Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[James R Gordon]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

Pat, my comments are in Red.

The significance of the clothing evidence, Don, is that it proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate, and the trajectory pushed by LNs for the SBT to be in error. Cliff and I AGREE on this point. He, however, chooses to believe that it also proves the autopsy photos fake, and this despite the fact NOT ONE of the witnesses he cites in support for his proposed "lower" back wound has ever said they thought the back wound photo was a fake, and that several, in fact, have claimed it as authentic.

As far as the HSCA "higher" entry...what you seem unwilling to process is that the HSCA's drawing of the back wound photo is the single most important piece of medical evidence released by the government. It proved the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. It proved the autopsy doctors to be liars when they said the autopsy photos confirmed the Rydberg drawings.

I absolutely agree, when creating the Rydberg drawing he knew perfectly well they were lies. After all he had autopsied the body and he knew exactly where everything was. However, in his defense, I will point out that on a number of occasions he suggested that the autopsy images were much more accurate than what he had to say or had drawn for the Commission. I believe, although he had agreed to thoroughly distort the evidence, he was very unhappy with having done so.

It proved Arlen Specter dishonest, as he'd introduced testimony saying the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings after viewing this photo, which showed the Rydberg drawings to be grossly in error.

To suggest Specter was dishonest, is being very kind.

Let's go back. The T-1 location proposed by the HSCA FPP is equidistant between the shoulder tip and mastoid process, exactly where it is shown on the face sheet, and exactly where the measurements on the face sheet place it.

I agree Pat. I had not noticed this before. When you first raised it I went back to the Facesheet and measured it. Both these points were equidistant to within 1 pixel. All Cliff has to do is measure it for himself to see that what you say is true.

This location, moreover, was, according to the HSCA FPP, TOO LOW to support the single-bullet theory, UNLESS...Kennedy rapidly leaned forward while behind the sign.

However, even had JFK leaned forward to provide the trajectory for the throat and Connally wounds, this location would still invalidate the SBT. That is because that wound in below Costa IR, which means the only path the bullet would have had in order to find a route to the neck would be to create a path through the lung, which in itself would invalidate the SBT.

Since Blakey et al understood this as their disputing that the bullet could have struck as early as 190, moreover, he hid this by having a trajectory expert MOVE the wound for the trajectory analysis, which, of course. showed everything in alignment.

So, in effect, the back wound drawing shows Blakey and Canning to be liars as well.

So WHY is it again, that we're supposed to go around pretending the single-best piece of evidence we have is fake?

I agree. Cliff constantly harps on about this image being faked. I am beginning to wonder if it is only fake for him because it is so inconvenient to his argument.

To debunk the SBT? The back wound photo does that all by itself.

I mean, if there was a photo of Bush taking a kickback from Enron, whose authenticity had been confirmed by a panel of experts, and which no one involved said was a fake, why oh why should we dispute it, when it PROVES something we've long suspected, and which the government has sought to deny?

P.S. I'm still waiting, Cliff, for you to show us where a wound at T-1 would be marked on the face sheet.

[Cliff Varnell]

As might be expected, I strongly agree with Cliff here. I don't understand the reluctance on the part of some CTers to understand the significance of the holes in JFK's clothing, which are corroborated perfectly by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, the description on the death certificate by Burkley and the testimony of Sibert and O'Neill. The "bunched up" theory is, imho, just as ridiculous as the SBT. JFK was the most immaculately dressed politician of his generation. It's ludicrous to imagine that he would permit both his expensive tailored shirt and his expensive tailored jacket to ride up so extensively in public. And how did they both happen to bunch up in a completely equal way, so that the holes match perfectly?

There is no rational reason to dismiss such solid evidence that proves conspiracy, in and of itself. There are no x-rays or belatedly released photos here to muddy the issue. The rear entry location is far too low to permit the SBT to work, which destroys the lone assassin thesis all by itself. I see no evidence whatsoever to just accept the HSCA's higher entry mark. Moving that back entry wound up even slightly plays into the hands of those who continue to ignore all indications of conspiracy.

Pat, my comments are in Red.

The significance of the clothing evidence, Don, is that it proves the Rydberg drawings inaccurate, and the trajectory pushed by LNs for the SBT to be in error. Cliff and I AGREE on this point. He, however, chooses to believe that it also proves the autopsy photos fake, and this despite the fact NOT ONE of the witnesses he cites in support for his proposed "lower" back wound has ever said they thought the back wound photo was a fake, and that several, in fact, have claimed it as authentic.

As far as the HSCA "higher" entry...what you seem unwilling to process is that the HSCA's drawing of the back wound photo is the single most important piece of medical evidence released by the government. It proved the Rydberg drawings inaccurate. It proved the autopsy doctors to be liars when they said the autopsy photos confirmed the Rydberg drawings.

I absolutely agree, when creating the Rydberg drawing he knew perfectly well they were lies. After all he had autopsied the body and he knew exactly where everything was. However, in his defense, I will point out that on a number of occasions he suggested that the autopsy images were much more accurate than what he had to say or had drawn for the Commission. I believe, although he had agreed to thoroughly distort the evidence, he was very unhappy with having done so.

It proved Arlen Specter dishonest, as he'd introduced testimony saying the SBT trajectory approximated the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings after viewing this photo, which showed the Rydberg drawings to be grossly in error.

To suggest Specter was dishonest, is being very kind.

Let's go back. The T-1 location proposed by the HSCA FPP is equidistant between the shoulder tip and mastoid process, exactly where it is shown on the face sheet, and exactly where the measurements on the face sheet place it.

I agree Pat. I had not noticed this before. When you first raised it I went back to the Facesheet and measured it. Both these points were equidistant to within 1 pixel. All Cliff has to do is measure it for himself to see that what you say is true.

The dot and the measurements were not recorded at the same time. The dot was done in pencil. The measurements were recorded in pen. According to you and Pat this was all done at the same time, but obviously it wasn't.

This location, moreover, was, according to the HSCA FPP, TOO LOW to support the single-bullet theory, UNLESS...Kennedy rapidly leaned forward while behind the sign.

However, even had JFK leaned forward to provide the trajectory for the throat and Connally wounds, this location would still invalidate the SBT. That is because that wound in below Costa IR, which means the only path the bullet would have had in order to find a route to the neck would be to create a path through the lung, which in itself would invalidate the SBT.

Since Blakey et al understood this as their disputing that the bullet could have struck as early as 190, moreover, he hid this by having a trajectory expert MOVE the wound for the trajectory analysis, which, of course. showed everything in alignment.

So, in effect, the back wound drawing shows Blakey and Canning to be liars as well.

So WHY is it again, that we're supposed to go around pretending the single-best piece of evidence we have is fake?

I agree. Cliff constantly harps on about this image being faked. I am beginning to wonder if it is only fake for him because it is so inconvenient to his argument.

The location of the wound in the Fox 5 photo is incompatible with the holes in the clothes, and is at odds with the statements of over a dozen witnesses. The HSCA disputed its value as scientific evidence, and determined that it was prima facie inadmissible in court. That was before we found out there is no chain of possession for it.

It is worthless..

To debunk the SBT? The back wound photo does that all by itself.

I mean, if there was a photo of Bush taking a kickback from Enron, whose authenticity had been confirmed by a panel of experts, and which no one involved said was a fake, why oh why should we dispute it, when it PROVES something we've long suspected, and which the government has sought to deny?

P.S. I'm still waiting, Cliff, for you to show us where a wound at T-1 would be marked on the face sheet.

[Pat Speer]

James, in my videos and on my website I try to track down the lies of the autopsy doctors. Prior to the testimony of the doctors, WC General Counsel Lee Rankin noted in executive session that a "picture"--which I assume to be the face sheet--showed the back wound lower than the throat wound. He wondered how this could be if the shot came from above, and said he would seek the doctors' "help" on this. Soon thereafter, the doctors were then told to prepare the Rydberg drawings--which it seems clear were meant to demonstrate what they'd assumed had happened. It seems clear, however, that they (primarily Dr. Humes) were uncomfortable with this situation, as Humes repeatedly testified that the photos would be helpful. This led Specter to request Humes be allowed to look at the photos and confirm the accuracy of the drawings. Rankin then ran this by Warren in exec session, and Warren agreed that this should be done. And that's where the trail ended.

Until Warren's posthumous memoirs came out. There, Warren revealed that he looked at the photos by himself, and thought them too gruesome for anyone to see. Well, this is preposterous. Humes had tore Kennedy's head apart, for crying out loud. The photos were created for him. While it's possible Warren was a sentimental fool, without any concept of what he was doing, it seems far more likely that he knew full well after looking at the photos and comparing them to the Rydberg drawings that the back wound location was problematic. And he just didn't want to deal with it.

Within a short time of this, moreover, on the day of the re-enactment, Arlen Specter got a look at the back wound photo. He also failed to reveal that they proved the Rydberg drawings in error. Now, it's possible he did this because he was ambitious and scared. But there's another possibility, suggested by him, strangely enough. In 2003, he said that the SS agent showing him the photo was Elmer Moore. He'd previously said it was Thomas Kelley. Well, if it was Moore, or even Moore with Kelley, the trail leads back to Warren. You see, while Moore investigated the assassination for the SS, his job was over by the time the WC began its own investigation. He was then assigned to stick to Warren and work as his bodyguard. So, if Moore showed Specter the photo, it would suggest that the photo came from Warren, with Warren's blessing. Which would in turn suggest that Warren was sending a message to Specter: "YES, WE KNOW IT DOESN'T ADD UP.. BUT WE JUST DON'T CARE."

In any event, the critics latched onto the different back wound locations on the face sheet and Rydberg drawings. This led to a re-examination of the photos in 1966. Dr. Boswell then went public claiming the photos supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. He was under a military order of silence at the time. The next year, after receiving "talking points" from the Justice Department telling him to say the autopsy photos support the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings, and not the face sheet, Dr. Humes repeated Boswell's lie, in a televised interview with Dan Rather.

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

[Cliff Varnell]

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

On the night of the autopsy Humes told the FBI men that the back wound was "below the shoulder", and the dot on the face sheet is consistent with the location of the holes in the clothes.

Nothing they said after the autopsy has any credibility whatsoever.

Fox 5 is equally worthless.

[Glenn Viklund]

Cliff,

I don't want to change the subject here. But closely related to this is of course the entrance wound in Governor Connallys back. If he was hit by a separate bullet, what's your explanation for the size of this wound? In my view it has all the hallmarks of a tumbling bullet, would you agree to this?

(Btw Cliff, it seems you are correct about the existence of a toxin and the technology to inject it, with a paralyzing effect "within two seconds", so I'd agree with you that theoretically, it could have been used here..)

Edited May 10, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

I don't want to change the subject here. But closely related to this is of course the entrance wound in Governor Connallys back. If he was hit by a separate bullet, what's your explanation for the size of this wound? In my view it has all the hallmarks of a tumbling bullet, would you agree to this?

Glenn, I haven't studied Connally's wounds closely enough to have an opinion,

(Btw Cliff, it seems you are correct about the existence of a toxin and the technology to inject it, with a paralyzing effect "within two seconds", so I'd agree with you that theoretically, it could have been used here..)

Thank you, Glenn. Do you have any new sources on this? I'd be interested in any new material on paralytics/toxins you've come across.

[James R Gordon]

My comments in Red, Pat

James, in my videos and on my website I try to track down the lies of the autopsy doctors. Prior to the testimony of the doctors, WC General Counsel Lee Rankin noted in executive session that a "picture"--which I assume to be the face sheet--showed the back wound lower than the throat wound. He wondered how this could be if the shot came from above, and said he would seek the doctors' "help" on this. Soon thereafter, the doctors were then told to prepare the Rydberg drawings--which it seems clear were meant to demonstrate what they'd assumed had happened. It seems clear, however, that they (primarily Dr. Humes) were uncomfortable with this situation, as Humes repeatedly testified that the photos would be helpful.

This led Specter to request Humes be allowed to look at the photos and confirm the accuracy of the drawings. Rankin then ran this by Warren in exec session, and Warren agreed that this should be done. And that's where the trail ended.

I have not followed the trail in the Executive meetings. I had not been aware of this point. Thanks for pointing this out.

Until Warren's posthumous memoirs came out. There, Warren revealed that he looked at the photos by himself, and thought them too gruesome for anyone to see. Well, this is preposterous.

Humes had tore Kennedy's head apart, for crying out loud.

I don't understand what you mean here. Were the autopsy images, before the autopsy began, not gruesome enough? What is it that Humes had done in addition?

The photos were created for him. While it's possible Warren was a sentimental fool, without any concept of what he was doing, it seems far more likely that he knew full well after looking at the photos and comparing them to the Rydberg drawings that the back wound location was problematic. And he just didn't want to deal with it.

I agree. To allow the truth to come out in 1963/64 would have been dynamite. Heavens knows what would have happened to the country had Americans known the real truth.

Within a short time of this, moreover, on the day of the re-enactment, Arlen Specter got a look at the back wound photo. He also failed to reveal that they proved the Rydberg drawings in error. Now, it's possible he did this because he was ambitious and scared. But there's another possibility, suggested by him, strangely enough. In 2003, he said that the SS agent showing him the photo was Elmer Moore. He'd previously said it was Thomas Kelley. Well, if it was Moore, or even Moore with Kelley, the trail leads back to Warren. You see, while Moore investigated the assassination for the SS, his job was over by the time the WC began its own investigation. He was then assigned to stick to Warren and work as his bodyguard. So, if Moore showed Specter the photo, it would suggest that the photo came from Warren, with Warren's blessing. Which would in turn suggest that Warren was sending a message to Specter: "YES, WE KNOW IT DOESN'T ADD UP.. BUT WE JUST DON'T CARE."

I had not known that, but I agree. Your logic is impecable.

In any event, the critics latched onto the different back wound locations on the face sheet and Rydberg drawings. This led to a re-examination of the photos in 1966. Dr. Boswell then went public claiming the photos supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. He was under a military order of silence at the time. The next year, after receiving "talking points" from the Justice Department telling him to say the autopsy photos support the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings, and not the face sheet, Dr. Humes repeated Boswell's lie, in a televised interview with Dan Rather.

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

Yes, I agree. Sibbert and O'Neil have made it clear that nothing got into their notes, and later their report, that was not said in the autopsy room.

I was aware of your videos, but I had not paid too much attention to them. I am going to address that lapse and study what you have to say.

James

[John Dolva]

The fibrin protein in blood knits whatever it is on skin or clothes when in outside the body. Understanding that makes it fairly easy to match blood stains on the body with those on the shirt and to understand where the shirt was. Putting that on a model of the body makes it prety easy to understand how things went.

I think there really is only one way : the shirt and jacket were bunched and all the arguments to the contrary bend and twist things to within very narrow parameters that are so easy to find contrary povs to.

Then show us. Show us how imitating JFK's posture in the limo causes 2+ inches of jacket and 2+ inches of shirt to bunch up entirely above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar just above the base of the neck.

The burden of proof is on YOU, John. Show us.

---

What's wrong with it being as James say and as Pat says anyway?

Because you can't get your shirt to ride up at the base of the neck by waving your arm; because 15 witnesses described a wound consistent with T3 and we don't want to un-necessarily condemn 15 people as delusionals or liars, do we, John?

I already have, to my satisfaction. That doesn't mean anything. No-one has replicated the analysis (afaik). If someone does repeat it and confirm or refute then it does.

The shirt was on his back past his death and it, and the smears across the backseat and directions of bloodflow, tells a story of a sequence of events and the impressions of his brace, blood stains and other crease imprints on his back matches in particular ways.

Since that topic I haven't mentioned it all that much. Now there are things in James' presentation that I think has elements that confirms what I was saying (and vice versa). Are you sure the burden is on me? (to prove what I said, not your version.)

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

I don't know, do we? (I have no idea what you are talking about.)

Could you rephrase that please?

[Cliff Varnell]

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

Pat, these are the guys who signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's the core of your case for their authenticity. The core of your case is testimony by men you've proven to be serial liars.

And what's up with the abrasion collar on the lower margin of that T1 wound of yours?

Shot from below?

Edited May 10, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Glenn Viklund]

Cliff,

I don't want to change the subject here. But closely related to this is of course the entrance wound in Governor Connallys back. If he was hit by a separate bullet, what's your explanation for the size of this wound? In my view it has all the hallmarks of a tumbling bullet, would you agree to this?

Glenn, I haven't studied Connally's wounds closely enough to have an opinion,

(Btw Cliff, it seems you are correct about the existence of a toxin and the technology to inject it, with a paralyzing effect "within two seconds", so I'd agree with you that theoretically, it could have been used here..)

Thank you, Glenn. Do you have any new sources on this? I'd be interested in any new material on paralytics/toxins you've come across.

I doubt they would be new to you - I did some research on this, using Fort Detrick as a starting point. It quickly became apparent that research on a paralyzing toxin goes, at least, back to 1944 (Alan Scott). The substance that would probably be used by CIA is botulinum (and yes - the very same substance as used in Botox, in fact..). The more technical aspects of this when used in a weapon is somewhat harder to find out about, but as stated in the reference you gave, it was in existence in 1960. So there's not much doubt that in theory this could have been used in the JFK assassination.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Glenn Viklund

[Pat Speer]

Until Warren's posthumous memoirs came out. There, Warren revealed that he looked at the photos by himself, and thought them too gruesome for anyone to see. Well, this is preposterous.

Humes had tore Kennedy's head apart, for crying out loud.

I don't understand what you mean here. Were the autopsy images, before the autopsy began, not gruesome enough? What is it that Humes had done in addition?

Kennedy's skull was so smashed up by the bullet's impact that, when Humes peeled back the scalp, chunks crumpled to the table. Humes testified that, as a result, he only had to manually remove a few more chunks before removing the brain. He had basically tore Kennedy's head apart, and yet Warren claimed the photos Humes had taken for his (Humes') assistance were too gruesome for Humes to look at. It's ridiculous. Legally, autopsy photos belong to the doctors taking them. They are, in effect, notes. Warren's withholding of these photos from the doctor for whom they were taken is without precedent, and would have represented a reversible error--should he have done as much in an actual trial. And yes, I actually looked into this. In legal textbooks, not conspiracy literature.

Now, it's my impression that Warren knew the law well enough to know what he had done. He wanted the Warren Commission's conclusions to have the impact of a legal conclusion, but refused to let an independent examination of the medical evidence--or ANY examination of the medical evidence by an expert on medical evidence--take place. If this had been a trial, Oswald's attorneys could have appealed that they had been denied a chance to inspect important evidence related to their client's possible guilt, and would have won had they done so, with Warren almost certainly voting in their favor, if the case got that far.

But it wasn't an actual trial, so Warren chose to suppress evidence. Supposedly for privacy reasons. But I don't believe it.

[Pat Speer]

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

Pat, these are the guys who signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's the core of your case for their authenticity. The core of your case is testimony by men you've proven to be serial liars.

And what's up with the abrasion collar on the lower margin of that T1 wound of yours?

Shot from below?

When the forward slope of the shoulder is greater than the angle of descent of a bullet, the bottom part of the bullet will hit the shoulder first and create the illusion the bullet headed upwards in the body, even if it did not.

[Cliff Varnell]

So, to sum up. It seems clear to me that the doctors LIED about the back wound location, but not on the night of 11-22-63, and only after their arms were twisted by the WC and Justice Department.

Pat, these are the guys who signed off on the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's the core of your case for their authenticity. The core of your case is testimony by men you've proven to be serial liars.

And what's up with the abrasion collar on the lower margin of that T1 wound of yours?

Shot from below?

When the forward slope of the shoulder is greater than the angle of descent of a bullet, the bottom part of the bullet will hit the shoulder first and create the illusion the bullet headed upwards in the body, even if it did not.

You'd have to know the location of the shooter to determine the angle of descent, no?

And what about the core of your case for the authenticity of Fox 5 resting in the hands of serial liars?

[Richard Hocking]

...

When the forward slope of the shoulder is greater than the angle of descent of a bullet, the bottom part of the bullet will hit the shoulder first and create the illusion the bullet headed upwards in the body, even if it did not.

This is a bit confusing. Not sure what you mean...

Is this still in reference to the bullet that hit JFK in the back?

[Richard Hocking]

Cliff,

I don't want to change the subject here. But closely related to this is of course the entrance wound in Governor Connallys back. If he was hit by a separate bullet, what's your explanation for the size of this wound? In my view it has all the hallmarks of a tumbling bullet, would you agree to this?

(Btw Cliff, it seems you are correct about the existence of a toxin and the technology to inject it, with a paralyzing effect "within two seconds", so I'd agree with you that theoretically, it could have been used here..)

Another consideration is the bullet that hit JBC could have been fired from a different location and entered his body at enough of an angle to create a non-circular entry hole.