Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?

[Bernice Moore]

The man holding it is Charles Sensensey of the NSA during his testimony.

Looks like Frank Church to me. With John Tower sitting beside him.

I stand corrected, Ron. It's past my bedtime.

sorry greg, i missed your photo and that whole page, thanks for the heads up, here are a couple of links, with the information, for anyone interested...http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

the one link will not enable, copy and past into your google, thanks..b

http://articles.cnn....kov?_s=PM:WORLD

Edited January 18, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Cliff Varnell]

I've never believed in the frontal dart to the throat by TUM. If at all, a flechette rifle would have made the back wound.

An umbrella weapon would only work at close quarters between pedestrians. We're looking at kill shots on Elm Street.

I believe that Elm Street is a workplace for riflemen, with landmarks to hit Kennedy and Connally by. There's no room for testing drawing-board weapons science.

This was not "drawing-board weapons science" David! This was a device imagined by the CIA and developed by the NSA through funds provided by the US Military. Its effectiveness is without dispute. That said, still we have no concrete proof that it was employed in Dallas. However, even if it wasn't, the reason had nothing to do with it being an unknown or untested product. It was tested, tweaked, and perfected...and it worked very effectively within limited scenarios.

Steve Kober has done some great research on Tom Wilson's analysis of a device he found in a Dal-Tex Building window shown in Altgens 6 (mis-identified as Altgens 5 in the post).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15516&st=0&p=184308&hl=+steve%20+kober&fromsearch=1entry184308

Steve Kober:

I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. Tom finishes the paragraph with his need to investigate this device further. I thought I might give it a try. After researching through the United States Patent Files, I think I may have found a device that matched Wilson's description.

Under Patent US 6705194B2 , issued on March 16, 2004 a patent was issued for a device for firing " a traceless gun firing lethal or non-lethal bullets . After impacting the surface of the substrate the ice bullet is melted and no traces of the bullet remains. The Patent is for " A Self Rechargeable Gun and Firing Procedure and the assignee is named as "Jet Energy Inc. NJ.

I will attach the PDF file ( it's 8 pages and not too technical). Focus on Fig 6 whose look a demensions are a good match for the Wilson device. It also uses an explosive propellant rather than high pressure. Maybe thsi is the "firecracker" sound heard. It was discussed that the first shot should be the kill shot, but maybe that was not case. Maybe the first shot ( in ther back) was to make sure that JFK would not be knocked down thus out of sight for the other teams. Instead , maybe it was thought to paralysis him then he's an easy target for the rifle teams. I propose that this device existed in 1963 and used a paralysising compound in hard ice form. Read the Patent and see the muzzle velocity ( up to 9000 ft/sec) and Fig 8 shows an inpact into 20 mm of plywood. It also had a telescopic sight fitted Attached File US_Patent_6705194_Ice_Bullet_Gun.pdf (265.28K)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This is an interesting post, but I think the explanation for the sound is different. Jim Lewis has been traveling in the South and firing high-powered rifles through windshields of junked cars. I have a note about his work on page 436 of HOAX. He told me that the bullets make the sound of firecrackers when they pass thought the windshield. That shot appears to have been fired from the above-ground sewer opening half-way between the road and the Triple Underpass, as Douglas Weldon explained in his chapter, "The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963", in MURDER.

Three shots appear to have been fired from the Dal-Tex, one of which missed and injured James Tague, another missed and hit the chrome strip above the windshield, but the second hit JFK in the back of his head. Since there is lead residue on the bone fragment, as David Mantik has explained, I believe in his chapter on the medical evidence in MURDER. (I am checking the source.) In any case, there does not appear to be any reason to suspect that an ice-bullet was fired from the Dal-Tex, even though I agree that shots were fired from that location, three in number.

I've never believed in the frontal dart to the throat by TUM. If at all, a flechette rifle would have made the back wound.

An umbrella weapon would only work at close quarters between pedestrians. We're looking at kill shots on Elm Street.

I believe that Elm Street is a workplace for riflemen, with landmarks to hit Kennedy and Connally by. There's no room for testing drawing-board weapons science.

This was not "drawing-board weapons science" David! This was a device imagined by the CIA and developed by the NSA through funds provided by the US Military. Its effectiveness is without dispute. That said, still we have no concrete proof that it was employed in Dallas. However, even if it wasn't, the reason had nothing to do with it being an unknown or untested product. It was tested, tweaked, and perfected...and it worked very effectively within limited scenarios.

Steve Kober has done some great research on Tom Wilson's analysis of a device he found in a Dal-Tex Building window shown in Altgens 6 (mis-identified as Altgens 5 in the post).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15516&st=0&p=184308&hl=+steve%20+kober&fromsearch=1entry184308

Steve Kober:

I have just reread A Deeper, Darker Truth by Donald Phillips which presents the work of Photonic expert Tom Wilson. In one chapter, Tom analysed an enlargement of Atlgens photograph #5. Tom Wilson's conclusion of the Dal-Tex second floor open window shows a man with a beard looking with his left eye through a device described as follows: " the device has a small oval tube at the end nearest the window. There are two small protrusions coming out of the device on the side away from the man. The device is aprx 6 to 9 inches in diameter and is aprx 36 to 48 inches long with a 90 degree eyepiece. Tom finishes the paragraph with his need to investigate this device further. I thought I might give it a try. After researching through the United States Patent Files, I think I may have found a device that matched Wilson's description.

Under Patent US 6705194B2 , issued on March 16, 2004 a patent was issued for a device for firing " a traceless gun firing lethal or non-lethal bullets . After impacting the surface of the substrate the ice bullet is melted and no traces of the bullet remains. The Patent is for " A Self Rechargeable Gun and Firing Procedure and the assignee is named as "Jet Energy Inc. NJ.

I will attach the PDF file ( it's 8 pages and not too technical). Focus on Fig 6 whose look a demensions are a good match for the Wilson device. It also uses an explosive propellant rather than high pressure. Maybe thsi is the "firecracker" sound heard. It was discussed that the first shot should be the kill shot, but maybe that was not case. Maybe the first shot ( in ther back) was to make sure that JFK would not be knocked down thus out of sight for the other teams. Instead , maybe it was thought to paralysis him then he's an easy target for the rifle teams. I propose that this device existed in 1963 and used a paralysising compound in hard ice form. Read the Patent and see the muzzle velocity ( up to 9000 ft/sec) and Fig 8 shows an inpact into 20 mm of plywood. It also had a telescopic sight fitted Attached File US_Patent_6705194_Ice_Bullet_Gun.pdf (265.28K)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Martin,

The bullet to his back entered at around T-3 as Admiral Burkley explained in his death certificate. There is no evidence

to support any other location, unless you want to appeal to the redescription of the wound attributed to Gerald Ford. It

would not surprise me if you wanted to cite such evidence, because that is the best you could do in support of a provably

false location. See "Reasoning about Assassinations", http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf presented at Cambridge and

published in an international, peer-reviewed journal, for the evidence disproving T-1. All the evidence supports the T-3 site.

This sort of rhetoric betrays the bankruptcy of your position. You can't argue the facts without getting nasty, can you, Martin?

Cliff,

My comment wasn't intended to be nasty. I don't see how the truth can ever be considered nasty. You and I have been through your T3/blood soluble paralytic theory before so I know from first hand experience that you are closed-mindedly committed to an untenable theory that stops you from being able to properly understand the medical evidence.

Seriously, you're welcome to your theories, Cliff. Personally I'll stay right here in the real world where the autopsy photos and X-rays prove the bullet entered at T1 and you can go on pretending that the clothing - which was not glued to JFK's back - proves it entered lower.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

You are so outside of the evidence, including the reports from the Parkland physicians--whom I have cited in other

posts reporting extruding cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue from the gaping wound to the right rear of the head

--that you arguments appear to strain for the least degree of plausibility. These were competent and experienced

physicians who were used to dealing with gun shot victims and, in this case, their patient was the President of the

United States. The very idea that they would "forget" or "misremember" their observations on this occasion is absurd.

Moreover, your additional attempts to gloss over the massive evidence that established the existence of the wound at

the back of the head at the right rear have no plausibility at all in the face of the meticulous, thorough and detailed

studies by Gary Aguilar and David Mantik in MURDER. So why don't you go through Aguilar's study, for openers, and tell

us what he got wrong? This is the only chapter that Tink Thompson has endorsed from this book, but it is already enough

to demonstrate that your theory of the side of the head exit (apart from the skull flap) has not basis in the evidence.

The irony of Thompson's endorsement of Gary's chapter, of course, is that the fist-sized hole at the right rear of the head

established that the witnesses were right, that the HSCA photograph/diagram you love to cite was faked, that Crenshaw's

diagrams was basically accurate, that the lateral-cranial X-ray was "patched" as Mantik has explained, and that the hole

in the back of the head was painted over, just as the Hollywood experts have confirmed, which of course also means that

the Zapruder film has been changed, where this is only one minor part of a much larger operation of fabrication. But it

is fascinating that the one chapter Tink endorses provides evidence the film he consistently defends was in fact faked.

Jim

Fetzer: None of these witnesses, no matter how hard you attempt to distort them, support the wound as having been on

the side of his head as opposed to the right rear. They are all completely uniform about that.

Speer: WRONG. Look again. The witnesses on the following slide are more supportive of the wound on the autopsy photos than they are of the wound behind and below the right ear you claim they are describing.

Fetzer: For your position to be defensible, it has to be the case that witnesses from Dealey Plaza are wrong.

Speer: this is absolute rubbish. It is YOU who claim the Dealey witnesses are wrong! Here is what they had to say...

From chapter 18c:

At approximately 12:45 P.M., within 15 minutes of Kennedy's being shot, assassination witness William Newman, who was less than 30 feet to the side of Kennedy when the fatal bullet struck, was interviewed live on television station WFAA. This was 45 minutes before the announcement of Kennedy’s death. Newman told Jay Watson: “And then as the car got directly in front of us, well, a gun shot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side, the side of the temple.” As he said this, he pointed to his left temple, with his only free hand. (This image is reversed on the slide above.)

At 1:17, about a half hour later, Watson interviewed Gayle Newman, who'd been standing right beside her husband and had had an equally close look at the President's wound. She reported: "And then another one—it was just awful fast. And President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--it looked like he grabbed--his ear and blood just started gushing out." (As she said this she motioned to her right temple with both of her hands. In 1969, while testifying at the trial of Clay Shaw, Mrs, Newman would make the implications of this even more clear, and specify that Kennedy "was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear…")

Okay so that's two for two. Two witnesses, BOTH of whom saw the bullet impact by Kennedy's ear. But they only saw Kennedy for a second. Maybe they were mistaken. If they were correct, certainly someone seeing Kennedy at Parkland Hospital would have noticed the wound they describe by Kennedy's temple, and have mentioned it on 11-22-63.

Someone did. At 1:33 p.m. on November 22, 1963, Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced President Kennedy’s death from Parkland Hospital. He told the country: “President John F. Kennedy died at approximately one o’clock Central Standard Time today here in Dallas. He died of a gunshot wound in the brain…Dr. Burkley [Kennedy's personal physician] told me it is a simple matter…of a bullet right through the head.(at which time, as shown on the slide above, he pointed to his right temple) . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.” As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.

But wait, there's more... Less than forty minutes after the announcement of Kennedy's death, eyewitness Abraham Zapruder took his turn before the cameras on WFAA, and confirmed the observations of Burkley and the Newmans. Describing the shooting, Zapruder told Jay Watson: “Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything (at this time, and as shown on the slide above, Zapruder grabbed his right temple), and I kept on shooting. That's about all, I'm just sick, I can't…”

This means that there were four witnesses to comment on the location of Kennedy's head wound prior to the approximately 3:15 press conference at Parkland Hospital, in which Dr. William Kemp Clark claimed the wound was on the "back of his head," and all of them had specified the wound to have been on the side of Kennedy's head, where it was later shown to be in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. Now ain't that a humdinger!

Now, I know what some of you are thinking. You're thinking, "but Pat you're cherry-picking witnesses to support your silly notion that the Parkland witnesses were wrong and that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 did not exit the back of his head." Well, first of all, I don't believe my noting that the earliest witnesses all said that a bullet hit Kennedy by the temple is silly, particularly in that three participants to Kennedy's autopsy--radiologist Dr. John Ebersole, radiology technician Jerrol Custer, and autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins--all left the autopsy with a similar impression a bullet struck Kennedy by the temple. And second of all.... Well, have it your way. Let's go through the statements of the best witnesses to the shooting.

Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson, who was standing on the steps to the right and front of Kennedy at the moment of the fatal head shot, also discussed its impact. In his testimony before the Warren Commission, Hudson asserted: "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear." While this is a few inches back of the location described by the Newmans and Zapruder, it is more significantly not a description of a bullet exit on the far back of Kennedy's head, where most conspiracy theorists have long held the large head wound was located.

"Well, wait a second"--I'm sure some of you are thinking--"maybe Hudson, along with the other witnesses, saw the bullet's entrance, and missed seeing the exit of this bullet from the back of Kennedy's head due to their being slightly in front of Kennedy." Well, no, that doesn't work, either.

In 1966, Marilyn Sitzman, Abraham Zapruder’s secretary, who'd stood beside him on 11-22-63, confirmed his observation of the wound location. To writer Josiah Thompson, she related: “And the next thing that I remembered correct ... clearly was the shot that hit him directly in front of us, or almost directly in front of us, that hit him on the side of his face ...” When asked then by Thompson to specify just where she saw the large head wound, she continued: “I would say it'd be above the ear and to the front…Between the eye and the ear…And we could see his brains come out, you know, his head opening. It must have been a terrible shot because it exploded his head, more or less”. Hmmm... Sitzman, as Zapruder, was almost directly to the right of the President at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact. This put them in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. And yet neither of them saw such an explosion.

Even worse, at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact, the Newmans were approximately 6-8 feet behind the President, and about 20 feet to his right. Kennedy, at this time, was turned slightly left. This means the Newmans were looking directly at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of the fatal bullet's impact... And yet both of them noted that this impact was by his ear!

Still, that's just four witnesses in a strong position to note whether the bullet exploded from the side or back of Kennedy's skull, all of whom said side. What about the closest witnesses in the motorcade behind Kennedy? Didn't any of them see an explosion from the back of his head?

Uhhh...nope. Motorcycle officer James Chaney, riding just a few yards off Kennedy's right shoulder, was interviewed by WFAA on the night of the shooting. He reported: "We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet." Wait... What? Struck in the face? Apparently, Chaney, as Sitzman, considered the space between the eye and the ear the side of the face. While some might wish to believe Chaney was describing the impact of a bullet entering Kennedy's face and exiting from the back of his head, this in fact makes little sense, as Chaney said in this same interview that he thought the shot had come from "back over my right shoulder." We should also consider that WFAA's interview of Chaney took place on the night of the assassination...in the hall of the Dallas Police Station as Oswald was being questioned. By that time, Chaney had to have been told a rifle had been found in the depository behind Kennedy's position at the time of the shooting. If Chaney believed Oswald had fired the shots, as one would suspect since he thought the shots came from behind, and had seen an explosion of any kind from the back of Kennedy's head--entrance or exit--wouldn't he have said so?

And shouldn't the motorcycle officer riding directly to his right, Douglas Jackson, also have reported such an explosion? Jackson's notes, written on the night of the assassination and published in 1979, relate: "I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me."

Well then, what about the officers riding on the other side, unable to see the right side of the President's face? If there had been an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head, entrance or exit, they would not have been distracted by an entrance or exit by Kennedy's ear. So what did they see?

While the motorcycle officer on the far left of the limo, B.J. Martin, said he did not even see the head shot, the officer to his right, Bobby Hargis, riding off Mrs. Kennedy's left shoulder, was not so lucky. In an 11-24-63 eyewitness account published in the New York Sunday News, he wrote: "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of the head, spinning it around. I was splattered by blood." In 1968, in an interview with Jim Garrison's investigators, Hargis would later confirm: "If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

Okay, now, that's eight witnesses, all of whom said the kill shot impacted on the side of the President's head, and none of whom noted an explosion or wound on the back of his head.

We now move to the witnesses directly behind Kennedy, in perfect position to note an explosion from the back of his head. These witnesses rode in the Secret Service back-up car, trailing the limousine by just a few yards. Sam Kinney, the driver of this car, wrote a report on the night of the assassination which asserted "At this time, the second shot was fired and I observed hair flying from the right side of his head…" Sitting next to Kinney was Emory Roberts, sitting directly behind Kennedy. If a bullet hit Kennedy on the back of the head, or erupted from the back of his head, he would have been the one to notice. Instead, in an 11-29-63 report, he wrote "I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President’s head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left."

On the left running board of the back-up car were two agents, neither of whom commented on the bullet's impact or wound location in their initial reports.

One of the agents on the right side of the limo, Paul Landis, however, described the impact in a graphic manner. In a report written 11-29-63, he noted "I heard a second report and saw the President’s head split open and pieces of flesh and blood flying through the air." While vague, this might indeed suggest a bullet's exploding from the back of Kennedy's head.

But between the agents on the left and right sides of the limo sat four more witnesses, two on the jump seat, and two on the rear seat. While Kennedy's close aide Kenneth O'Donnell failed to describe the impact of the fatal bullet or head wound location in his Warren Commission testimony, he and the man sitting next to him on the jump seat, Dave Powers, would in 1970 publish a book on Kennedy, which described: "While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air..." These were Kennedy's friends, both of whom felt one or more shots came from the front, and yet neither of them claimed to see an explosion from the back of Kennedy's head. Years earlier, in fact, Powers had provided a statement to the Warren Commission, which described: "there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head..." Thus, O'Donnell and Powers felt the explosion was on the top and side of the President's head--and not on the far back of his head, where so many conspiracy theorists fervently believe the wound was located.

Their impression was shared by George Hickey, one of the two Secret Service agents on the rear seat of the back-up car. On the night of the assassination, he wrote a report on what transpired in Dallas, and noted: "it seemed as if the right side of his head was hit and his hair flew forward." Next to Hickey sat Glen Bennett, who noted, in a handwritten 11-22-63 report, that the fatal bullet "hit the right rear high of the President’s head." While some might take Bennett's statement to indicate he saw the entrance of a bullet near Kennedy's cowlick, the entrance location later "discovered" by the Clark Panel, a more logical assessment would be that he saw an explosion of brain and blood from the right side of Kennedy's skull, to the rear of his head, as in not on his face, and high, as in the highest part of his head visible from behind. This, not coincidentally, would be the top of Kennedy's head above his ear, the location of the impact shown in the Zapruder film. (Should one not agree with this assessment one should feel free to explain how Bennett could have seen an impact at the small red shape seen in the autopsy photos, and fail to note the massive explosion from the gaping hole on the right side of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder film, especially when no blood can be seen exploding from the back of Kennedy's head in the film.)

In sum, then, none of the closest witnesses to the side or back of the President saw a bullet impact on or explode from the back of his head. So why is it, again, that so many believe there was a wound on the back of his head? Oh, that's right. ALL those who saw Kennedy at Parkland Hospital said the wound they saw was on the back of his head.

Well, not all... As we've seen, Dr. Burkley, long before the Dallas doctors convened their press conference and told the world the large head wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, had already explained to press secretary Malcolm Kilduff that the wound was in fact by the temple.

And he wasn't the only one at Parkland to make this assessment. Texas Highway Patrolman Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Well, then, what gives? Didn't any of the closest witnesses to the shooting or Kennedy's body before it entered the hospital say anything suggesting they saw a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head?

Yeah...one did... Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent riding to the hospital on the back of the limo, while making no initial comment on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both en route to the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill returned to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy in his report, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in reality, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw. (In 2010, while promoting The Kennedy Detail, a book written by his fellow agent Gerry Blaine, Hill would repeat many times that the wound was above Kennedy's right ear.)

"But the men behind Kennedy were all government employees!", some might claim. "What about the witnesses in back of Kennedy on the south side of the street? Certainly, they saw an explosion from the back of his head..." No, no such luck. There were three witnesses behind Kennedy on his left who would have been in a position to see an explosion from the back of his head, should a shot from the grassy knoll truly have exploded from the back of his head, as so many believe. Mary Moorman, whose photo of Kennedy taken just after the shot's impact shows no evidence for such a wound, was interviewed numerous times on the day of the shooting, and would say only that she saw Kennedy grab his chest and slump down in the car. Her friend, Jean Hill, moreover, the woman in red in the Zapruder film, said much the same thing on the day of the shooting. Four months later, however, after much more spectacular reports had been printed, Hill claimed to have seen "the hair on the back of President Kennedy’s head fly up." Note that she still was not claiming to have seen an explosion from the back of his head. No, she didn't even claim such a thing when tracked down and interviewed decades later by conspiracy writer Jim Marrs. Instead, she told Marrs simply that "a bullet hit his head and took the top off." "Top." Not "back." Ms. Hill, in fact. made no claims of seeing the explosion from the back of Kennedy's head so many conspiracy theorists assume she saw until her book The Last Dissenting Witness appeared in 1992. It related "The whole back of his head appeared to explode and a cloud of blood-red mist filled the air." That this was "poetic license" inserted by her co-writer, Bill Sloan, should be readily apparent. If not, one should take into account that by 1992 Ms. Hill was still so confused by what she saw that she told interviewer James Earl Jones and a national television audience that, as "shots rang out", Kennedy "grabbed his throat, and that was the horrible head shot." Kennedy, of course, grabbed his throat long before the head shot.

Well, what of the third witness, then? Well, in his earliest interviews, Charles Brehm claimed to see Kennedy really get blasted and get knocked down in the car. No mention of an explosion from the back of his head. A few days later, however, newspaper accounts of the shooting quoting Brehm claimed he saw "the President’s hair fly up." In 1966, when interviewed by Mark Lane, moreover, he filled in the details, and claimed "When the second bullet hit, there was—the hair seemed to go flying. It was very definite then that he was struck in the head with the second bullet…I saw a piece fly over in the area of the curb…it seemed to have come left and back." While some might wish to take the flight of this one piece of skull as an indication the fatal shot came from the front, they really shouldn't rush to such a judgment. You see, not only did Brehm long claim he thought the shots came from behind, but he paused before he told Lane "the hair seemed to go flying." During this pause, in an obvious indication of where he recalled seeing a wound, he motioned not to the back of his head but to...his right ear.

Well, were there any other known witnesses to report on this wound from further back? Yes. Marilyn Willis, standing quite some distance behind Kennedy, told the FBI in June, 64 that she saw the "top" of Kennedy's head blown off, only to turn around and tell a TV audience in 1988 that she saw brain matter blown out the "back of his head," only to turn around yet again and tell Robert Groden in 1993 that the wound she saw was on "this side," while grabbing the right side of her head above her ear.

Fetzer: the physicians from Parkland are wrong;

Speer: Yep. That's exactly what I think. And what you think, too. There is no uniformity in their statements. Some of them have to be wrong.

Fetzer: the witnesses from Bethesda (even including Boswell and Humes, who acknowledge the blow-out at the back of the head but extend it upward and forward) must be wrong; Gary Aguilar's study of the evidence of the location of the wound across from Parkland to Bethesda must be wrong; David W. Mantik's studies of the X-rays must be wrong; the reports of the FBI agents at Bethesda must be wrong--pretty much everyone who saw the wound on the 22nd of November 1963 has to be wrong, including Clint Hill!

Speer: Yep, a lot of mistakes have been made.

Fetzer: Frame 374 must be be faked,since it actually shows the blow-out to the right rear; and of course the Hollywood experts who had concluded that the blow-out is missing from key frames such as 313-316 because it was painted over in black have to be wrong! Apparently, according to you, the only one who has it right is PAT SPEER! Why am I not impressed?

Speer: And this from a man who just claimed the head wound was below the ear, and that photos of witnesses placing the wound above their ear PROVE IT!

Fetzer: Let me invite you to read Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), which is chock full of testimony, depositions,

photographs and drawings related to the medical evidence. I presume you are not familiar with his massively

documented and meticulously detailed analysis of the medical evidence, since I cannot imagine how anyone--

even you!--could continue with this charade other than by persisting in a state of denial.

Speer: LOL. You're priceless, Jim. Have you actually forgotten that in our most recent tussle I had to school you and point out that in his book Horne helped straighten out that the so-called McClelland drawing was not actually drawn by McClelland, but by Philip Johnson?

Fetzer: I must say that it is simply astonishing that anyone could claim to be an expert on the medial evidence, as you pretend to be, who

is so ready and willing to dismiss what the witnesses, including thoroughly competent and highly qualified

physicians at Parkland, have to tell us about the wound, including, of course, diagrams that they prepared,

including those by Dr. McClelland and by Dr. Crenshaw. Since all of this is brought together in one place in

Doug's book, let's start with Vol. I, which initiates his discussion of the medical evidence. Better yet, not to

overstrain your cognitive abilities, let's start with Chapter 1. Read it and tell us what it says about all of this

and why Doug and the witnesses are wrong as a nice test of your intellectual competence and your integrity.

Speer: We've been over this before. Horne relies on the half-baked memories of seniors, and tries to create a narrative in which all of those supporting that the medical evidence is cooked are telling the truth, and all of those supporting that the evidence is legit, are lying. I am more discriminating in what I choose to believe, e.g., Horne uses Joe O'Donnell--a man whose family later admitted had been suffering from dementia at the time of the ARRB--to support that a second set of autopsy photos were taken by Robert Knudsen, when Knudsen himself said nothing of the sort when interviewed by the HSCA.

Fetzer: The only support for your bizarre theory stems from the skull flap, which was blown open when the frangible

bullet exploded after entering his right temple. We know the Newmans, for example, reported seeing the side

of his head blow open. That is because they were at the right-hand side of the limousine and saw it blow open.

Speer: Balderdash. The Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head from a distance of 15 feet or so when the fatal bullet struck...and noted NO blow-out to the back of the head. As discussed above, NONE of the authenticated Dealey witnesses noted a blow-out to the back of the head.

Fetzer: But that does not contradict the massive blow-out to the back of the head. I have explained all these things

in many places, including "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", which is archived here:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html We can see both the massive blow-out and the bluish-gray brains

AS WELL AS the pinkish skull flap in frame 374, which I have already published here several times. We can

also see the skull flap (but not the massive blow out) in the HSCA photograph and diagram.

Fetzer: And we know from Thomas Evan Robinson that there were BOTH a massive blow out to the back of the skull AND a skull

flap to the side of the head. THESE WERE DISTINCT.

Speer: Tom Robinson saw the skull during its reconstruction. There is no evidence whatsoever that the skull was meticulously pieced back together. Much as a a mortician will leave the back side of the clothes tore open, one would simply reconstruct the face as best one can, and leave whatever hole is left for the back of the head.

Fetzer: And it would be preposterous to maintain cerebellum would have been extruding from the wound at your location. So the only way you can maintain your position

is by ignoring the evidence and not distinguishing the distinct. I am sorry to say, Pat, that you are either the most dishonest student of JFK or else the most incompetent to ever address the medical evidence, bar none.

Speer: Yawn. Another day at the office. Jim can't handle what the evidence shows, so he attacks the person showing him the evidence. Sigh.

Edited January 18, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

I think your posts on this thread have been extremely valuable in debunking myths propagated by Pat

Speer and Martin Hay. Perhaps you have mentioned it and I overlooked it, but of course Malcolm Perry

described the wound to the throat as an entrance wound three times during the Parkland press conference,

which I published as Appendix C to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998). And, as I have mentioned in one

of my other posts, there is no support for the theory that the throat wound was indeed the exit for a bullet

having hit at T-1 or any other location than T-3, when it clearly entered at T-3. The evidence related to this

entry location may be found in "Reasoning about Assassinations", http://assassinationscience.com/ReasoningAboutAssassinations.pdf

Jim

Cliff,

I noticed that you didn't respond to my example of how atypical wounds can confuse intitial inspections

As I pointed out, there is more evidence of the throat entrance wound than the doctors' descriptions of it.

The neck x-ray shows a straight-line path from front to back given the fact there was no posterior entrance at C7/T1.

The back wound was too low to be associated with either the throat wound or the damage on the neck x-ray.

The Dealey Plaza witnesses described JFK as grabbing his throat.

The Zapruder film shows JFK's left hand frantically clawing at his throat.

The claim that he was responding to a shot in the back of the head (Speer) or the shot in his back (Hay) finds no purchase in the evidence, but merely in the fertile imaginations of these worthy gentlemen.

and I know why - because you have already made up your mind therefore any attempt to make you question your beliefs is destined to be fruitless. Its this type of closed-mindedness that prevents JFK research from moving forward.

This sort of rhetoric betrays the bankruptcy of your position. You can't argue the facts without getting nasty, can you, Martin?

I don't know of a single medical professional that claims "The neck x-ray shows a clear front to back path" - maybe you do but I've never come across it.

The damage is a clear path from a nicked trachea, bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the T1 transverse, air pocket overlaying C7 and T1 -- are you denying that those injuries occupy the same horizontal plane in the body?

Since there was no posterior entrance at C7/T1 the path HAD to be from front to back.

. . .

If there wasn't corroborative evidence you might have a point, but there is and you don't.

I notice you don't want to deal with the low back wound. That is the first thing one must understand in the case, frankly.

The back wound was several inches lower than the damage path in the neck x-ray. There

was no back entrance wound to correspond with a throat exit wound.

I'm sorry if this is inconvenient to your pet theories, Martin.

[Cliff Varnell]

So I was right then, Cliff? Humes, Boswell and Finck never said the words “blood soluble”, never mentioned “paralysis” or “paralytics” and intimated no personal knowledge of secret CIA projects to engineer blood soluble paralytics.

No, Martin, it was incorrect for you to write "T3/paralytic theory," some kind of word salad of your own making.

The words used at Bethesda on 11/22/63 were "disintegration," "fragment completely," "fragmentize," and "dissolves after contact," which is the exact same thing as blood soluble.

I never claimed they used the phrase "blood soluble," but that is clearly what they were driving at. They had entrance wounds with no corresponding exits, no bullets, and they clearly posed the possibility JFK was hit with an exotic round that "dissolves after contact."

Further, one of the FBI guys followed through and began to investigate whether such exotic weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab for that expressed purpose, but the inquiry was diverted by the news of the Magic Bullet.

If the investigation that commenced with the autopsist's theory been allowed to go forward they might have discovered the program referred to in the following:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

It was all your inference; your hypothesis. Thanks for clearing that up.

"T3/paralysis theory" is the invention of one Martin Hay. If you want to know my position please don't state it for me, just ask.

You wrote: “Because it is sheer nonsense. You have to show more damage to the spine than a mere hairline fracture of right T1 transverse process”

Is that your professional opinion then, Dr. Varnell? LOL

I did some research into this and what I found was that localized fractures of the transverse process are quite rare so there is very little written about them.

You make claims first, then you do the research?

So your previous claims -- nicked from Don Thomas, I presume? -- have no basis in fact.

But it is clear that the bullet didn't directly strike the the bone so much as it did the surrounding tissues and it is the nervous tissues that make up the spinal cord that matter. Injury anywhere along the spinal chord can cause “a loss of communication between the brain and the parts of the body below the injury.” It is particularly interesting and relevant that an injury at the level of T1 can cause partial or complete paralysis of the arms and legs and “poor trunk control.”

The only damage, Dr. Hay, was a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse, there is no medical evidence of damage to the spinal cord. In fact, there was an air pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

You wrote: “You are honestly suggesting that JFK didn't tuck his shirt in when he changed it during the plane ride to Dallas from Ft. Worth? We're discussing JFK, right? You think he left his shirt un-tucked? That's your argument?”

Now that's simply misrepresenting what I wrote, isn't it Cliff?

You do understand the function of this -- ? -- a question mark? Please note my use of question marks in all the sentences you quoted.

Here it is again: “Of course no one can know that JFK's shirt was laying flat against his back or that it was fully tucked in because it can't be seen.” Not quite the same is it? This is a ridiculous argument anyway. Clothing moves,

Not in the manner your pet theory requires!

Martin, turn your head to the right far enough so that you can see your right shoulder-line.

Keeping your eye on your right shoulder-line, slowly raise your right arm to wave, like JFK in the motorcade.

I can tell you how much of your shirt fabric is moving, and how it is moving: fractions of an inch of your shirt fabric is pushed sideways into a series of vertical folds along your right shoulder-line as you raise your right arm.

Happens every time.

Normal movements of the body cause normal movements of clothing, which can be measured

in fractions of an inch. If you describe for me a physical movement of your body I can tell you how much of your clothing moves. Clothing design is that specific.

"Normal ease" is a term of art in clothing design, as is "gross ease," which occurs when the body stretches, often causing multiple inches of fabric to move. JFK did NOTHING in the motorcade that would have caused his shirt fabric to move more than a fraction of an inch.

JFK's movements in the limo were "normal."

shirts become untucked or partially untucked when we sit up and down.

Maybe your shirts become untucked, but you probably don't spend the money on shirts that JFK did.

Do you know why your shirts become untucked when you sit up or down?

Because the tail isn't long enough. You buy it off the rack; JFK didn't.

Google: Alan Flusser.

CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS

(Alan Flusser) pg 79, emphasis added:

(quote on)

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary

for a man to sit comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff

could destroy the lines of the jacket...The length of the shirt is also an

important concern. It should hang at least six inches below the waist so

that it stays tucked in when you move around.

(quote off)

Guys like JFK didn't wear shirts that became untucked when he moved around because he didn't want the lines of his suit jacket to be ruined.

Do you have any photos of JFK in Dallas with ruined jacket lines?

Perhaps you've never worn a shirt and moved about in it – why not give a go?

Perhaps you make claims that you never bothered to research? Research first -- why not give it a go, Martin?

You wrote: “And the same panel denounced the quality of those photos and said it was "difficult or impossible" to ascertain wound locations”

That is true. Nonetheless the panel made the most of what they had and after making careful measurements concluded the wound was “13.5 cm below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck as positioned within the photograph, 6 cm below the most prominent neck crease and 5 cm below the upper shoulder margin.”

This is rich.

You concede that the HSCA disputed the evidentiary value of the autopsy photos, that it was "difficult or impossible" to take accurate measurements of the back wound, but because they went ahead and made measurements anyway, that makes these "difficult or impossible" measurements valid?

By what alchemy of logic do you come to that conclusion?

An extra level of confidence in these measurements comes from the fact that it closely agrees with the measurement in the autopsy report of 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process - a measurement that was made from the actual body.

Finck before the ARRB:

(quote on)

JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound.

(quote off)

The mastoid process is a movable landmark, and therefore any measurement taken from it is a violation of proper autopsy protocol.

Burkley's death certificate was filled out properly, noting T3 as the spinal location for the back wound.

The death certificate was signed off as "verified."

The autopsy face sheet diagram shows a wound consistent with T3 or lower -- it was also signed off as "verified."

Martin Hay:

And as Pat Speer has shown on his website this measurement is perfectly consistent with a wound at T1.

(/quote)

What about the other wound location cited in the autopsy report, or did you forget?

"just above the upper border of the scapula"

Is T1 just above the upper border of the scapula? No, that would be much closer to T2.

http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif

So not only did the official autopsy report mis-identify the location of the back wound, it did so twice, citing two different locations for the wound.

So not only do you put major stock in the measurements taken from autopsy photos where it was "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements," according to these very same people who took said measurements, but you also put major stock in two separate wound locations, both of which were improperly recorded.

But medical evidence which was properly recorded and verified you choose to ignore, along with the hard physical evidence of the clothing defects and more than a dozen witnesses to the low back wound.

You make the same arguments as Vincent Bugliosi and John McAdams. Don't feel bad, they can't defend this crap to save their lives, either.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

Although I'm not arguing for or against the "theory" that a Flechette Dart was used in Dealey Plaza that day, it does not seem out of the question, IMO. The medical evidence suggests that the throat wound was definitely a wound of entrance. This is perhaps the ONLY case in modern history wherein the observations made by the qualified attending physicians--who were immediately in a position to render a judgment as to the nature of the wound--have been rejected out of hand! I find no merit in even arguing the point with those denying the throat wound was a wound of entrance.

But, for those who accept the expert opinions of the attending physicians at Parkland, I will offer some insight as to the nature of the flechette dart weapon. Again, this is not to say it was employed that day--only that it had been developed to a degree of competent utility by that time.

As you all know, Fletcher Prouty was Chief of Special Operations (aka: Chief of Team "B") in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time. He also remained the liaison for military support of all clandestine operations in which the Central Intelligence Agency was engaged globally. As a regular function of his work there, members of the clandestine services, among others, would visit him and "(sales) pitch" their latest (but, not always greatest) ideas hoping to win his support. If he deemed the project worthy he would take the idea up the chain of command and present it to those in a position to budget its development further. There are times when an idea is too big or too expensive to by-pass congressional oversight and, in those cases, the "pitch" is actually made to a congressional sub-committee.

The Agency developed a means to insure 100% funding of all of their projects by congress. It really is quite clever, and is a nice insight into how the mind of Allen Dulles worked. Congress does not like to "fully fund" projects that are seen as sketchy. Indeed, they only like to fund sure things. And, if they fund a project which eventually fails, they begin to lose faith in the agency (or The Agency) that persuaded them to allocate the money. So, the CIA began to funnel money from their "slush fund" (money generated illegally through drug & arms sales, etc.) into R&D for their pet projects. Once these projects were developed to the point of virtual certainty of their success--in other words, the R&D stage was already completed, they would then approach Prouty with it. If the magnitude of the project required congressional sub-committee oversight or budget approval, the "pitch" would be made to congress. The amount of funding requested would initially be very modest, as it was for R&D only, which makes it easier for congress to approve and raises fewer red flags. The brilliance lies in the fact that the Agency had already proven the viability of the project by this time and were therefore 100% sure that the congressional funds would be seen as having been very well spent. Next, they request funding to actually complete the project--a considerably higher sum--and they receive it based on the earlier "success" of the R&D funds. The final project is also a 100% success (which was already a known in advance of even involving congress). This process worked so well that eventually ALL projects ran this same course until congress began to routinely approve CIA budgets because the Agency appeared to have a 100% success rate. In reality, they didn't. They just kept their failures secret from congress, which was easy enough to do since they weren't using congressional funding for those failures. In effect, the Agency was totally un-accountable for failures and totally accountable for successes.

One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location.

The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Edited January 18, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Cliff Varnell]

JF: The bullet to his back entered at around T-3 as Admiral Burkley explained in his death certificate. There is no evidence

to support any other location, unless you want to appeal to the redescription of the wound attributed to Gerald Ford

This is not quite accurate. The HSCA photos seem to support this more than T-3.

It then becomes a matter of impeaching the photos.

The HSCA condemned the photos in clear language...and then proceeded to build their own SBT on "obviously deficient" evidence. And people actually buy this nonsense!

From Saundra Kay Spencer's ARRB testimony 6/5/97, emphasis added:

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy

in addition to what you've already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that

showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --

you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones I

worked on.

The "obviously deficient" autopsy photos have no chain of possession. They are inconsistent with the physical evidence, the consensus eye witness testimony, and especially with the medical evidence that was prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols.

What kind of "primary" evidence is that?

There's not a shred of proof that the BOH photos are of John F. Kennedy.

None.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

JF: The bullet to his back entered at around T-3 as Admiral Burkley explained in his death certificate. There is no evidence

to support any other location, unless you want to appeal to the redescription of the wound attributed to Gerald Ford

This is not quite accurate. The HSCA photos seem to support this more than T-3.

It then becomes a matter of impeaching the photos.

The HSCA condemned the photos in clear language...and then proceeded to build their own SBT on "obviously deficient" evidence. And people actually buy this nonsense!

From Saundra Kay Spencer's ARRB testimony 6/5/97, emphasis added:

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy

in addition to what you've already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that

showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --

you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones I

worked on.

The "obviously deficient" autopsy photos have no chain of possession. They are inconsistent with the physical evidence, the consensus eye witness testimony, and especially with the medical evidence that was prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols.

What kind of "primary" evidence is that?

There's not a shred of proof that the BOH photos are of John F. Kennedy.

None.

While Cliff would love to prop up Burkley's "T3" assessment as the "proof" the back wound was below the throat wound, and the single bullet trajectory is nonsense, this is entirely unnecessary. What he fails to appreciate is that the "official" interpretation of the wound at T1 ALREADY "proves" the single bullet trajectory to be nonsense, and all his bluster about Burkley is a needless sideshow.

From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

If one were told in 1976 that the HSCA was going to determine that the Warren Commission and Clark panel were wrong, and that the back wound was at the same level as or even slightly below the wound in Kennedy’s throat, one would rightly have concluded that the single-bullet theory had been debunked Instead, when the HSCA published its final report in 1979, the committee concluded that the theory was still valid. To do this, they proposed that Kennedy was leaning a lot further forward than had previously been presumed.

This was doubly surprising since the HSCA had also decided that Kennedy was first hit at Zapruder frame 190, at a point when he is clearly sitting up in his seat. The Warren Commission, we should remember, concluded he was hit somewhere between frames 210-225 of the Zapruder film, when he was behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and his forward lean could not precisely be determined. Equally troubling, by moving up the proposed moment of impact, the HSCA put Kennedy closer to the Texas School Book Depository at the time he was shot, and made the angle of descent for the "magic bullet" that much sharper. A quick comparison of Kennedy's position in Zapruder frame 188, 1/9 of a second before the supposed impact, to Kennedy's position in HSCA Exhibit F-46, a drawing of Kennedy leaning forward to the degree required for a non-deflected bullet to pass through his back and neck and then hit Governor Connally, demonstrates that Kennedy was not in the proper position to receive his wounds as proposed.

This forces one to wonder if the drawing was simply in error, or if the doctors truly believed the single bullet-theory they were depicting. Some quick measurements show that Kennedy’s neck is bent forward 31 degrees in the drawing, and that the arrow descends at 27 degrees. A bullet on such a trajectory would ascend 4 degrees through Kennedy’s body. As this matches the pathology panel’s analysis of the back wound, it seems clear, then, that they expended some effort on the drawing, and were not just guessing. Which makes it hard to explain why the arrow in the drawing descends at 27 degrees. The angle of descent from the sniper's nest at frame 190, when the HSCA proposed Kennedy was first wounded, was only 24 degrees.

A careful reading of the panel's report offers a partial explanation for these errors. It indicates that F-46 was only supposed to demonstrate the relationship between Kennedy’s wounds, and that determining the actual position of Kennedy at the moment of the shot and the trajectory of the bullet was the responsibility of the trajectory panel. This sets off my bullxxxx detector.

The 9-7-78 testimony of Dr. Cyril Wecht only adds to my concern. About the single-bullet theory, Wecht testified: "How does a bullet that is moving slightly upward in the President proceed then to move downward 25 degrees in John Connally. This is what I cannot understand. My colleagues on the panel are aware of this. We discussed it, and what we keep coming back to is, "well, don't know how the two men were seated in relationship to each other." I don't care what happened behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, there is no way in the world that they can put that together, and likewise on the horizontal plane, the bullet, please keep in mind, entered in the President's right back, I agree, exited in the anterior midline of the President's neck, I agree, and was moving thence by definition, by known facts, on a straight line from entrance to exit, from right to left. And so with that bullet moving in a leftward fashion, it then somehow made an acute angular turn, came back almost two feet, stopped, made a second turn, and slammed into Gov. John Connally behind the right armpit, referred to medically as the right posterior axillary area. The vertical and horizontal trajectory of this bullet, 399, under the single bullet theory is absolutely unfathomable, indefensible, and incredible."

Wecht's testimony indicates that some members of the panel supported the theory under the belief the shot was fired when Kennedy and Connally's positions were unclear. Earlier and subsequent statements by two of the panel's leading lights, Dr. Werner Spitz and Dr. Michael Baden, prove this to be true, and prove them to have both been a bit, shall we say, clueless.

Shortly after he'd first studied the photos and X-rays on behalf the Rockefeller Commission, in a May 25, 1975 appearance on the Lou Gordon Show, Spitz declared that no one could say Kennedy and Connally were not in position to have a single-bullet create all their non-fatal wounds "since you don't really know what had happened behind the sign when the President's motorcade was behind the sign which is noted on the Zapruder film. Since you don't really know what happened there, that the Governor may have turned around..." Well, this is strange. Spitz had elsewhere acknowledged that the back wound was below the throat wound but was so clueless he didn't realize that the issue had then become whether or not Kennedy had leaned forward while behind the sign, not whether Connally had turned around.

By 1988, he at least seemed to know that the imaginary act he needed to propose involved President Kennedy, and not the governor. In a 1988 interview on radio station WXYT, Dr. Spitz insisted that we didn't know the position of Kennedy when he was shot because "The first shot, when Kennedy is hit, is when he is passing behind a road sign which indicates the upcoming freeway and you really don't know when at exactly the point when Kennedy was hit in the shoulder. You think you know because of the echo, but we know very well that the echo follows the sound." (What echo? What is he talking about?) Spitz then revealed that he--and by extension the entire pathology panel--had never been told that the photography panel had determined Kennedy to have been hit before he went behind the sign. When told that photographs indicate Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign, he thundered: "No, that's not true. You see him with a distorted face when he comes out from the sign. When he goes behind the sign, he's smiling and waving to the people on the right." (The photography panel had rejected this argument, and had determined that Kennedy was in fact in distress when he went behind the sign.)

In 2003, at a conference sponsored by Dr. Wecht, Dr. Baden, the pathology panel's spokesman, revealed himself to be equally in the dark. When asked to point out the moment in the Zapruder film that Kennedy is first hit, he asserted: "My impression is that he (Kennedy) is shot behind the Stemmons Freeway sign; that's why we don't see it." When Wecht correctly pointed out that Kennedy was only behind the sign for .9 seconds, hardly enough to lean forward and then back, Baden then explained: "I think Kennedy's neck has to be leaning forward a little bit, waving to somebody as you do, and that would put him in position."

Spitz and Baden's continuing belief that Kennedy was hit while behind the sign in the film, and their apparent ignorance or lack of concern that this was in opposition to the single-bullet theory they'd purportedly signed off on, is disturbing, and raises the possibility that someone (perhaps Robert Blakey) knew the Zapruder film never showed Kennedy to be in a position to receive his wounds, and had sought out someone less concerned with his reputation to claim just the opposite. That way, when confronted with the fact that Kennedy never was in such position, the doctors could always raise their hands and do their best Freddie Prinze impression, protesting, "It's not my yob, mang!"

Well, then whose job was it? As the job was virtually impossible, they gave it to another 70's television icon, a man who regularly did the impossible: Mr. Phelps.

No, not quite Mr. Phelps of Mission Impossible fame, but close. They called NASA, and NASA sent them a trajectory expert named Thomas Canning. To their eternal shame, the HSCA then gave Canning the ability to move the wounds as he saw fit, in order to better align the trajectories and, one can only assume, make sure they all pointed back to the sniper's nest.

Since this last assertion is really hard to swallow, let me quote the part of the HSCA report that makes this clear. On page 33 of HSCA Appendix Vol. 6, in the report on the trajectory analysis, when describing the procedures used to establish the bullet trajectories, it declares "The Forensic Pathology Panel was responsible for providing, to the extent possible, the precise locations of the wounds sustained by Kennedy and Connally." But there is an asterisk after this. At the bottom of the page, in an explanation of this asterisk, the report acknowledges "While the Forensic Pathology Panel did provide this information, the actual measurements related to wound locations were determined by the NASA scientist who was responsible for supervising the trajectory project. He was in frequent consultation with members of the Forensic Pathology Panel and with forensic anthropologists from both the FAA's Civil Aeromedical Institute, and the Smithsonian Institute." How frequent he consulted with these unidentified panel members isn't stated. But if any of the members disagreed with Baden's testimony regarding the back wound location, and disagreed with the exhibits he presented to the committee, they were free to testify and voice their dissent. None did.

In any case, under the encouragement of others or not, when Canning testified on 9-12-78, it became clear he'd taken liberties with the wound locations. Despite the fact that Dr. Baden had testified but 5 days before, and had presented a number of exhibits, including exhibits 46, 58, and 65, depicting the bullet entering at the T-1 level, Canning boldly dragged Exhibit 376, which showed this same bullet entering considerably above the T-1 level and the problematic first rib, before the committee.

Much as a character on the old Mission: Impossible TV series, or a cartoon character, or a decent Dungeons and Dragons player, he had availed himself of a portable hole.

Apparently, his conscience had fallen down that hole. Although the wound locations in his exhibits were undoubtedly at odds with the wound locations described in the pathology panel's report, he had the cojones to entitle Exhibit 376 "JFK Wound Locations Deduced from Pathology Panel Report."

Now, in the House of Representatives they might call this creative interpretation., but in my house, we call it LYING.

[Cliff Varnell]

JF: The bullet to his back entered at around T-3 as Admiral Burkley explained in his death certificate. There is no evidence

to support any other location, unless you want to appeal to the redescription of the wound attributed to Gerald Ford

This is not quite accurate. The HSCA photos seem to support this more than T-3.

It then becomes a matter of impeaching the photos.

The HSCA condemned the photos in clear language...and then proceeded to build their own SBT on "obviously deficient" evidence. And people actually buy this nonsense!

From Saundra Kay Spencer's ARRB testimony 6/5/97, emphasis added:

Q: Did you ever see any other photographic material related to the autopsy

in addition to what you've already described?

A: Just, you know, when they came out with books and stuff later that

showed autposy pictures and stuff, and I assumed that they were done in --

you know, down in Dallas or something, because they were not the ones I

worked on.

The "obviously deficient" autopsy photos have no chain of possession. They are inconsistent with the physical evidence, the consensus eye witness testimony, and especially with the medical evidence that was prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols.

What kind of "primary" evidence is that?

There's not a shred of proof that the BOH photos are of John F. Kennedy.

None.

While Cliff would love to prop up Burkley's "T3" assessment as the "proof" the back wound was below the throat wound, and the single bullet trajectory is nonsense, this is entirely unnecessary. What he fails to appreciate is that the "official" interpretation of the wound at T1 ALREADY "proves" the single bullet trajectory to be nonsense, and all his bluster about Burkley is a needless sideshow.

There is more at stake here than the Single Bullet Theory, which is substantial enough.

As far as the SBT goes, T3 is the prima facie evidence -- it doesn't require experts to explain why the trajectory doesn't work, as T1 does.

Vince Bugliosi and John McAdams put the wound at T1. That should tell you something.

If you don't understand that JFK was shot in the throat from the front and shot

in the back around T3 you don't understand the first thing about the John F. Kennedy assassination.

From patspeer.com, chapter 11:

If one were told in 1976 that the HSCA was going to determine that the Warren Commission and Clark panel were wrong, and that the back wound was at the same level as or even slightly below the wound in Kennedy’s throat, one would rightly have concluded that the single-bullet theory had been debunked Instead, when the HSCA published its final report in 1979, the committee concluded that the theory was still valid.

Stop.

This is where I get off the rabbit hole express. The HSCA came to this determination by taking measurements from photos they themselves (the HSCA panel) had condemned as "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements" and "obviously deficient" and a lot of other nasty characterizations.

So why, Pat, do you parade this trash like its Macy's on Thanksgiving?

[Pat Speer]

Cliff: Vince Bugliosi and John McAdams put the wound at T1. That should tell you something.

Pat: It tells me you're more obsessed with being arbitrary than being correct. Yeah, they SAY it's at C7/T1, but they then turn around and claim it was WELL above the throat wound, which means they think the throat wound was around T3--which puts it pretty much on the sternum. ALL one needs to do to destroy their defense of the SBT is to accept the wound was at T1 or even C7/T1 and then point out that THEY have moved the throat wound to an impossible location to fit their wacky theory. Your claiming that the wound was at T3, however, creates the impression it is YOU who is moving the wounds around to debunk their theory, and lets them off the hook in the eyes of those not convinced by your claim.

Cliff: So why, Pat, do you parade this trash like its Macy's on Thanksgiving?

Pat: Because, like it or not, many people are convinced CTs are wacky, and I delight in showing them instances where our "wackiness" is not only supported by the official record, but where it is LNs such as McAdams and Bugliosi who are truly wacky.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff: Vince Bugliosi and John McAdams put the wound at T1. That should tell you something.

Pat: It tells me you're more obsessed with being arbitrary than being correct.

This tells me you have no rebuttal.

Yeah, they SAY it's at C7/T1,

No, T1 works for them both.

but they then turn around and claim it was WELL above the throat wound, which means they think the throat wound was around T3--which puts it pretty much on the sternum. ALL one needs to do to destroy their defense of the SBT is to accept the wound was at T1 or even C7/T1 and then point out that THEY have moved the throat wound to an impossible location to fit their wacky theory.

So what if T1 doesn't work for the SBT, how is that an argument for the wound being at T1?

Once the T3 back wound is pointed out, the discussion of trajectory is over. There is no need for Pat Speer and David Mantik to thrill us with their acumen and explain why the T1 location doesn't work for the SBT.

We know that without un-necessary explication.

Pat, you refuse to face the actual physical evidence, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical evidence -- why?

Because your pet theory destroys the SBT? So what? Who cares about what your theory is if you can't support it with facts?

Your claiming that the wound was at T3,

Stop.

This is where the rabbit hole express ends.

It is not my claim that the wound was at T3, Pat. That is where the bullet defects in the clothing put it, the consensus witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documentation including the autopsy face sheet, Burkley's death certificate, and the FBI autopsy report.

All you can cite for your case are: improperly produced, obviously deficient autopsy photos for which there is no established chain of possession; two different locations for the back wound listed in the final autopsy report, neither location properly recorded; and measurements recorded in pen on the autopsy face sheet.

According to proper autopsy protocol the face sheet needed to be filled out in pencil.

That portion of the face sheet that was properly recorded in pencil was the T3 or lower dot on the posterior figure in the diagram, which was signed off in pencil as "verified."

The properly prepared medical evidence corroborates the consensus witness testimony and the physical evidence of the clothing defects

Pat, the fact that John F. Kennedy was murdered by a conspiracy that was covered-up at the highest levels of the US Government doesn't appear to have informed your analyses.

But go ahead, as you were saying?

Your claiming that the wound was at T3, however, creates the impression it is YOU who is moving the wounds around to debunk their theory, and lets them off the hook in the eyes of those not convinced by your claim.

Excuse me? This makes absolutely no sense, Pat. Who cares what impression I make?

What do I have to do with the facts of the case? If people lack the ability to discern the difference between properly prepared evidence and improperly prepared evidence -- who cares? It's not my problem.

Pointing out the obvious doesn't leave anyone off the hook. You let Nutters off the hook by buying into their high back wound nonsense, and by YOUR obsessive championing of the "obviously deficient" autopsy photos.

But you and I have noting to do with the historical facts of the matter. You don't appear concerned with historical fact at all, but rather with the rhetorical back and forth with your Nutter adversaries.

Cliff: So why, Pat, do you parade this trash like its Macy's on Thanksgiving?

Pat: Because, like it or not, many people are convinced CTs are wacky, and I delight in showing them instances where our "wackiness" is not only supported by the official record, but where it is LNs such as McAdams and Bugliosi who are truly wacky.

I don't get this at all. Who cares if some people think WC critics are "wacky," how does that enter into the weighing of evidence?

I hate to break it to you Pat, but what you call the "official record" isn't supported by the very same people who wrote it!

The HSCA panel based their SBT on measurements taken from a photograph they admitted was "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements." They based their conclusions on material they condemned as having "obvious deficiencies."

One the the guys who signed off on the official autopsy report, Dr. Finck, condemned the way the back wound was listed in the final autopsy report.

"JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

And yet here you are, repeating Lone Nutter talking points with no regard for the historical truth of the matter.

On a personal note, I enjoy tweaking you just as much as you enjoy tweaking McAdams.

In my book, you guys are on the same side.

Edited January 19, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Michael Hogan]

One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location.

The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove

http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false

John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee.

[Greg Burnham]

One day General Ed Lansdale came to Fletcher's office and he was all excited about something. He began to "pitch" this new flechette dart weapon system and was beside himself with glee, according to Prouty. He was accompanied by another man who demonstrated how it worked. It could be fired from a fountain pen, a book, an umbrella, a walking stick (cane), a modified Colt .45, and perhaps other delivery systems that had yet to be developed. The demonstration was impressive as the dart, powered by solid rocket fuel, instantly accelerated to a very high speed and embedded into the wall of his office. Prouty told me: "Lansdale was like a kid in a candy store." Lansdale convinced Prouty to fly with him in a chopper that he had waiting outside in order for it to be demonstrated at a more suitable location.

The next demonstration convinced Prouty that this was, indeed, one of the most effective weapons he'd seen. An "operator" fired the dart (I don't remember the delivery system used) at a goat that was approximately 50 yards away and it literally blew the entire hind quarter (including leg and hip) off--obliterating it. Needless to say the Agency got their funding to ostensibly "develop a system" that, in reality, they already had proved was 100% successful before they had even requested the money.

Check out page 107 of the February 1962 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Bizarre Weapons for the Little Wars by S. David Pursglove

http://books.google.com/books?id=reEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA7-IA2&lpg=PA7-IA2&dq=popular+mechanics+february+1962&source=bl&ots=f61QAOeU_Y&sig=hMYw6FZ7Pu0xq5PupV-SHIE-ufc&hl=en&ei=Sz44Tci3M8H68AazgKWrCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=popular%20mechanics%20february%201962&f=false

John Armstrong mentioned this on page 364 of Harvey & Lee.

Good stuff, Mike. Thanks for the Popular Mechanics link. Below are images of the dart from Prouty.