Help with the back wound please

[Mike Williams]

Martin,

I had planned on doing something similar. Thank you, this is interesting indeed. Would you mind if I used these for something I am working on?

Best,

Mike

No problem Mike. Feel free to use it.

John, thanks for confirming that.

best

Martin

Martin,

You are a Gent Thank You very much!

Mike

[John Dolva]

WHAT ABOUT THE BALTIC CATS SNEEZE RELOAD

[Michael Hogan]

All indications from witnesses to the autopsy are that Humes and Boswell were certan at the the close of the autopsy that the bullet did not transit. And there's a clue in the record that not only did they speculate why, but at some point they offered an explanation for the throat wound. From the Jan 27, 1964, Warren Commission executive sesssion:

Rankin: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation THERE IN THE AUTOPSY that probably A FRAGMENT CAME OUT THE FRONT OF THE NECK, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, 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. [Emphasis mine]

Martin,

Rankin states: "We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck...."

Where did he get that explanation?

Edited March 29, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[Mike Williams]

Martin you are exactly correct. I have always held, and still do that this was the exit of a fragment.

Mike

Mike,

So does that you mean you have an alternative explanation for the apparently shallow back wound or do you also think it was a short shot?

Martin

Martin my friend,

I think it was a short shot. This is one area Tom Purvis and I cant get together on. I think the key is in looking very closely at the dented lip cartridge casing head stamp! Im working on something about this, but there are indications that this round was NOT at full velocity when fired.

I want it to be clear though, at this point it is SPECULATION, as I have not satisfied my toughest critic, myself.

Best to you SIR

Mike

[Mike Williams]

WHAT ABOUT THE BALTIC CATS SNEEZE RELOAD

John,

It seems that the majority heard 3 shots, and I am thinking they were to loud to be Sneezers.

Ill have to give this some though.

Hope you are well!

Mike

[John Dolva]

Yeah, thats where fire crackers come in.

The five shot pattern of a sneeze punches out three to four holes not unlike the backwound.

I'm pretty doubtful about it but it is a Baltic invention for poaching (and assassination) at close range with minimal collateral damage.

edit:edit

Edited March 30, 2010 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

Mike, I suggest, when looking at it, see if you can see on the color photos of the spent cartridges when scaled properly whether the dented one is slightly less discolored indicating less heat generated and : not as expanded by the firing. I found it is less discolored and not as bulged, but noone has confirmed or debunked this so it's an observation in limbo.

[Mike Williams]

Yeah, thats where fire crackers come in.

The five shot pattern of a sneeze punches out three to four holes not unlike the backwound.

I'm pretty doubtful about it but it is a Baltic invention for poaching (and assassination) at close range with minimal collateral damage.

edit:edit

John,

Firecrackers is also the most common description of witnesses hearing gunshots.

Mike

[John Dolva]

Ok, Mike, (that reminds me of an incident like that where the cops were called but even tho it was a couple of streets away it was loud, but turned out to be firecrackers.) Did many mention how loud the ''fire crackers'' were among those who used that description?

[Mike Williams]

Ok, Mike, (that reminds me of an incident like that where the cops were called but even tho it was a couple of streets away it was loud, but turned out to be firecrackers.) Did many mention how loud the ''fire crackers'' were among those who used that description?

It seemed like many said "very loud firecrackers".

[Mike Williams]

Mike, I suggest, when looking at it, see if you can see on the color photos of the spent cartridges when scaled properly whether the dented one is slightly less discolored indicating less heat generated and : not as expanded by the firing. I found it is less discolored and not as bulged, but noone has confirmed or debunked this so it's an observation in limbo.

John,

Oh there is much more to it that that. Bolt face markings etc etc.

I have some very good scans of excellent quality Tink sent me a couple years ago.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

[Greg Burnham]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[William Kelly]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mr. Mike,

A statement and a few more questions.

Since Oswald can't be placed within that 20" circle in the 6th floor window in the TSBD at the time of the assassination 12:30 PMCST, as he has an alibi - being on the second floor at the time, do you think the Sixth Floor Sniper, whoever he was, do you think he was a local Texan hillbilly loser hick who got lucky, or do you think he was a highly paid, well trained and competent clandestine covert operative who killed on assignment before and has done so since? Was the sniper a hillbilly or jackal?

And if you insist on Oswald being the Sixth floor sniper, do you think he suddenly decided to kill the President because he was given the opportunity and was mad at Marina or did he plan it out in advance and get the job at the TSBD and set up the Sniper's Nest and carry out a plan he thought of in advance. If Oswald was the sniper, was he a hillbilly or a jackal?

And as part of official US military sniper's training, are you trained on how to protect yourself in the Sniper's Nest and how to get out of there after the job's done?

Thanks for your knowing and honest response,

Bill Kelly

Edited March 31, 2010 by William Kelly

[Cliff Varnell]

Hey Mike,

Do you believe all the shots were fired by a single assassin?

Martin

Martin,

Absolutely unequivocally YES.

Those shots and their trajectory lead to a point of origin within a 20" circle of the 6th floor window in the TSBD.

Mike,

As a point of logic, you are speaking of "shots" as though that terminology [as you infer it to mean] is relevant to this discussion! In other words, it is a circular argument. Your conclusion includes "facts not in evidence" outside of the original inquiry, yet incorporates them within your conclusion as though they were arrived at independently from the original debate.

Are you relying on medical/wound forensics at all? Are you considering eyewitness and earwitness testimony at all? It appears that you are not including data in your analysis that in any way might challenge your pre-determined conclusions.

Greg,

This entire discussion is based on the illogical assumption that improperly

prepared medical evidence (the autopsy photos, the notations on the autopsy

face sheet written in pen) trump properly prepared medical evidence

(Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet notations written in pencil).

These assumptions also ignore the physical evidence of the "low" back wound indicated

by the bullet holes in the clothes, the sworn testimony of a half-dozen Federal agents and

the statements of more than a half-dozen witnesses among the Bethesda staff -- all of

whom put the back wound in the vicinity of T3.

The HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound was "high" on the basis

of the Fox 5 autopsy photo, which Mike put into evidence up-thread.

Here's what they also said about the autopsy photos (emphasis added),

from Vol. 7 of the HSCA report:

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series of

negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that it is nearly

impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present, were positioned

in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements of

critical features (such as the wound in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim; such as his name,

the autopsy case number, the date and place of the examination.

What a scam the HSCA pulled! Their conclusion on the "high" back wound

was based on a "deficient" photograph of such poor quality that accurate

measurements were "difficult or impossible to obtain."

By what tortured logic is such inferior evidence deemed dispositive?

To render the autopsy photos even more unreliable, the woman on record as having

developed the extant autopsy photos, Saundra Kay Spender, testified before the ARRB

and insisted the extant autopsy photos were not the ones she developed.

From the ARRB deposition of Saundra Kay Spencer, June 5, 1997:

Q: Ms. Spencer, you have now had an opportunity to view all of the colored images,

both transparencies and prints, that are in the possession of the National Archives

related to the autopsy of President Kennedy.

Based upon your knowledge, are there any images of the autopsy of President Kennedy

that are not included in the set you have just seen?

A: The views that we produced at the (Naval) Photographic Center are not included.

Q: Ms. Spencer, how certain are you that there were other photographs of President

Kennedy's autopsy that are not included in the set you've just seen?

A: I can personally say they are not included...

...I had brought along a photograph that was produced approximately 10 days prior

to the time that we printed the autopsy photographs that we produced at NPC, and

because of the watermark and stuff on it does not match those that I viewed, and NPC

bought all of a run, which meant that every piece of paper within the house would

have the same identical watermark and logo on it. I can say that the paper was not

a piece of paper that was processed or printed out of the Photographic Center within

that time frame.

There was obviously no chain of possession for the extant autopsy photos,

a well-ignored fact in these parts.

By what stretch of logic does anyone draw conclusions on the basis of poor quality,

improperly prepared photographs for which there is no chain of possession, or any

evidence whatsoever that the subject of the photo was JFK?