can repeat its value over and over.

Did you bother to read this?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

And what difference would it make if it did? the bullet hole in his back is in the spot shown in the photo regardless of where the hole in the shirt is

This photo to which you refer doesn't exist.

You can't get an off the rack shirt to behave like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence.

Those who claim the clothing evidence is useless indulge obfuscation.

Pray tell what it is that is being obfuscated?

1) The prima facie case for conspiracy.

2) The proper context for understanding the throat x-ray.

3) Persons of Interest working for the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft Detrick, MD.

4) The fabrication of the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

Yeah, much obfuscation.

Job #1 of the cover-up -- ignore or misrepresent the clothing evidence.

"This photo to which you refer doesn't exist." Cliff, are you saying you've never seen a photo of JFK's back that shows the bullet wound?

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make?

Good question.

The low location of the bullet holes in the clothes establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

doesn't the hole in his back establish that? I've seen a photo with a hole at T3, seems as if that supersedes the evidence of the shirt.

You've seen this photo where?

In what universe does a photograph "supersede" hard, physical evidence?

This location is too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

I haven't seen a photo with a shot into his back at T1.

The BOH Fox 5 photo shows a wound at T1.

This establishes the wound in the throat as an entrance.

Though I'm sure the throat wound was an entrance wound, the shirt or jacket do not establish that.

Yes, they do, in spite of any contentless naysaying otherwise.

Since the wound in the back was too low to have been associated with the throat wound, the wound in the throat had no exit.

It was, ergo, a wound of entrance.

Since there was no rounds recovered from either the back or throat wounds during he autopsy, the central question is raised:

All that establishes is that there were no rounds recovered.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Good question

So your comment about the uselessness of the clothing evidence is inoperative.

Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot?

It may very well do exactly that.

Strong maybe, in my book.

In answer to the question what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds, the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with Kennedy's body in front of them -- asked the FBI men if there were rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

The theory that he may have been shot with a round designed not to show up in an autopsy does not prove that actually happened. It's only speculation.

It was speculation by the doctors with the body in front of them.

It is speculation straight out of the historical record, instead of straight out of a Pet Theorist hind end...Hi Pat.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry.

An honest answer was not forthcoming from the FBI Lab that night.

The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

What aspects of JFK's murder are consistent with a nuke strike?

Please explain...

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

Cliff your argument is basically a "no it's not, Yes it is" argument. I said a hole in the shirt doesn't prove he was shot, you say it does. Okay, have you ever had a shirt with a hole in it and where were you shot? I've had several shirts with holes in them in my lifetime and don't recall ever having been shot.

For example:

"""The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

What aspects of JFK's murder are consistent with a nuke strike?"""

What aspects of of JFK's murder is consistent with a 'secret weapon'. I'd bet he was shot in the throat with a small caliber weapon and the bullet was not found because no one looked for it.

I guess we could conclude, based on that, that all of the shooters were all equipped with various 'magic bullets' so we could have a lot of 'magic bullet theories'.

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

If the holes in the shirt and jacket answered that question, you wouldn't need to ask

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

I will agree that it is of value as evidence that a bullet went through the material of the shirt and jacket. nothing else

I'm with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and E. Martin Schotz. This ain't about me.

Schotz said the clothing evidence was as valuable as all of the 26 volumes of the Warren testimony, or close to it.

Yet no one can say what that value is?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

And what difference would it make if it did? the bullet hole in his back is in the spot shown in the photo regardless of where the hole in the shirt is

You can't get an off the rack shirt to behave like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence.

Those who claim the clothing evidence is useless indulge obfuscation.

Pray tell what it is that is being obfuscated?

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make?

Good question.

The low location of the bullet holes in the clothes establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

doesn't the hole in his back establish that? I've seen a photo with a hole at T3, seems as if that supersedes the evidence of the shirt.

This location is too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

I haven't seen a photo with a shot into his back at T1.

This establishes the wound in the throat as an entrance.

Though I'm sure the throat wound was an entrance wound, the shirt or jacket do not establish that.

Since there was no rounds recovered from either the back or throat wounds during he autopsy, the central question is raised:

All that establishes is that there were no rounds recovered.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Good question

Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot?

It may very well do exactly that.

Strong maybe, in my book.

In answer to the question what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds, the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with Kennedy's body in front of them -- asked the FBI men if there were rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

The theory that he may have been shot with a round designed not to show up in an autopsy does not prove that actually happened. It's only speculation.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry.

An honest answer was not forthcoming from the FBI Lab that night.

The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make? Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot? I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.

Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.

In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?

What photo?

The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.

(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

So what?

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show. There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound. It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched.

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

I'm certainly not saying that. I feel as you do, that it doesn't matter one way or the other. Apparently the shot to the back was the first shot fired (unless the neck wound from the front was before it) and it didn't do much, being at a fairly steep downward angle, likely from the top of the County records building or the upper level of Dal Tex. It wasn't effective and only penetrated a short distance (for some strange reason) but as you say, does it matter? Not really. The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything. The only reason that there was ever any discussion about 'exactly' where the back wound was is because of the WC wanting to be able to justify the Single bullet theory. That never happened anyhow so where the first shot came from and exactly what the angle was is just for discussion, it changes no facts.

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up.

Because it's the only extant physical evidence in the case.

Physical evidence is paramount in any murder case.

In this case, the holes in JFK's clothes are too low to have been associated with the damage shown on the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is?

What photo?

The BOH Fox 5 photo was improperly prepared, deficient in scientific value, lacking a chain of possession, and featuring a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below, ergo forgery.

(If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Because the basic physical facts of the case prove the jacket was bunched up 1/8 of an inch.

Bullet hole in the shirt -- 4" below the bottom of the collar.

Bullet hole in the jacket -- 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the collar.

So what?

Thanks for making my point. You assume (quite correctly) that most of the autopsy photos only show what the 'warren commission wanted to show. There is certainly a photo (or more) that shows the back wound. It is not 'near' the neck. I'm not sure that the shirt and jacket are more 'extant' than the photo is. Let me get this straight: the jacket was 'bunched up" an eighth of an inch? That much? Is there a rule concerning shirt and jacket collars that say they have to be 'aligned' with each other? Maybe one collar was just 1/8" lower than the other, unbunched.

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...?

that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!).

just wait...

OCD hadn't been invented in '63? Had it?

no, and neither had homosexuality. and witchcraft. and HepC. and internet forums.

i was speaking of a more current exhibition of relentlessness.

and neither had homosexuality. and witchcraft. and HepC. and internet forums. Really? I think the internet forums mostly come along after 2000, but when did those others get invented? No, wait, didn't they have some witchcraft trials in England before the US was discovered? when was that 1942?

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up. Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is? (If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...?

that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!).

just wait...

OCD hadn't been invented in '63? Had it?

Paul, the people said they saw a puff of smoke and it is obvious from the Moorman photo that there was a 'puff of smoke' from badgeman. I've just always assumed that they are/were both correct. I don't see any conflict. I don't think there's much chance at all that there WAS NOT a shot from the knoll/picket fence.

If that's what they meant by those words, then, fine.

I agree with you, Kenneth, that shots came from the front of JFK, and in fact I don't really dally with debating the Lone Nut theory -- except to explain how it was created and how it was perpetuated.

IMHO it was National Security that obliged Hoover, LBJ, Warren and Dulles to force the ridiculous Lone Nut theory upon the American Media. That does not prove, IMHO, that the Government (the JFK Cover-up Team) was cooperating with the JFK Kill Team in Dallas.

I find it impossible to believe that the US Secret Service was 100% functional on that day -- and it seems to me that SS Agent Forrest Sorrels, residing in Dallas, might have become infected by the Radical Right wing in Dallas. Especially if James Hosty was.

How much Sorrels might have been able to influence others in the Secret Service, I've not yet researched.

To bring this back to the thread theme -- I have no problem believing that the JFK limo slowed down to 5mph at the site of the gutter drain on Elm, or that as many as 7 shots rang out.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I find it impossible to believe that the US Secret Service was 100% functional on that day Bingo! It actually would be hard to find anything that they did correctly that day. Wrong line up of vehicles, crowds into the streets, no motorcycles beside limo, no SS on limo running boards, open windows on high rise bldgs. Open top on limo, limo speed at or near zero, On and on. Someone had to be involved in the hit.

JFK was killed for a big, geopolitical reason, IMO. Not for some small reason.

The big power guys who pulled strings in 1963 were responsible for JFK's death.

Who were the big power guys in 1963?

That's the question.

Jon, let me ask you a hypothetical. Take this statement: JFK was killed for a big, geopolitical reason, IMO. Not for some small reason. What if that is both 'true' and 'not true'? True that it was for a big, geopolitical reason, but untrue for Not for some small reason. Suppose there were several in the military/CIA/Industrial complex that had lots of reasons to get rid of him, But, Suppose LBJ didn't want to remain in the VP slot because he would likely end up in prison. (that being a small reason), So, somehow the 'big plan' is revealed and someone, either LBJ or someone representing him, gave the go ahead. I'm not of the thinking that one person wanted him out for one big reason. I think it was much more complex. But then, we don't know, do we?

...Lee Bowers and the railroad men all agreed they saw "a puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll when JFK was murdered. You have seen the badgeman photo with the smoke from the rifle. right?

...It seems to me that the explosion of Badgeman's rifle triggering its bullet was a brief flash of gunpowder, and not actually a puff of smoke.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, are you saying that a 'brief flash of gunpowder' is not as proof of a rifle shot as 'gunsmoke' would be? I'd never thought of that.

he ignored my attempt at the same point, too, Ken. we have a DVP II in the making...

Sorry, guys. Let me try again. Of course a flash of gunpowder is proof of a rifle shot. Was I really that unclear?

All I was trying to say is that the phrase, "puff of smoke" and the phrase "flash of gunfire" evoke widely different images to me.

The three railroad men on the Triple Underpass all agreed seeing a "puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence on the Grassy Knoll. Lee Bowers, from the other side of the fence, saw two men standing in the opening between the pergola and the stockade fence at the moment of the shooting, and he also saw that "there was a flash of light or smoke" in their vicinity.

That complicates things -- light *or* smoke. Maybe people are using firearm terms in local ways.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, the people said they saw a puff of smoke and it is obvious from the Moorman photo that there was a 'puff of smoke' from badgeman. I've just always assumed that they are/were both correct. I don't see any conflict. I don't think there's much chance at all that there WAS NOT a shot from the knoll/picket fence.

Getting back to the solid-fuel, rocket propelled flechette dart, here is something else to think about. While I have yet to see a photo or drawing of this rocket dart, there are certain assumptions that can be made about it, given the basic knowledge applied to rocket science.

Rockets, be they air-to-air missiles fired from F-16's or Atlas rockets coupled to thermonuclear warheads, all have one thing in common; stabilizing fins at the base of the rocket.

From Richard Nakka's Experimental Rocketry Web Site

http://www.nakka-rocketry.net/fins.html

Purpose of fins on a rocket

The purpose of putting fins on a rocket is to provide stability during flight, that is, to allow the rocket to maintain its orientation and intended flight path. If a typical amateur rocket was launched without fins, it would soon begin to tumble after leaving the launcher, due to the way that aerodynamic and other forces (such as wind) act upon the rocket, in relation to the forces that are exerted upon the rocket by the motor and by gravity. The problem here is that the rocket's centre of pressure (CP) would be forward of its centre of gravity (CG). Fitting fins on a rocket serves to locate the centre of pressure aft of the CG. This begs the question -- what exactly are the centre of gravity and the centre of pressure and why the importance of these?

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

Robert, has it been established which films or photos show the trail of smoke by the rocket engine in the 'small rocket engine powered shot'? surely it is visible in the Zapruder film. anyone have a link?

...Lee Bowers and the railroad men all agreed they saw "a puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll when JFK was murdered. You have seen the badgeman photo with the smoke from the rifle. right?

I'm interested in the Badgeman, too, Kenneth. Yet it seems to me that the explosion of Badgeman's rifle triggering its bullet was a brief flash of gunpowder, and not actually a puff of smoke.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, are you saying that a 'brief flash of gunpowder' is not as proof of a rifle shot as 'gunsmoke' would be? I'd never thought of that.

As we know, there was no overall examination of the wounds to see where they might have exited. Example: no probe was run through the back wound to see where it came out. There were also no body xrays made looking for bullets left inside. There may have been several, no check was made.

That's not what Dr. Pierre Finck told the HSCA:

Dr. FINCK. Well, you cannot go into a track when -- you know, this is difficult to explain. You can make an artificial track if you push hard enough with an instrument so you go gently to see that there is a track, and the fact that you don't find a track with a probe may be because of contraction of muscles after death.

Dr. WECHT. Was the probe done with a metal probe?

Dr. FINCK. That is why I said probing was unsuccessful.

Mr. PURDY. How far into the body did the probe go before you were afraid it might create an artificial track?

Dr. FINCK. I don't know.

Mr. PURDY. What was your confusion that you had said -- I am not sure that you used the word "confusion." I think you used a word to describe the state of mind when you could not find the track and you could not find an exit wound and you could not find evidence of a bullet. How did you resolve that confusion that night during the autopsy?

Dr. FINCK. By asking for the X ray films.

While Finck's answers weren't very enlightening, he indicates that, to a minor extent, a metal probe WAS used. AND x-rays were referred to. What was NOT done was that the wound was not dissected to determine for certain the track of the bullet.

Yeah, Finck's testimony is very evasive...but he reveals a couple of things.

Here's the link I used: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/finckhsca.htm

Not only were they 'evasive', they summarized as I had said. They didn't probe 'fully' the track nor did they use xrays to see if the bullet was still inside. IN short, they found out exactly what they wanted to: nothing. so that 'nothing' could not be used as 'evidence'

btw, the first part of my Nixon vs JFK essay is done and will be going up soon at CTKA.

I think a lot of people here who was interested in the Big Picture will find this interesting.

on that link in 34, if you cut it and paste it, should work, that's what I did to get to the site. Just clicking on it didn't work for me either

Good summation, DJ. I don't disagree with any of it.

With all due respect Kenneth... These other hot spots did not control a large portion of the world's oil. True, but they did involve areas where a lot of personal fortunes had the potential to be made or lost. Look how many got super rich from Viet Nam alone.

One very compelling situation was developing that had an overwriting effect was LBJ's future. Presidency or jail ? Wonder if that was a hard decision for him?

The Mafia certainly had several persons whose life was being impacted.

I have no problem believing any or all of these factors were involved in driving the conspiracy to remove JFK. who got there first? Who gave the 'go ahead'? While there are several potential answers to that, the question of who covered it up is a little more straight forward. But the fact that the coverup was orchestrated by those at the level it was says a lot about where the order/decision for the shoot came from. Within that context, I don't feel as if the 'Middle East Situation' was even a serious talking point when decision time arrived.

As I said about the Middle East when we started. I didn't know why anyone would consider it important in the context of why JFK was assassinated. If it was even an item, I think it would have been minor. There were certainly much hotter political spots going on around the world at that time and it's not an issue that I have considered important within that context. Cuba, Viet Nam, Berlin, Laos, were hot spots and seem to have been higher on the agenda. I hope that these items were not the primary cause of his death, but then I suspect that the agenda was to get rid of him and they just found a reason.

As i said on one of the comments above, I didn't even think about the fact that I was in the middle east in 58-59-60-61 until I started discussing it. Strange.....(Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, amongst others)

KD : "Mossadegh" was not a factor under JFK.

Yes he was. Unlike Lumumba, Mossadegh was not killed after the coup.

​The Kennedys ordered up a position paper from the State Department on the costs an liabilities of returning Mossadegh to power.

​The reason I equate Lumumba with Mossadegh is this: Mossadegh's was the first democratically elected government to arise from the post WW I mandate system. Lumumba represented the first democratically elected government to arise out of post colonail Africa.

​The USA, over threw the first, and assassinated the second. They did not want either man to set a good example for others to follow.

Ok, no problem, you were looking at regime change. I'm not sure what JFK's position would be on that.

There was no Palestine in 1963. Ok, I don't know when they 'officially' ceased to exist. I was only looking at Israel from the point of view that you mentioned. That JFK was pro Nasser and pro Palestinian. That combination doesn't sound favorable to Israeli existence. But, to get Palestine their territory back would be another regime change. I don't think JFK generally was for regime change.

I can't figure out why any US president would be for compensation for Palestine. That was a UN created situation. Palestine has not proven to be a friend of the US.