Barb Junkkarinen's article:A HOLE THROUGH THE WINDSHIELD

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Cliff,

If I remember correctly, Josiah postualted, in "Six Seconds In Dallas," that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. I don't think he was ever an advocate of a frontal entrance throat wound. But then, I'm sure he could explain his own views better.

Don,

If you are familiar with the WC executive session transcripts, then you know a frag coming out the throat was being discussed ... near the end of January 1964. Seems they still had some things that needed to be figured out on the autopsy ... which is baloney, of course, if the autopsy report had actually been signed and delivered the weekend of the assassination. That's the tip off, imo, that the autopsy report we know and love as "the" autopsy report, was *not* the one signed, sealed and delivered that weekend in November.

It's the January 27th session. Here's a link to the pages where this is discussed by Rankin and pals:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=69

And, of course, as late as April 1964, memos from the Zfilm conferences stated they expected to report three shots/three hits ... a stray bullet (Tague) and the SBT had not yet been born.

Barb :-)

[Pat Speer]

Cliff,

If I remember correctly, Josiah postualted, in "Six Seconds In Dallas," that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot. I don't think he was ever an advocate of a frontal entrance throat wound. But then, I'm sure he could explain his own views better.

Don,

If you are familiar with the WC executive session transcripts, then you know a frag coming out the throat was being discussed ... near the end of January 1964. Seems they still had some things that needed to be figured out on the autopsy ... which is baloney, of course, if the autopsy report had actually been signed and delivered the weekend of the assassination. That's the tip off, imo, that the autopsy report we know and love as "the" autopsy report, was *not* the one signed, sealed and delivered that weekend in November.

It's the January 27th session. Here's a link to the pages where this is discussed by Rankin and pals:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=69

And, of course, as late as April 1964, memos from the Zfilm conferences stated they expected to report three shots/three hits ... a stray bullet (Tague) and the SBT had not yet been born.

Barb :-)

Barb, I feel quite sure that the "throat wound was created by a skull fragment" story was never in an autopsy report, but was made up by the FBI to explain the throat wound before the FBI got around to reading the autopsy report. From chapter 1b at patspeer.com:

"The confusion caused by the divergent accounts offered by the Parkland and Bethesda doctors was only exacerbated by the actions of the FBI. In mid-late December, even after Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin had alerted Hoover that the FBI's report on the wounds could be in conflict with the official autopsy report, the FBI began pushing its own version of the President's wounds, one based not on the statements of the emergency room doctors, nor on the official report of the autopsy doctors, but on what Hoover's loyal FBI agents recalled hearing discussed at the autopsy, mixed-in with some pure speculation as to the cause of the otherwise unexplained throat wound. Even though the Zapruder film in its possession showed Kennedy reaching for his throat five seconds before his skull exploded, the FBI Supplemental Report of January 13, 1964 makes it clear the FBI believed that a fragment of the bullet striking Kennedy in the head created the throat wound. In a section on Kennedy's clothing, the report contains the following passage: "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length. There is a slit...in the overlap of the shirt the President was wearing...The slit has the characteristics of an exit hole...There is also a nick on the left side of the tie knot, which possibly was caused by the same projectile...The coat and shirt were x-rayed for metal fragments...but none were found...The Chief Pathologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital had advised that the projectile which had entered the President's skull region had disintegrated into at least 40 particles..."

This unique assertion, not found in the FBI report possessed by the Justice Department and Warren Commission, nor in the autopsy report in the possession of the Navy and Secret Service, was, upon repetition in the news media, as good as a confession that Hoover (almost undoubtedly through DeLoach), or someone quoting Hoover or DeLoach, had been the original source for the story. Hoover's leaking of the report to let certain conclusions out to the press was almost casually mentioned in the December 14 column of Washington insider Drew Pearson. It seems likely, however, that Hoover had failed to fully realize just how noticeable his footprints had become..

A 12-18 article by Nate Haseltine in the Washington Post was the first to bear the mark of Hoover. Here it was reported that the autopsy pathologists had found that Kennedy could readily have survived the first bullet to strike him, and that this bullet was "found deep in his shoulder". Even worse, it was reported that a fragment of the second bullet, which "tore off the right rear portion of his head...was deflected and passed out the front of the throat."

Now watch as Hoover's poison spreads. On 12-18, an article for the Associated Press repeats some, but not all, of the FBI's findings. Citing "a source fully acquainted with results of a post-mortem examination," it reported "The first shot struck Kennedy in the back, made what was described as a small neat hole, and penetrated two or three inches without damaging vital organs. The bullet may even have entered Kennedy's back after first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine, since its penetration was not deep when compared to the damage done by the other shots fired by the assassin...The second bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy --the third bullet fired--left a large hole in the back of the President's head, destroyed considerable brain tissue and severely damaged the forehead." Note that there is no mention of the throat wound here. This suggests that the writer of this article had not yet been briefed by the FBI.

Tellingly, on 12-19, the next day, a follow-up article by the AP reported that Dr. James Beyer, who previously had argued that Kennedy's large head wound was not consistent with a military jacketed-bullet, repeated his assertions and built upon the previous day's conjecture that the first bullet to hit Kennedy hit the limousine first by guessing that the second one did as well. Beyer stated that "the slight instability imparted to the missile by the ricochet could have resulted in the large wound described." (Beyer's second- guessing of "official" autopsy results would boomerang back at him many years later when he would conduct an equally contested autopsy--that of Clinton lawyer Vince Foster.) Note that there is still no mention of the throat wound. These articles confirm then that the AP was not yet under Hoover's spell.

But you can't keep a good leaker down... A column in the Washington Daily News by Richard Starnes on this day repeated the wound description given the Post the day before. No mention of a ricochet. More than a mention of a fragment exiting the throat. Starnes reported as fact that the first shot "struck the president high in the shoulder from behind, causing considerable damage to the massive muscles of the neck and shoulder. The second shot fired by the assassin struck Gov. John Connally. The third shot inflicted the wound that killed Mr. Kennedy by smashing away the back of his head. The confusion over the wounds was caused by a fragment of the third bullet that coursed down thru the President's head and exited thru his throat approximately at the collar line."

The red flag indicating the FBI as the source of these leaks gets even redder, however, as we look at articles from the rest of the month. In the December 23 edition of Newsweek, an article quoted the supposedly secret FBI report extensively and said the bullet entering the right shoulder fell out, which left no explanation for the wound in the throat. The next week's Newsweek, however, cited the 12-18 article in the Washington Post, and reported that the throat wound was created by a fragment of the bullet creating the head wound.

Similarly, the December 27 edition of Time stated that the "unofficial" word of the autopsy report had been released for a week and that it says a bullet struck Kennedy 6 inches below the collar line and fell out, and that the throat wound had been created by an exiting bullet fragment. A 12-30 U.S. News article followed suit, and claimed the autopsy "showed that the wound in his neck was caused by the exit of a splinter from the shot that struck the back of his head." A January 4, 1964 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, moreover, repeated these assertions. As late as January 26, 1964, incredibly, even the great New York Times was still reporting that the first bullet fired lodged in Kennedy's shoulder, that the second bullet hit Connally, and that "The third bullet, according to an autopsy in Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, ripped away a portion of the back of the President's head on the right side. Fragments from the bullets cut a wound in the president's throat and damaged the windshield of the limousine."

But the New York Times was not the only news organization routinely mis-reporting the basic facts of the story of the century months after they should have known better. U.S. News and World Report, in its June 1, 1964 issue speculating on the Warren Commission's conclusions, asserted: "The official autopsy of the President's body the night of November 22 shows Mr. Kennedy was first hit in the right shoulder. A second bullet struck Texas Governor John Connally. A third hit the President's head and killed him. There was no fourth bullet." It then added "A wound in Mr. Kennedy's throat was caused by a fragment of the bullet which entered his head from behind."

It took so long for the actual autopsy results to reach the public, in fact, that an entire motion picture, The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, was written and completed before the autopsy report's description of the wounds was made available to the public. Clearly basing their description of the wounds on the leaked FBI report, the film-makers depicted a Navy doctor reading from an autopsy report. He states: "Our examination reveals that the President was struck by two bullets. The first bullet struck the President in the back, just below the collarbone, and lodged in his body. The second bullet struck the President in the back of the head and fragmented. A splintered piece of the second bullet went through the President's neck and exited from the lower part of the neck." When asked about the bullets, the doctor in the film testified "We recovered one, the one bullet that had lodged in the upper shoulder." Officially, of course, the only intact bullet recovered was found in Dallas and the "missile" recovered at the autopsy was just a fragment recovered from the President's brain.

To repeat, as no explanation for the neck wound was contained in the December 9 FBI report given to the Justice Department and Warren Commission, and as the published explanation for this wound was only offered in the FBI's January report, it seems doubtful that the Justice Department and/or Warren Commission were the sources for all these leaks about the neck wound, which started in December. It seems obvious from the nature of these mistakes then that the source of all this misinformation was in fact the FBI. It follows then that The FBI's refusal to look at the autopsy report in a timely manner, its continuing to champion outdated information in its December 9th and January 13th reports, and its decision to invent its own explanation for the throat wound ultimately backfired and fueled many of the conspiracy-oriented books which exploded on the market in 1966 and 1967. Not to be facetious, but perhaps the ever-suspicious Hoover should have had himself investigated as a possible communist."

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Pat,

Rankin to the commissioners, Jamuary 27, 1964:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front

of the neck ....... since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all ..."

An explanation there in the autopsy, according to the autopsy, pictures ... this doesn't sound to me like Rankin was reading to the commissioners from magazines or newspapers. When I first posted on this back in the mid to late 90's ... that was McAdams' assertion as well, I just don't find that convincing at all. There was lots of incomplete info, rumor, inaccurate stories going around from various sources, for sure. But Rankin reporting those sorts of sources to the commissioners in executive session, using the "there in the autopsy" and "according to the autopsy" and "since we have the picture" terminology ... I just don't think so.

Good info on who was reporting what and when though, thanks.

Barb :-)

Barb, I feel quite sure that the "throat wound was created by a skull fragment" story was never in an autopsy report, but was made up by the FBI to explain the throat wound before the FBI got around to reading the autopsy report. From chapter 1b at patspeer.com:

"The confusion caused by the divergent accounts offered by the Parkland and Bethesda doctors was only exacerbated by the actions of the FBI. In mid-late December, even after Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin had alerted Hoover that the FBI's report on the wounds could be in conflict with the official autopsy report, the FBI began pushing its own version of the President's wounds, one based not on the statements of the emergency room doctors, nor on the official report of the autopsy doctors, but on what Hoover's loyal FBI agents recalled hearing discussed at the autopsy, mixed-in with some pure speculation as to the cause of the otherwise unexplained throat wound. Even though the Zapruder film in its possession showed Kennedy reaching for his throat five seconds before his skull exploded, the FBI Supplemental Report of January 13, 1964 makes it clear the FBI believed that a fragment of the bullet striking Kennedy in the head created the throat wound. In a section on Kennedy's clothing, the report contains the following passage: "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length. There is a slit...in the overlap of the shirt the President was wearing...The slit has the characteristics of an exit hole...There is also a nick on the left side of the tie knot, which possibly was caused by the same projectile...The coat and shirt were x-rayed for metal fragments...but none were found...The Chief Pathologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital had advised that the projectile which had entered the President's skull region had disintegrated into at least 40 particles..."

This unique assertion, not found in the FBI report possessed by the Justice Department and Warren Commission, nor in the autopsy report in the possession of the Navy and Secret Service, was, upon repetition in the news media, as good as a confession that Hoover (almost undoubtedly through DeLoach), or someone quoting Hoover or DeLoach, had been the original source for the story. Hoover's leaking of the report to let certain conclusions out to the press was almost casually mentioned in the December 14 column of Washington insider Drew Pearson. It seems likely, however, that Hoover had failed to fully realize just how noticeable his footprints had become..

A 12-18 article by Nate Haseltine in the Washington Post was the first to bear the mark of Hoover. Here it was reported that the autopsy pathologists had found that Kennedy could readily have survived the first bullet to strike him, and that this bullet was "found deep in his shoulder". Even worse, it was reported that a fragment of the second bullet, which "tore off the right rear portion of his head...was deflected and passed out the front of the throat."

Now watch as Hoover's poison spreads. On 12-18, an article for the Associated Press repeats some, but not all, of the FBI's findings. Citing "a source fully acquainted with results of a post-mortem examination," it reported "The first shot struck Kennedy in the back, made what was described as a small neat hole, and penetrated two or three inches without damaging vital organs. The bullet may even have entered Kennedy's back after first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine, since its penetration was not deep when compared to the damage done by the other shots fired by the assassin...The second bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy --the third bullet fired--left a large hole in the back of the President's head, destroyed considerable brain tissue and severely damaged the forehead." Note that there is no mention of the throat wound here. This suggests that the writer of this article had not yet been briefed by the FBI.

Tellingly, on 12-19, the next day, a follow-up article by the AP reported that Dr. James Beyer, who previously had argued that Kennedy's large head wound was not consistent with a military jacketed-bullet, repeated his assertions and built upon the previous day's conjecture that the first bullet to hit Kennedy hit the limousine first by guessing that the second one did as well. Beyer stated that "the slight instability imparted to the missile by the ricochet could have resulted in the large wound described." (Beyer's second- guessing of "official" autopsy results would boomerang back at him many years later when he would conduct an equally contested autopsy--that of Clinton lawyer Vince Foster.) Note that there is still no mention of the throat wound. These articles confirm then that the AP was not yet under Hoover's spell.

But you can't keep a good leaker down... A column in the Washington Daily News by Richard Starnes on this day repeated the wound description given the Post the day before. No mention of a ricochet. More than a mention of a fragment exiting the throat. Starnes reported as fact that the first shot "struck the president high in the shoulder from behind, causing considerable damage to the massive muscles of the neck and shoulder. The second shot fired by the assassin struck Gov. John Connally. The third shot inflicted the wound that killed Mr. Kennedy by smashing away the back of his head. The confusion over the wounds was caused by a fragment of the third bullet that coursed down thru the President's head and exited thru his throat approximately at the collar line."

The red flag indicating the FBI as the source of these leaks gets even redder, however, as we look at articles from the rest of the month. In the December 23 edition of Newsweek, an article quoted the supposedly secret FBI report extensively and said the bullet entering the right shoulder fell out, which left no explanation for the wound in the throat. The next week's Newsweek, however, cited the 12-18 article in the Washington Post, and reported that the throat wound was created by a fragment of the bullet creating the head wound.

Similarly, the December 27 edition of Time stated that the "unofficial" word of the autopsy report had been released for a week and that it says a bullet struck Kennedy 6 inches below the collar line and fell out, and that the throat wound had been created by an exiting bullet fragment. A 12-30 U.S. News article followed suit, and claimed the autopsy "showed that the wound in his neck was caused by the exit of a splinter from the shot that struck the back of his head." A January 4, 1964 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, moreover, repeated these assertions. As late as January 26, 1964, incredibly, even the great New York Times was still reporting that the first bullet fired lodged in Kennedy's shoulder, that the second bullet hit Connally, and that "The third bullet, according to an autopsy in Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, ripped away a portion of the back of the President's head on the right side. Fragments from the bullets cut a wound in the president's throat and damaged the windshield of the limousine."

But the New York Times was not the only news organization routinely mis-reporting the basic facts of the story of the century months after they should have known better. U.S. News and World Report, in its June 1, 1964 issue speculating on the Warren Commission's conclusions, asserted: "The official autopsy of the President's body the night of November 22 shows Mr. Kennedy was first hit in the right shoulder. A second bullet struck Texas Governor John Connally. A third hit the President's head and killed him. There was no fourth bullet." It then added "A wound in Mr. Kennedy's throat was caused by a fragment of the bullet which entered his head from behind."

It took so long for the actual autopsy results to reach the public, in fact, that an entire motion picture, The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, was written and completed before the autopsy report's description of the wounds was made available to the public. Clearly basing their description of the wounds on the leaked FBI report, the film-makers depicted a Navy doctor reading from an autopsy report. He states: "Our examination reveals that the President was struck by two bullets. The first bullet struck the President in the back, just below the collarbone, and lodged in his body. The second bullet struck the President in the back of the head and fragmented. A splintered piece of the second bullet went through the President's neck and exited from the lower part of the neck." When asked about the bullets, the doctor in the film testified "We recovered one, the one bullet that had lodged in the upper shoulder." Officially, of course, the only intact bullet recovered was found in Dallas and the "missile" recovered at the autopsy was just a fragment recovered from the President's brain.

To repeat, as no explanation for the neck wound was contained in the December 9 FBI report given to the Justice Department and Warren Commission, and as the published explanation for this wound was only offered in the FBI's January report, it seems doubtful that the Justice Department and/or Warren Commission were the sources for all these leaks about the neck wound, which started in December. It seems obvious from the nature of these mistakes then that the source of all this misinformation was in fact the FBI. It follows then that The FBI's refusal to look at the autopsy report in a timely manner, its continuing to champion outdated information in its December 9th and January 13th reports, and its decision to invent its own explanation for the throat wound ultimately backfired and fueled many of the conspiracy-oriented books which exploded on the market in 1966 and 1967. Not to be facetious, but perhaps the ever-suspicious Hoover should have had himself investigated as a possible communist."

[Bill Miller]

And comments actually on the topic still proclaim Ellis .... who placed the "hole" he saw at the ***bottom*** of the windshield! How credible is that as evidence ... and how credible does that make those that continue to tout Ellis as proof? Gimme a break. And Dudman ... who a Fetzer player and hero himself is quoted in Assassination Science as having heard from Dudman's own lips that he didn't know if it was a through-and through hole or not?

Unless a witness has said the windshield appeared to be hit in two different places at the time they examined it .... Altgens 7 shows the damaged area of the windshield quite clearly and its not at the bottom of the glass.

Now does someone wish to call that photo altered as well, if so then why does it dispute the damage seen in the White House Garage photos? The fact is that Altgens 7 is a legit photo because of the previously mentioned point in my view.

Bill Miller

[Pamela Brown]

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

[Craig Lamson]

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

Unimpeachable:

1. Difficult or impossible to impeach:

2. Beyond reproach; blameless:

3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable:

Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell.

Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite)

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craig lamson.com/apollo.htm.

Unimpeachable is not hard at all...

Edited July 14, 2009 by Craig Lamson

[Pat Speer]

Hi Pat,

Rankin to the commissioners, Jamuary 27, 1964:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front

of the neck ....... since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all ..."

An explanation there in the autopsy, according to the autopsy, pictures ... this doesn't sound to me like Rankin was reading to the commissioners from magazines or newspapers. When I first posted on this back in the mid to late 90's ... that was McAdams' assertion as well, I just don't find that convincing at all. There was lots of incomplete info, rumor, inaccurate stories going around from various sources, for sure. But Rankin reporting those sorts of sources to the commissioners in executive session, using the "there in the autopsy" and "according to the autopsy" and "since we have the picture" terminology ... I just don't think so.

Good info on who was reporting what and when though, thanks.

Barb :-)

IMO, Rankin was winging it, and was referring to the FBI Supplemental Report and not the autopsy protocol. He may even have been reporting something Redlich or Specter had told him about the FBI report, and had assumed it was in the autopsy report as well. There's certainly no evidence he spent much time studying the medical evidence.

I believe this, in large part, because he later petitioned the commission, at Specter's urging, to allow Humes to review the photos, and determine the proper location for the back wound. If he'd looked at the photos, and knew already that the photos showed the back wound below the throat wound, he would not have done this. It follows then that the "picture" to which he refers in the 1-27 executive session was the face sheet.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

Unimpeachable:

1. Difficult or impossible to impeach:

2. Beyond reproach; blameless:

3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable:

Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell.

Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite)

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm.

Unimpeachable is not hard at all...

Oh my, Craig ... you've hit directly on a couple of Pam's Achilles heels ... she doesn't put periods, no matter what the documentation and established fact ... she prefers to "leave the door open" and "keep an open mind." It's part of her "process."

As for shadows ... touchy subject for her as she took quite the beating a few years ago when she came forth with her posit that the "bulge" in Connally's jacket was actually the shadow of the Stemmons sign falling across the limo. I kid you not. From there it went to a shadow being "refracted" from a side mirror ... or some such thing.

This is only fresh in the mind because she recently denied ever saying this on the mod group, which of course resulted in a quick google and posting of quotes.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Hi Pat,

Rankin to the commissioners, Jamuary 27, 1964:

"We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front

of the neck ....... since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy, didn't strike any bone at all ..."

An explanation there in the autopsy, according to the autopsy, pictures ... this doesn't sound to me like Rankin was reading to the commissioners from magazines or newspapers. When I first posted on this back in the mid to late 90's ... that was McAdams' assertion as well, I just don't find that convincing at all. There was lots of incomplete info, rumor, inaccurate stories going around from various sources, for sure. But Rankin reporting those sorts of sources to the commissioners in executive session, using the "there in the autopsy" and "according to the autopsy" and "since we have the picture" terminology ... I just don't think so.

Good info on who was reporting what and when though, thanks.

Barb :-)

IMO, Rankin was winging it, and was referring to the FBI Supplemental Report and not the autopsy protocol. He may even have been reporting something Redlich or Specter had told him about the FBI report, and had assumed it was in the autopsy report as well. There's certainly no evidence he spent much time studying the medical evidence.

I believe this, in large part, because he later petitioned the commission, at Specter's urging, to allow Humes to review the photos, and determine the proper location for the back wound. If he'd looked at the photos, and knew already that the photos showed the back wound below the throat wound, he would not have done this. It follows then that the "picture" to which he refers in the 1-27 executive session was the face sheet.

Pat,

I thin it is possible, if not probable, that the "pictures" he referred to were the drawings on the face sheet.

Bests,

Barb :-)

[Pamela Brown]

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

Unimpeachable:

1. Difficult or impossible to impeach:

2. Beyond reproach; blameless:

3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable:

Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell.

Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite)

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm.

Unimpeachable is not hard at all...

Once again, in this situation where everything could have been simple, nothing is absolute. The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?

[Craig Lamson]

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

Unimpeachable:

1. Difficult or impossible to impeach:

2. Beyond reproach; blameless:

3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable:

Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell.

Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite)

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm.

Unimpeachable is not hard at all...

Once again, in this situation where everything could have been simple, nothing is absolute. The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?

Blah blah blah. Facts are facts and certain facts and laws of nature are simpy unimpeachable. Get used to it. What is far more likely to happen is that people who are wedded to a worldview simply CHOOSE to disregard unimpeachable fact because it destroys said worldview. I'm the opposite when it comes to JFK because I don't care one bit who killed him or why. I study the photographic record and report on those things that are fact and not opinion nor conjecture. If my findings piss off one side or the other, too bad. You can either deal in truth or not, I don't care.

[Bernice Moore]

TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.7 The Smoking Guns, seg.1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTeQ9ckmD8

TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.7 The Smoking Guns, seg.2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAW-bxxZfcM...feature=related

TMWKK, The Final Chapter, ep.7 The Smoking Guns, seg.3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmMXfBgjsh0

Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, Volume 5, Issue 1

Current Section: A Study of the Presidential Limousine, by Doug Weldon

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=35

B.......

Edited July 10, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Jerry Logan]

""However, what seems clear from other witness reports and photos is the extreme unlikelihood of Glanges claim to have “leaned against the fender” of the limousine. She claims to have done this shortly before the car was driven away. Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: ""

Not all by far and not in a few moments.

B..

Hello Bernice,

As always, you present an amazing collection of photos. Since we're testing Glanges credibility the most interesting photos would be those showing the limousine with its top completely on because, according to her, the limo sped off almost immediately after she leaned on it and commented on the hole. In the existing photos taken after the top was fully in place it's hard to see how two people got to the front of the limo and leaned on it. It's also hard to understand why Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman wouldn't have immediately ordered someone leaning on the car to get back. Instead, they stand by while Glanges and her friend are leaning on the the car examining the windshield - then the Secret Service agents jump in the car and race off without a word? And in that time frame how exactly did Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman know that a hole in the windshield would be a bad thing? And, if somehow they did know it would be a bad thing for people to see a hole in the windshield, then why did they let anyone get close to the car? Glanges said she almost had her hand pulled off by the unexpected force and violence of the limousine pulling away - it looks like that would have been really hard on the people standing behind the car.

The photo you have showing the officer with the bubble top and the negative of that photo is very interesting. Do you have that negative or do you know the source of the photo?

Best regards to you,

Jerry

[Josiah Thompson]

Over on Lancer, Robin Unger posted two enlargements of photos from that we used in our study. They are clearer than what we posted and show windshield damage at Parkland Hospital and blood spots on windshield from a photo taken early on the morning of November 23rd. I thought you might like to see them.

""However, what seems clear from other witness reports and photos is the extreme unlikelihood of Glanges claim to have “leaned against the fender” of the limousine. She claims to have done this shortly before the car was driven away. Although it took a few moments to place a law enforcement cordon around the limousine, law enforcement officers then kept civilians back from the limousine: ""

Not all by far and not in a few moments.

B..

Hello Bernice,

As always, you present an amazing collection of photos. Since we're testing Glanges credibility the most interesting photos would be those showing the limousine with its top completely on because, according to her, the limo sped off almost immediately after she leaned on it and commented on the hole. In the existing photos taken after the top was fully in place it's hard to see how two people got to the front of the limo and leaned on it. It's also hard to understand why Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman wouldn't have immediately ordered someone leaning on the car to get back. Instead, they stand by while Glanges and her friend are leaning on the the car examining the windshield - then the Secret Service agents jump in the car and race off without a word? And in that time frame how exactly did Kinney, Hickey and Kellerman know that a hole in the windshield would be a bad thing? And, if somehow they did know it would be a bad thing for people to see a hole in the windshield, then why did they let anyone get close to the car? Glanges said she almost had her hand pulled off by the unexpected force and violence of the limousine pulling away - it looks like that would have been really hard on the people standing behind the car.

The photo you have showing the officer with the bubble top and the negative of that photo is very interesting. Do you have that negative or do you know the source of the photo?

Best regards to you,

Jerry

[Josiah Thompson]

"The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?"

Pamela McElwain-Brown has claimed several times that we use an argument based on “authority.” I don’t really know what she means by this. She may mean that in publishing the notes of Frazier and his testimony we are relying on an “argument from authority” –– that is, the forensic examination of the limousine and its windshield by the FBI forensic team. Does she mean that this evidence should be ignored because it comes from “the government?” If so, then we should fold our tents and creep away since a great part of the evidence in the case comes from “the government.”

Or she may mean that we are relying upon the “authority” of evidence. If this is what she means, then I would certainly agree with her.

We have shown that there is no damage to the windshield in the Altgens photo taken at Z-255 but that damage is seen in the second Altgens photo taken a few seconds later. The location and general character of this damage is next seen in a photo taken at Parkland Hospital and finally in a photo of the windshield taken by Frazier’s forensic team at approximately 1:30 AM on November 23rd in the White House garage. Frazier’s contemporaneous notes of his examination match the photos shown and he testified under oath on the basis of this examination. We also quoted from Rowley’s letter to Rankin where descriptions of the non-puncture quality of the windshield damage is attested to by various agents.

Richard Dudman and SS Agent Charles Taylor gave descriptions of the windshield that seemed to indicate they had seen a through-and-through hole. These are eminently credible witnesses and what they say should be taken seriously. However, both these witnesses denied later having seen a through-and-through hole in the windshield. This leaves the only evidence of a through-and-through hole to lie in the reports of Freeman, Stavis, Glanges and Principe. We weighed these reports in the balance and found them wanting. We said in our paper:

"It is not necessary to underline the lack of probative significance to be attached to the fragmentary reports of Freeman, Stavis and Glanges. Much of the windshield argument in the past has been based upon taking the absolute statements of casual observers like Freeman, Stavis and Glanges at face value and finding a contradiction between those statements and the reports of professional examiners. Of even less probative significance is the claim of a purported witness like Nick Principe who surfaces thirty-five years after the event on a conspiracy web site with a story contradicted by indisputable facts."

We did not ignore witness reports as Pamela McElwaine-Brown alleges. We weighed the conflict in witness reports and resolved it on the basis of which reports were more believable. This is what anyone attempting to reconstruct an historical event must do. What we have tried to do is what any professional historian would do in looking at this question. If Pamela McElwaine-Brown believes we have failed in this task, she should do us the favor of stating how we have failed rather than lodging general criticisms with no stuffing to them.

Josiah Thompson

Pat, clearly the work you show on your website concering the jacket fold has been shown to be ...well not to put to fine a point on it...baloney, That there was a large fabirc fold on the back of JFK's jacket in Betzner is unimpeachable.

The question becomes, when shall we see the false information removed from your website?

With all due respect, almost nothing in this case is 'unimpeachable'. You are entitled to your opinion, as Pat is to his.

Unimpeachable:

1. Difficult or impossible to impeach:

2. Beyond reproach; blameless:

3. Beyond doubt; unquestionable:

Sorry, I'm not offering opinion, just plain hard fact. The laws of nature as they apply to light and shadow are truly unimpeachable. Thats the facts...pure and simple. Pat's mistaken "opinion" is proven wrong by the properties of light and shadow. That too is uninpeachable. Of course I have no problem if someone wants to try, in fact I encourage it. lets just hope they have a better grasp of light and shadow than the childish Clif Varnell.

Want few other unimpeachable pieces of work...with all due respect of course ( which we all know means the exact opposite)

www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm

www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm

www.craig lamson.com.apollo.htm.

Unimpeachable is not hard at all...

Once again, in this situation where everything could have been simple, nothing is absolute. The best we can do is to weigh and evaluate what has come to light and decide for ourselves what to think -- not try an appeal to authority and make demands that others agree with us because 'we are right.' Everyone just goes around in circles. Oh wait, that is what has happened, isn't it?