There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL "Significant Subcutaneous Deflection" You just made that up, right, Cliff?

Well justified.

From the HSCA report on the neck x-ray, emphasis added

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse

processes. There is disruption of the integrity of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in that area. There is some soft tissue

density overlying the apex of the right lung which may be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue swelling.

<quote off>

Do you actually know what subcutaneous tissue is, Cliff?

[Ashton Gray]

This is what happens when you're hit in the back with a 95 mile an hour fastball: back arched, head snaps back, hands go to the back.

You know: it's a damned shame that John Connally wasn't more of a baseball fan. Then he would have known how to react more properly when he got shot in the back.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

I heard through the grapevine that the guy who started this thread is writing a book about this "no shot in the throat" theory that he says is "factual."

<Snort!> I hate to break it to you, but that ain't a grapevine you got stuck in your ear.

Ashton

[Ashton Gray]

My interpretation of these Zapruder frames is what seems obvious to me:

[1] JFK was shot in the back while behind or just emerging from being blocked by the sign. His arms flew up and his fists clenched in response to sudden intense pain in his back—his response constrained by the back brace he was wearing.

That's it. It isn't complicated. That is what I observe in these frames. What follows here is gratuitous opinion, which I may or may not renege on:

[2] I believe that the same shooter who shot him in the back then very soon blew off part of his head.

[3] I do not believe either of those shots came from Oswald.

Ashton

Very interesting, Ashton. I'm interested in all three of your provocative points, but rather than get side-tracked, I will remain on the first point -- the theme of this thread that you started.

You believe the Zapruder film frames #225 through #258 portray JFK getting shot in the back.

Yet we have already agreed that nobody ever found any bullet in JFK's throat -- so I must now ask about JFK's back.

What do you say about the fact that nobody ever reported a bullet in JFK's back? A hole -- yes -- but not a bullet.

Nor did the bullet emerge from JFK's chest, as a bullet emerged from Governor Connally's chest.

If (and only if) JFK was shot in the back in those Zapruder frames -- what happened to that bullet?

Paul, there are already several threads in this forum about the back wound—including one linked to a number of times in this very thread—and I believe I'm going to beg your indulgence to allow me not to take that question up here. I may well take it up over in that other thread, but I'm under considerable deadline pressure, so I'm sorry to say that it may not be any time very soon. The matter requires a good deal of analysis that I'm simply not able to take on right now.

To answer what happened to the JFK back-wound bullet is not required to prove conclusively that no bullet or "missile" of any description possibly could have made the hole in JFK's throat. All physical evidence says that is impossible.

(Except, of course, for those who believe in the "magic bullet," CE #399. Then again, maybe CE #399 could have been the JFK back-wound bullet... )

Ashton

[Paul Trejo]

Well, Ashton, I will concede the possibility that when JFK reaches his fists up to his chin in Zapruder film frames #225 through #258, that JFK might be responding to a shot in his back.

That still doesn't explain the testimony of three Parkland medical folks who saw JFK very early in that 22 minute, hectic effort to save JFK's life (12:38 to 13:00 CST). They claimed they saw a small, round hole in the front of JFK's neck.

Now -- I'll offer my own opinion about the hole in the neck. First -- I completely reject the three-bullet theory. I base my opinion on Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman, who was sitting in the same car as JFK. I'll paraphrase his sworn testimony:

ROY KELLERMAN... In my opinion the flurry of shots was more than three, since JFK had one neck wound, one shoulder wound and two head wounds, while Governor Connally suffered three separate wounds.

Add to this a shot that nicked a bystander in the face, as well as a possible miss behind the JFK limo, and another miss hitting a sewer cover on the Knoll...I think there were perhaps a dozen shots in about 6 seconds, entailing three or four shooters, with three or four monitors.

Given the fact that bullets can fragment and splinter, there is some chance that a fragment superficially pierced JFK's neck at some point in the flurry of shots, so that these Parkland Hospital medical workers did not lie -- but were simply mistaken about a shot.

It's a definite problem that the nature of the JFK neck wound as described by the Parkland Hospital was mysterious, and that no bullet or fragment was found near the neck. There are many possibilities that remain open. The greatest worry in the past 50 years, however, was the continual revival of the Single Bullet Theory, which made JFK's neck wound into an EXIT wound. It was in response to THAT worry that this tradition of a throat entry wound -- which you have called "urban legend" -- has grown.

I'm willing to take the "throat entry wound" off of the table -- AS LONG AS there are sensible alternative theories offered that continue to deny the Single Bullet Theory, which defies common sense.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Prudhomme]

"ROY KELLERMAN... In my opinion the flurry of shots was more than three, since JFK had one neck wound, one shoulder wound and two head wounds, while Governor Connally suffered three separate wounds."

Where was this quote from, Paul? It seems to contradict his WC testimony, in which he defined the "flurry" as two shots.

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.
Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?
Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.
Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least."

[Robert Prudhomme]

BTW, Paul, in the next few days I plan to put forth, on this thread, a theory to explain the throat wound as an exit wound from a bullet entering JFK's rear. Don't worry, it is not an attempt to endorse the SBT. As you may have noticed, I believe the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and stayed there.

[Cliff Varnell]

This is what happens when you're hit in the back with a 95 mile an hour fastball: back arched, head snaps back, hands go to the back.

You know: it's a damned shame that John Connally wasn't more of a baseball fan. Then he would have known how to react more properly when he got shot in the back.

Ashton

It's a damned shame you can't identify when Connally was shot in the back.

Damned shame you can't say which of Connally's wounds he suffered first.

It's a damn shame you've made claims about Kennedy's hand movements debunked by Altgens 6.

What's really the damned shame is your witness bashing of Linda Willis, Nellie Conally and Glenn Bennett.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Paul Trejo]

"ROY KELLERMAN... In my opinion the flurry of shots was more than three, since JFK had one neck wound, one shoulder wound and two head wounds, while Governor Connally suffered three separate wounds."

Where was this quote from, Paul? It seems to contradict his WC testimony, in which he defined the "flurry" as two shots.

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.

Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least."

Well, Robert, I'm aware of that testimony that you cited, but please remember that Arlen Specter would browbeat his witnesses to push them closer and closer to his ridiculous Single Bullet Theory. The sentences you cite follow a long argument with the whole WC present, which begins as follows:

------------ BEGIN EXTRACT OF ROY KELLERMAN - W.C. TESTIMONY - 3/9/1964 -----------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--

Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.

Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.

------------ END EXTRACT OF ROY KELLERMAN - W.C. TESTIMONY - 3/9/1964 -----------------------

Now, I grant that after a severe browbeating by the WC members, that Roy Kellerman was forced to admit that he couldn't be certain. But that is aside from the point. Roy Kellerman's initial feeling as an eye-witness -- only a few feet away from JFK -- was: "there have got to be more than three shots."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Cliff Varnell]

Well, Ashton, I will concede the possibility that when JFK reaches his fists up to his chin in Zapruder film frames #225 through #258, that JFK might be responding to a shot in his back.

So if you got struck in the back you're going to bow your head and put your hands reflexively in front of your throat?

What a joke!

Edited September 17, 2016 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

I deleted this post. Somehow, I managed to paste quotes from two different posts here.

Edited September 17, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

"ROY KELLERMAN... In my opinion the flurry of shots was more than three, since JFK had one neck wound, one shoulder wound and two head wounds, while Governor Connally suffered three separate wounds."

Where was this quote from, Paul? It seems to contradict his WC testimony, in which he defined the "flurry" as two shots.

"Mr. SPECTER. Now, in your prior testimony you described a flurry of shells into the car. How many shots did you hear after the first noise which you described as sounding like a firecracker?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Mr. Specter, these shells came in all together.

Mr. SPECTER. Are you able to say how many you heard?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say two, and it was like a double bang--bang, bang.

Mr. SPECTER. You mean now two shots in addition to the first noise?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir; yes, sir; at least."

Well, Robert, I'm aware of that testimony that you cited, but please remember that Arlen Specter would browbeat his witnesses to push them closer and closer to his ridiculous Single Bullet Theory. The sentences you cite follow a long argument with the whole WC present, which begins as follows:

------------ BEGIN EXTRACT OF ROY KELLERMAN - W.C. TESTIMONY - 3/9/1964 -----------------------

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--

Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.

Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.

------------ END EXTRACT OF ROY KELLERMAN - W.C. TESTIMONY - 3/9/1964 -----------------------

Now, I grant that after a severe browbeating by the WC members, that Roy Kellerman was forced to admit that he couldn't be certain. But that is aside from the point. Roy Kellerman's initial feeling as an eye-witness -- only a few feet away from JFK -- was: "there have got to be more than three shots."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul

We have to establish the difference between what Roy Kellerman heard, and what he deduced after observing the wounds (or the reports of wounds) of JFK and John Connally.

I'm not saying you are wrong about speculating about the number of shots, I would just like you to think about why Kellerman might have heard only two distinct shots in the "flurry" he described.

Hint: It has something to do with the "firecracker" sound he reported as the first shot.

P.S.

At no time during Kellerman's testimony did Specter attempt to make Kellerman reduce the number of shots he heard in the "flurry". Kellerman testified to there being two distinct shots, one almost right on top of the other, without any prompting or coercion on the part of Specter. If anything, Specter is almost encouraging Kellerman to say he heard more than two shots in the "flurry".

"Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman, you said earlier that there were at least two additional shots. Is there any area in your mind or possibility, as you recollect that situation, that there could have been more than two shots, or are you able to say with any certainty?"

Edited September 17, 2016 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ashton Gray]

...Given the fact that bullets can fragment and splinter, there is some chance that a fragment superficially pierced JFK's neck at some point in the flurry of shots, so that these Parkland Hospital medical workers did not lie -- but were simply mistaken about a shot.

It's a definite problem that the nature of the JFK neck wound as described by the Parkland Hospital was mysterious, and that no bullet or fragment was found near the neck. There are many possibilities that remain open. The greatest worry in the past 50 years, however, was the continual revival of the Single Bullet Theory, which made JFK's neck wound into an EXIT wound. It was in response to THAT worry that this tradition of a throat entry wound -- which you have called "urban legend" -- has grown.

I'm willing to take the "throat entry wound" off of the table -- AS LONG AS there are sensible alternative theories offered that continue to deny the Single Bullet Theory, which defies common sense.

Paul, I see you're determined to drag me, even kicking and screaming, into this mess, and I do respect your efforts at honest analysis, so against my better judgment (well, actually the better judgment of my editor, but she ain't here) I'm going to just rattle off a few statements, some of fact, some of opinion, some of which I will no doubt take up further at some point, some of which I will abandon like a blown-out tire:

1. I will no longer discuss with anybody the throat wound if they are calling it the "neck" wound, because testimony has CONFUSINGLY referred to the BACK wound with the word NECK—and personally I don't doubt for a millisecond that that is otherwise than intentional; confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

2. I wasn't joking entirely when I said that CE #399, the "magic bullet," could have been the bullet that caused the back wound—except for the fact that the bullet marked as CE #399 very likely WAS NOT the actual bullet that had been found on a parked gurney at Parkland, which is what has been claimed. So in all likelihood, CE #399 was a SWITCH-OUT REPLACEMENT for the bullet that had been left on the gurney, which gurney WAS NOT the one that John Connally had been on. It therefore is POSSIBLE that the bullet found on the gurney actually had come from JFK, and that the back wound was, indeed, shallow. This might have to do with the "firecracker" sound.

3. There is another BULLET—not FRAGMENT—referred to in the record that was collected in the hospital room where John Connally was being treated, and it has disappeared.

4. The "chain of custody"—or, more precisely, unspeakable absence thereof—for that bullet, and for EVERY OTHER BULLET OR FRAGMENT IN THE CASE, including CE #399, is so stutteringly, sputteringly "incompetent" (stay tuned) and contradictory and confusing that there is only one conclusion I can draw: If one rejects out of hand the "Lone Nutcase" scenario and presumes a conspiracy of any description, then it is inescapable that THE CONSPIRATORS HAD THE AUTHORITY AND MEANS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF ANY AND ALL BULLETS OR FRAGMENTS AT PARKLAND, ET SEQ. That makes the whole "mafia" and "Castro" scenarios fall-down funny. There is one and only one agency possible of such influence and control, and ALL of the necessary means of contact to secure it, including into the FBI, and that is CIA.

5. Anybody who believes there was any kind of conspiracy involved in the murder, but believes that the conspirators HAD NOT arranged any kind of control at Parkland for the aftermath, is every bit as fall-down funny to me. In fact, having plants at Parkland was absolutely primary to any HOPE of success in pinning it all on Oswald, precisely BECAUSE of the inescapable requirement of being able to CONTROL the bullets/fragments issue and plant false "evidence." (This is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it is precisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate.)

6. I don't believe that any type of metal bullet or missile possibly could have "disintegrated" in the short distance inside the body as the back shot, or could have "exploded" or shattered without doing far, far more damage to the lungs and surrounding tissue than is in evidence.

7. I don't disagree at all with postulates that Oswald thought that Connally was the target, and I tend to believe that Oswald, if a shooter, only shot at Connally.

8. The "sniper's nest" in TSBD was like a movie set, perfectly styled to be as incriminating as possible. (This also is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it is precisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate, the hoax.)

9. Did I mention that confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product?

Ashton

Edited September 17, 2016 by Ashton Gray

[Robert Prudhomme]

"5. Anybody who believes there was any kind of conspiracy involved in the murder, but believes that the conspirators HAD NOT arranged any kind of control at Parkland for the aftermath, is every bit as fall-down funny to me. In fact, having plants at Parkland was absolutely primary to any HOPE of success in pinning it all on Oswald, precisely BECAUSE of the inescapable requirement of being able to CONTROL the bullet/fragments issue and plant false "evidence." (This is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it isprecisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate.)"

It certainly could not have been any of the doctors at Parkland who were part of this plot. Reading their medical reports in Appendix VIII of the WCR, as well as their WC testimony, one would think they were working on a different patient than the one the autopsy was performed on at Bethesda.

"6. I don't believe that any type of metal bullet or missile possibly could have "disintegrated" in the short distance inside the body as the back shot, or could have "exploded" or shattered without doing far, far more damage to the lungs and surrounding tissue than is in evidence."

This is your belief, and I can assure you that you are quite mistaken on this point, and quite ignorant of the ballistic capabilities of certain bullets. Also, when you use the words "in evidence", perhaps you would be wise to recall all of the other "evidence" contained in JFK's autopsy, and what a glaring contradiction this autopsy was to all of the medical evidence received from Parkland.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, I see you're determined to drag me, even kicking and screaming, into this mess, and I do respect your efforts at honest analysis, so against my better judgment (well, actually the better judgment of my editor, but she ain't here) I'm going to just rattle off a few statements, some of fact, some of opinion, some of which I will no doubt take up further at some point, some of which I will abandon like a blown-out tire:

1. I will no longer discuss with anybody the throat wound if they are calling it the "neck" wound, because testimony has CONFUSINGLY referred to the BACK wound with the word NECK—and personally I don't doubt for a millisecond that that is otherwise than intentional; confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product.

2. I wasn't joking entirely when I said that CE #399, the "magic bullet," could have been the bullet that caused the back wound—except for the fact that the bullet marked as CE #399 very likely WAS NOT the actual bullet that had been found on a parked gurney at Parkland, which is what has been claimed. So in all likelihood, CE #399 was a SWITCH-OUT REPLACEMENT for the bullet that had been left on the gurney, which gurney WAS NOT the one that John Connally had been on. It therefore is POSSIBLE that the bullet found on the gurney actually had come from JFK, and that the back wound was, indeed, shallow. This might have to do with the "firecracker" sound.

3. There is another BULLET—not FRAGMENT—referred to in the record that was collected in the hospital room where John Connally was being treated, and it has disappeared.

4. The "chain of custody"—or, more precisely, unspeakable absence thereof—for that bullet, and for EVERY OTHER BULLET OR FRAGMENT IN THE CASE, including CE #399, is so stutteringly, sputteringly "incompetent" (stay tuned) and contradictory and confusing that there is only one conclusion I can draw: If one rejects out of hand the "Lone Nutcase" scenario and presumes a conspiracy of any description, then it is inescapable that THE CONSPIRATORS HAD THE AUTHORITY AND MEANS TO MONITOR AND CONTROL THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF ANY AND ALL BULLETS OR FRAGMENTS AT PARKLAND, ET SEQ. That makes the whole "mafia" and "Castro" scenarios fall-down funny. There is one and only one agency possible of such influence and control, and ALL of the necessary means of contact to secure it, including into the FBI, and that is CIA.

5. Anybody who believes there was any kind of conspiracy involved in the murder, but believes that the conspirators HAD NOT arranged any kind of control at Parkland for the aftermath, is every bit as fall-down funny to me. In fact, having plants at Parkland was absolutely primary to any HOPE of success in pinning it all on Oswald, precisely BECAUSE of the inescapable requirement of being able to CONTROL the bullets/fragments issue and plant false "evidence." (This is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it is precisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate.)

6. I don't believe that any type of metal bullet or missile possibly could have "disintegrated" in the short distance inside the body as the back shot, or could have "exploded" or shattered without doing far, far more damage to the lungs and surrounding tissue than is in evidence.

7. I don't disagree at all with postulates that Oswald thought that Connally was the target, and I tend to believe that Oswald, if a shooter, only shot at Connally.

8. The "sniper's nest" in TSBD was like a movie set, perfectly styled to be as incriminating as possible. (This also is another giant unmistakable fingerprint of CIA, and it is precisely the modus operandi they used in Watergate, the hoax.)

9. Did I mention that confusion is the CIA's No. 1 product?

Ashton

Ashton, I appreciate your taking a chance on continuing this line of questioning. I will respond by the numbers:

1. Agreed.

2. I agree this is plausible.

3. I agree that this is also plausible.

4. Here is where I want to explore further -- and since this is your thread, then I trust you won't mind the detour.

In my theory, we have FBI records showing by 3pm 11/22/1963 that J. Edger Hoover telephoned RFK with the facts that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't a Communist, and wasn't an officer of the FPCC.

Professor David R. Wrone of Wisconsin U. says that J. Edgar Hoover conceived of the Lone Nut theory at that very moment. Hoover then proceeded to convince LBJ and the rest of the Federal Government that the Lone Nut theory was the best approach to the crisis pending the JFK assassination.

If LHO had really been a Communist -- J. Edgar Hoover would not have backed down, but would have pressed LBJ to invade Cuba in preparation for World War III. I have no doubt of this.

HOWEVER, since LHO was neither in Hoover's lists of Communists or FPCC officers, Hoover realized that there had been a conspiracy led by the Radical Right there in Dallas and in the South. (Willie Somerset had already named Joseph Milteer and others in the plot.)

The Radical Right in Dallas were already claiming that LHO, as well as the Paines, the DeMohrenschildts and many others were Communists, and that the JFK murder was a Communist Plot. Nicholas Katzenbach himself called Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, IIRC, to warn him that Dallas had better not include Communism in the Oswald indictment. Carr called Dallas DA Henry Wade, who started back-pedaling as fast as he could.

The Lone Nut theory, which is a total fabrication, was created by J. Edgar Hoover -- but not to conceal the murderers of JFK, rather, to prevent World War III. It was a matter of National Security. LBJ agreed. Allen Dulles agreed. Earl Warren agreed. It was now US Policy.

Therefore, soon after 3pm of 11/22/1963, the entire command structure of the FBI was ordered to slant and twist all evidence, all witnesses, all photographs, all medical reports, all ballistics, the scene of the crime, all other suspects -- to conform to the absurd, fabricated theory of the Lone Nut.

The FBI obeyed their leader. In my opinion, the FBI is the leader in the JFK Cover-up Conspiracy -- but that is quite separate and even hostile to the JFK Kill Team. The JFK Kill Team wanted the USA to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro. That was their ultimate aim. J. Edgar Hoover and the US Government prevented them from achieving their ultimate goal.

5. I agree with you that the FBI took control of the Parkland Hospital evidence as quickly as they could -- but they had to stand in line for that. The urgent problems were these: (5.1) LBJ had to get back to Washington DC as soon as possible, taking Jackie Kennedy with him; (5.2) Jackie refused to budge ten feet away from JFK's body; (5.3) the Secret Service could not change Jackie's mind; (5.4) therefore, the Secret Service demanded to take JFK's body back to Washington D.C. immediately, and would use force to do so, by POTUS orders.

Only after AF-1 flew back to DC with JFK's body did the FBI spring into action. At that point they seized all the bullets, film, witnesses, Dallas Police files -- everything that they could. Everything was going to be forced into a Lone Nut theory, by order of the Director, with the blessing of LBJ. It was US Policy.

IMHO, the CIA was only standing back and watching all this go down.

6. I agree that this is plausible -- although I want to see scientific evidence that has been made plain for a layperson like myself. So far I'm impressed by Robert's presentation.

7. I personally believe that LHO was fooled by the conspirators to hand over his rifle on the morning of 11/22/1963 (and that Gerry Patrick Hemming was almost certainly his confidante) and that LHO himself shot at nobody at Dealey Plaza. I also believe that LHO knew something about the Conspirators, and LHO continued to have faith in them even after his arrest. He hoped that they "would come forward to give me legal assistance."

8. I agree that the "sniper's nest" in TSBD was a frame-up, yet you don't need the CIA to do this. The Dallas Police and Sheriff's office had people who could do this -- supported by the Dallas FBI and SS. It was entirely a local job, IMHO, with a couple of CIA rogues only at the fringes of this Dallas plot. Howard Hunt was possibly a payroll bagman. David Morales was possibly the guy who impersonated LHO at Mexico City's Cuban Consulate telephone call to the USSR Embassy. But they were not top CIA executives -- they were rogues, IMHO, supporting a civilian plot.

9. I believe that the JFK assassination was 99% a Dallas plot. I cite as a key source the new book by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 17, 2016 by Paul Trejo