Dismantling the Single Bullet Theory Pt 5

[Pat Speer]

Let's see if I can explain it a little better, Richard. If a bullet is in descent and hits a flat wall standing straight up, the top part of the bullet will hit first, correct?

Now, if you curl the top of this wall away from the bullet, and the bullet hits near the top of the wall, at a place where it's curling forward to a significant degree, what part of the bullet will hit first?

It depends. If the angle of descent of the bullet is less than the forward tilt near the top of the wall (or shoulder) the bottom of the bullet could very well hit first.

I looked into this some years ago, and concluded that a bullet descending from the sniper's nest circa 190-224 and impacting on Kennedy's shoulder from behind would in fact leave an abrasion collar (an indication of which part of the bullet hit first) along the bottom of the entrance, not the top.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Mark Knight]

I've been following this thread without comment for some time. But I think it's time to address some of Mr. Varnell's criticisms of the work of both Mr. Gordon and Pat Speer.

Cliff, are you not familiar with the phrase, "hoisted by [or "on"] one's own petard? For this is what, IMHO, James Gordon is attempting to do to both the autopsy doctors and the Warren Commission themselves. If he can prove, using their own testimony and drawings, that the SBT upon which the WC Report hangs is an impossibility--and he's done a quite good job so far, IMHO--then the LNers will have little to hang their hats upon, as the house of cards that is the WC Report comes tumbling down.

And the part I'm enjoying most is...Mr. Gordon is doing this in a way such that, if he can prove the physical impossibility of the SBT using 3D modeling of the human body, his explanation should be totally irrefutable.

So I suggest you stand back and let him work. Never mind, for the moment, that JFK's jacket and shirt can't have bunched as the WC apologists try to say it did; if [or when] Mr. Gordon's work demonstrates the impossibility of the SBT, then your arguments about the shirt will have been vindicated as well...as the entire implausible scenario put forth in the WC Report will have been thrown out on its [figurative] ear.

At least that's how I see it.

[Pat Speer]

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?

One needn't rely on Humes and Boswell to believe the photo is legit. A number of other witnesses to the autopsy claimed the photos represented the wounds as they remembered them. There's also James Fox, the source for the photo as we know it. He made copies of the photos within days of the shooting, and supplied them to Crouch and Lifton decades later. Well, the wounds in his photos matched the wounds in the photos Groden borrowed or copied from the HSCA. Which means, unless one is to claim Fox was a xxxx, and part of a plot, that one claiming the photos are fake must simultaneously acknowledge that the photos were faked within days of the shooting, at a time when few in the government--as far as can be determined--were concerned about the exact location of the back wound.

I mean, IF there was a cover-up involving the back wound from the day of the shooting, wouldn't SOMEONE involved in this cover-up be sure the FBI--the agency actually investigating the murder--was in the loop? I suspect so.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Pat Speer

[James R Gordon]

Jim, my comments in Red

Pat:

There are so many problems with these photos that one could go on all night about them.

When the ARRB got McDonald, Stringer's student, to actually survey the extant photos, he was stunned. He could not believe how poorly shot and posed they were.

You are absolutely right about the quality of the photos. As I have mentioned in this thread I have tried to get the photos professionally restored. I am having great difficulty because all those I have approached have reported back on the very poor quality of the images. Specifically their being data "washed out" by the closeness of the camera to the subject along with the use of flash. It is apparently a common complaint when a camera using a flash is so close to the subject data is washed out. What also surprised me was how out of focus some of the images were.

Further,he could not buy the fact that there were no perspective shots. That is, he said, that whenever you were shooting an area of the body impacted by a bullet, you had to shoot a long shot, medium shot, and then a close up of it. In order for there no to be any question about where the bullet hole was on the body. Where are those shots in this series?

I agree about the scarcity of images. I would have thought there would have been more. I remember the "Nova" program when the Dallas doctors were taken to the Archives to see the images. An area that had been the focus of considerable discussion was the damage to the back of the head that had been reported to be have seen at Parkland. I can't the name of the doctor, it could have been Dr. Jones, anyway when this doctor came out from seeing the images he commented that there are images that show that when the hair of the scalp, that is seen being stretched over the head in one image, is lying behind the scalp you can see the damage in the back of had. No one seems know of such an image. From what I can see, there is no image that shows this. However the doctor was quite emphatic about such an image existing. I would not want to think that he came out from seeing these images and deliberately lied on camera about an image he knew did not exist. But from what I can see such an image does not exist.

Further, why did Humes not use the correct anatomical landmarks to place the shot? He gave us markings that meant you had to line up the bullet hole with a T square to find it. That is ridiculous. Why was this done?

This has been commented on numerous times in this thread. Humes, under pressure is distorting the truth in order to meet the needs of the SBT.

And then why do so many witnesses place it lower than where it appears in the photos? And when Finck asked for JFK's clothing that night, it was nowhere to be found.

In video and image where I have attempted to locate the back wound you will note I was able to draw a base line. That line is below T3. It is possible, I'm sure, from that model an image to place the back wound around T3. I placed it higher but I could envisage someone taking that model and drawing and placing it nearer to T3. I placed it higher because it is clear in a number of Elm Street images JFK's jacket had risen a little.

Finally, you do know that the pathologists did not see the photos until three years later right? And this was done specifically so they could counter the growing chorus of criticism begun by Epstein's book, which showed the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket. Both Boswell and Humes then lied their heads off about this location in the media.

It is true that Humes does distort the truth in places, but I would say that in the main what he says in his description on the condition of the body and in his autopsy report, e.g. the lump, to use that kind of word, on the top of the lung, I have shown is absolutely true. Humes is aware of where he has played fast and loose with the truth (brought about by pressure being placed on him ) which is why he repeatedly asks that the autopsy images are used to better define what he saw the night.

James

[Don Jeffries]

I think Cliff is right to focus on the untainted evidence of the holes in JFK's clothing. There are questions about every aspect of the autopsy, to the extent that David Lifton was able to formulate a viable body alteration theory. I don't know why anyone would maintain the photos and x-rays are genuine at this point. If they are genuine, then every medical person in Dallas was imcomptent beyond all belief; the huge hole in the back of the head they described is nowhere to be seen on the "official" evidence.

We know from Stringer that the Secret Service confiscated his film, and purposefully ruined the film Riebe took. We don't definitively know exactly who was at the autopsy, and obviously Humes and Boswell failed to perform rudimentary tasks that are routinely performed at the autopsies of non-Presidents of the United States.

I'm not dismissing James' and Pat's contributions, but I see no reason to go with the higher back wound, simply because of what the "official" photos show. Part of the reason we know there was a conspiracy is because of the nature of the autopsy; clearly, everyone should have been interested in being thorough and leaving no questions unanswered. Instead, of course, there were nothing but questions left, as JFK was given what Harold Weisberg called "an autopsy unfit for a bowery bum."

Most of the evidence in this case is unreliable, due to chain of posssession problems alone. The medical evidence is probably the most murky area of all. Thus, I think Cliff's emphasis on the clothing is sound; JFK's clothing is one of the few items in this case that was not, to my knowledge, ever tampered with.

[Pat Speer]

Answers in bold...

Pat:

There are so many problems with these photos that one could go on all night about them.

When the ARRB got McDonald, Stringer's student, to actually survey the extant photos, he was stunned. He could not believe how poorly shot and posed they were. Further,he could not buy the fact that there were no perspective shots. That is, he said, that whenever you were shooting an area of the body impacted by a bullet, you had to shoot a long shot, medium shot, and then a close up of it. In order for there no to be any question about where the bullet hole was on the body. Where are those shots in this series?

This was neither an ordinary autopsy, nor a complete one. The victim's widow, brother, and friends were waiting by for its completion. Bigwigs from the military were everywhere. As the original stated purpose was to find the bullets, it only makes sense that a number of shortcuts were taken.

Further, why did Humes not use the correct anatomical landmarks to place the shot? He gave us markings that meant you had to line up the bullet hole with a T square to find it. That is ridiculous. Why was this done?

What makes you think he knew what landmarks were correct? He'd never performed a forensic autopsy for a gunshot victim before. Besides, that's just a red herring. The face sheet and measurements are in complete accord, and both support the location of the back wound in the autopsy photos.

And then why do so many witnesses place it lower than where it appears in the photos?

Do they? How many of them said they thought the photos were inaccurate? When someone says a wound was so many inches below the shoulder, do they mean below the shoulder line at the shoulder blade, or where the trapezius muscle attaches the neck?

And when Finck asked for JFK's clothing that night, it was nowhere to be found.

If I recall, Greer had the clothes in the car, but was never asked to show them to the doctors. It is my recollection, moreover, that Finck asked Humes if he could see the clothes but was told that it wasn't necessary. It's easy with 20/20 hindsight to see the autopsy as a botchtopsy, with inadequate photos and x-rays. But when one considers the mindset of those orchestrating the thing, and realizes that they were primarily looking for bullets they could match to Oswald's gun, but were also concerned some hint of Kennedy's Addison's disease would end in the report, it's a heckuva lot easier to understand. It was a half-assed rush job, pure and simple. And a number of people--not just the military, not just the doctors--were to blame.

Finally, you do know that the pathologists did not see the photos until three years later right? And this was done specifically so they could counter the growing chorus of criticism begun by Epstein's book, which showed the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket. Both Boswell and Humes then lied their heads off about this location in the media.

Yes, I know this. I've written what amounts to a book on it. As discussed, the PROOF they lied is the photo you prefer to believe is a fake. Now, come the 50th, which tactic do you think will be more successful when arguing our case before the public, a long diatribe about how everyone lied and all the photos are fakes, or holding up the Rydberg drawings and the back wound photo, and telling the public the doctors, after being schooled by the Johnson Justice Department, told the press their inspection of the back wound photo confirmed the wound location in the Rydberg drawing...? I propose the latter.

[Pat Speer]

The half-assed and rushed nature of the autopsy is fairly obvious when one studies the medical evidence. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you trying to make the case that the military deliberately interfered with the autopsy, in order to hide that there was more than one shooter, and that some of those in attendance were in on the assassination? Because, although that sure is intriguing, there's just not a lot of evidence for that.

It seems clear that those calling the shots weren't scientists, or historians, and just wanted the dang thing to be over so the blood-soaked First Lady would go home, and those pressing the case against Oswald could say no non-Carcano bullets were found in the body.

As far as Humes and the Rydberg drawings, you understand, I hope, that Humes wanted the chance to review the photos to see if they supported the drawings, and that Specter, Rankin, Dulles, and McCloy agreed with him that this was a good idea, but that EARL WARREN--not the military, and not Specter--personally prevented this from happening.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3b:

April 30 memo of Arlen Specter

April 30, 1964

MEMORANDUM

TO: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

FROM: Arlen Specter

SUBJECT: Autopsy Photographs and X-rays of President John F. Kennedy

In my opinion it is indispensable that we obtain the photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy's autopsy for the following reasons:

1. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM THE REAR. Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head. With all the outstanding controversy about the direction of the shots, there must be independent viewings of the films to verify testimony which has come only from Government doctors.

2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known.

3. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY THAT THERE ARE NO MAJOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE FILMS AND THE ARTIST'S DRAWINGS. Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist. Some day someone may compare the films with the artist's drawings and find a significant error which might substantially affect the essential testimony and the Commission's conclusions. In any event, the Commission should not rely on hazy recollections, especially in view of the statement in the autopsy report (Commission Exhibit #387) that:

"The complexity of those fractures and the fragments thus produced tax safisfactory verbal description and are better appreciated in the photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared."

When Inspector Kelly talked to Attorney General Kennedy, he most probably did not fully understand all the reasons for viewing the films. According to Inspector Kelly, the Attorney General did not categorically decline to make them available, but only wanted to be satisfied that they were really necessary. I suggest that the Commission transmit to the Attorney General its reasons for wanting the films and the assurances that they will be viewed only by the absolute minimum number of people from the Commission for the sole purpose of corroborating (or correcting) the artist's drawings, with the film not to become a part of the Commission's records.

Excerpt from the April 30, 1964 transcript of the Executive Session of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. (The Warren Commission).

Present: Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, member; John J. McCloy, member, Allen Dulles, member; J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel..

(Chairman Warren is going down a list of issues that need to be discussed.)

Warren: Five, autopsy pictures of President Kennedy.

Rankin: The staff feels that we should have some member of the Commission examine those pictures. We have a very serious problem in the record now that Dr. Humes testified, as you recall, that the bullet in his opinion probably passed through the President and then through Governor Connally. And we now have the testimony of Governor Connally that that couldn’t have happened. He is certain it didn’t happen. And that the bullet that struck him is one that did not hit the President…We also have some drawings of President Kennedy which are reconstructions by the men that participated in the autopsy. And these men have not seen these pictures of the autopsy, but they had these drawings made, and we don’t know whether these drawings conform to the pictures of the autopsy or not. Now I thought we could avoid having these pictures, possibly avoid these pictures being a part of the record, because the family has a strong feeling about them, and I think we should respect it insofar as can possibly be done, and carry out the work of the Commission—because they don’t want the President to be remembered in connection with those pictures. That is their basic thought. I know that the Commission would like to respect that and not have them in any way become a part of the records which the public would get to see. But I do feel that a doctor and some member of the Commission should examine them sufficiently so that they could report to the Commission that there is nothing inconsistent with the other findings in connection with the matter in those pictures. In that way we can avoid any question that we have passed anything up that the Commission should know or that we haven’t tried to take advantage of information that should be available to us.

Dulles: Would the people who made the pictures have access to these photographs—because they would be the ones to tell, as to whether the pictures were consistent with the drawings they made?

Rankin: We, they were made, as I understand it, under the supervision of the doctors conducting the autopsy. And so they just have never been developed because of the family’s wishes. And I think that the Attorney General would make them available now—although they were denied to us before because he said that he didn’t think there was a sufficient showing of our need. But upon a showing now, I think that he would recognize the need and permit that limited examination. And then I feel that in dealing with the Attorney General, however, we should make it plain to him that if the member of the Commission who examines them, with the doctor, feels the whole Commission should see them, that there would be that reservation—because I don’t know what might appear to some member of the Commission or the doctor in connection with them.

McCloy: There is this element. In the record there is an indication by the doctor that there was a certain—he would prefer to have the pictures in connection with the charts that he was representing to us. There was a certain little note of minor inadequacy in connection with the chart which he had, without the pictures.

Dulles: Which doctor was that?

Rankin: Humes—you remember it was the doctor that made the autopsy.

Dulles: Out at Bethesda?

Rankin: Yes.

Dulles: Yes, I remember that. As I recall the testimony, I think it was the doctor from Dallas.

Rankin: Dr. Gregory.

Dulles: The one who said that the bullet—I understood he said might have passed through President’s throat and then through Connally. But I didn’t think he said that he thought it did. I think he said he thought it might have. Is that correct?

Rankin: That is right.

Dulles: Could have.

McCloy: I thought the chief testimony on that came from the Bethesda doctor. I remember he said “I think I could show you this better on the photographs than I could through these charts.”

Rankin: That is right.

Warren: Well, I think you can work that out, Lee, to do that, but without putting those pictures in our record. We don’t want those in our record.

McCloy: Certainly not.

Warren: It would make it a morbid thing for all time to come.

Rankin: Is that effort to proceed in that manner, without having them in the record, and having an examination by the doctor and one of the members of the Commission satisfactory then?

Warren: Only for verification purposes. Yes, I think that would be all.

Dulles: By the doctor and a member of the Commission.

McCloy: Oh yes, you would need a doctor present to interpret it to you.

Warren: All right. If there is nothing further on that item, the next is interview of Mrs. Kennedy.

Analysis of the April 30 memo of Arlen Specter and the April 30 executive session of the Warren Commission

This memo and the subsequent session of the Commission reveal that the Commission was not the blatant white-wash many believe it to be. Here, Specter, who took the testimony of the autopsists on 3-16, even though they’d been inexplicably denied the opportunity to compare their memories to the autopsy photos and x-rays they’d created, finally steps up and tries to do what’s right. In light of his previous and subsequent actions, this memo is incredibly ironic. In point number 2, Specter mentions that the angle of descent in the drawing is smaller than expected, and is suggestive that Kennedy was further down the street than believed. This indicates that Specter is convinced that Kennedy was sitting upright in the car and was not leaning over when shot. The irony of this is that, on May 24, 1964 Specter would see an autopsy photo of the back wound that showed the bullet entrance to be two inches lower than the wound in the drawing, and on a flat trajectory with the neck wound, but would say NOTHING about this to the commissioners. In 1978, the HSCA would not only decide the bullet entrance was two inches lower than in the drawing, but that Kennedy was significantly closer to the sniper’s nest when shot. For Specter’s single-bullet theory to have taken place under these conditions Kennedy would have to have been leaning quite far forward when shot. Specter knew this wasn’t true, but once again, said nothing.

Point number 3 in the April 30 memo is equally ironic. Here Specter observes (accurately as it turned out) that the inaccuracy of the drawings HE put into evidence may come back to haunt the Commission later. He admits “Commission Exhibits Nos. 385, 386, and 388 were made from the recollections of the autopsy surgeons as told to the artist.” This indicates that he knows measurements were not used. Specter prepared and received Dr. Humes’ 3-16 testimony, in which he said “We had made certain physical measurements of the wounds, and of their position on the body of the late President, and we provided these and supervised directly Mr. Rydberg in making these drawings.” And yet here Specter admits to his boss Rankin that the drawings were based on recollections, not measurements. Curiously, it appears that Specter knows Humes lied, but has failed to tell the Commission as much.

Specter’s final paragraph is also important, as it indicates his belief that Robert Kennedy will not interfere with this inspection, and that Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service has discussed it with Kennedy. In 1978, Nicholas Katzenbach testified before the HSCA that he discussed the Warren Commission’s use of the autopsy materials with Kennedy at one point, and that Kennedy gave his permission. Ironically, Specter told the doctors that it was Kennedy who forbade them from seeing the photos before their testimony, and they would repeat that story for many years to come, unaware that Kennedy had, in fact, granted them permission, once someone related to the commission had explained to him why it was necessary.

The April 30 executive session is even more revealing than Specter’s memo. Here, Rankin, McCloy, and Dulles argue for the necessity of having a DOCTOR review the photos, and Warren agrees. Warren even tells Rankin that he thinks it can be worked out where the photos are reviewed but not placed in the record. These statements take on added meaning when one considers what ultimately transpired.

May 7 letter of J. Lee Rankin to J. Edgar Hoover and May 12 memo of Arlen Specter

May 7, 1964

Mr. J. Edgar Hoover

Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20535

Dear Mr. Hoover,

This commission has been making a careful study of the various motion picture films taken at the scene of the assassination. In this project we have had the valuable assistance of members your Bureau, particularly Inspector James Malley, Inspector Leo Gauthier and Special Agent Lyndal A. Shaneyfelt. As a result of the information obtained from these films, the Commission would like the cooperation of your Bureau in the performance of certain additional investigation at the scene of the assassination.

I will personally be available to supervise this work and will have such other staff members present as may be deemed necessary. We would hope to be able to perform this work in Dallas on May 18 and May 19. The purpose of this letter is to set forth the steps which we feel are necessary to properly complete this project.

I. PROBABLE RANGES FROM WHICH FIRST TWO SHOTS OCCURRED

Our examination of the Zapruder films indicates that Governor Connally was hit at some point prior to frame 240. (All references to frames in the Zapruder films are on the basis of a numbering system worked out with the FBI personnel who have been working on this project). Doctors familiar with the Governor's wounds concluded that after frame 236 his body was not in a position to have received the wound from a projectile fired from the sixth floor southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The Governor feels he was hit at approximately frame 230; some members of our staff feel that it could have been as late as frame 240. Governor and Mrs. Connally also testified that the Governor was hit by the second shot.

The FBI laboratory examination of the Zapruder camera establishes that it operates at a speed of 18 1/3 frames per second. Weapons experts have testified that the minimum time required to operate the assassination weapon is 2 1/4 seconds. It would appear, therefore, that a minimum of 41 frames would have to elapse between the first and second shots. (18 1/3 x 2 1/4).

The Commission is aware that it is impossible to determine the exact point at which the first two shots were fired. We request the following on-site investigatory steps, however, in order to determine whether it was possible for a person located on the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building to fire two shots at the Presidential car, the second of which occurred no later than frame 240:

(1) A point should be marked on the road corresponding to frame 199 on the Zapruder film, which is the last point at which the assassin could have fired from the window and still have been able to fire again by frame 240. A car should be photographed on this spot from the point where Zapruder was standing so that this photograph can be compared with frame 199 to make certain that the location is accurate. This should be done with the Zapruder camera, which has been retained for this purpose. A Polaroid should also be used for immediate comparison.

(2) After a car has been placed at this point on the road it should be photographed from the assassination window to determine whether the assassin had a clear shot at the occupants of the rear seat, with particular reference to the tree which at some point blocks the view from this window.

(3) If the car had passed the tree at frame 199, when viewed from the window, the car should be moved forward to the point at which there is a first clear view from the window and photographed at this point from both the window and at the place where Zapruder was standing so that we may determine what frame in the Zapruder films corresponds with this location.

(4) If the car has in fact passed beyond the tree at frame 199, it should be moved back to the point where it first cleared the tree and photographed from the window and the Zapruder location to establish the corresponding frame reference.

(5) The car should also be placed at the point where there is the last clear shot before it goes behind the tree and photographed from the window and the Zapruder location to determine the frame reference at this point.

(6) All the above points should be mapped on a survey. Lineal distances should be measured on the ground between these various points. Trigonometric readings should be taken to determine the distances from these various points to the assassination window and the surveyor should also determine the angle with the horizontal which is made when a line is plotted from each of these point to the assassination window.

II. PROBABLE LOCATION OF THE THIRD SHOT

Unlike shots one and two, the third shot has been fixed at a particular frame in the Zapruder films (frame 313), as well as a particular frame in the other two films (frame 24 of the Nix film and frame 42 of the Muchmore film). A car should be placed at the point which we believe to be the approximate location corresponding to these frames and then photographed from the point where the three cameramen were standing to establish the accuracy of this location. Distances should be measured from this point to the various points described in part I and angles and distances established between this point and the assassination window to establish the view which the assassin had when he fired the third shot.

III. PLOTTING TRAJECTORIES FROM THE RAILROAD OVERPASS

From each of the ground points established in parts I and II trigonometric readings should be taken from a point on either end of the overpass to chart the path which a bullet would travel if fired from those points on the overpass to the rear seat of the car. It should be determined whether a bullet could reach the rear seat without hitting the windshield, and the angle with the horizontal which would be made by a bullet fired from these points to a car located at each of the points to a car located at each of the points on the ground as determined in parts I and II.

A copy of this letter has been sent to Chief Rowley of the Secret Service with a request that the Secret Service provide such assistance in this work as the Commission and your Bureau may require. The Secret Service has furnished the Commission with photographs, surveys, and measurements which we have used in our examination of the films and which will no doubt be useful to your Bureau in completing this project.We would like your Bureau to make all necessary arrangements for this project. Members of the Bureau assigned to this project should contact either Mr. Norman Redlich or Mr. Melvin Eisenberg of the Commission staff if additional information is required.

Sincerely, J. Lee Rankin, General Counsel

cc: Mr. Rankin Mr. Redlich Mr. Willens

May 12, 1964

Memorandum

To: Mr. J. Lee Rankin

From: Arlen Specter

Subject: Examination of autopsy photographs and x-rays of President Kennedy.

When the autopsy photographs and x-rays are examined, we should be certain to determine the following:

1. The photographs and x-rays confirm the precise location of the entrance wound in the back of the head depicted Commission exhibits 386 and 388.

2. The photographs and x-rays confirm the precise location of the wound of entrance in the upper back of the President as depicted in Commission Exhibits 385 and 386.

3. The photographs and x-rays confirm the precise area of the President's skull which was disrupted by the bullet when it exited as depicted in Commission Exhibit 388.

4. The characteristics of the wounds on the President's back and on the back of his head should be examined closely in the photographs and x-rays to determine for certain whether they are characteristic of entrance wounds under the criteria advanced by Doctors Finck, Humes, Boswell, Gregory, Shaw, Perry, and Carrico.

The films and x-rays should be viewed in conjunction with Commission Exhibit 389 (a photograph of the frame of the Zapruder film immediately before the frame showing the head wound) and Commission Exhibit 390 (the frame of the Zapruder film showing the head wound) to determine for certain whether the angle of declination is accurately depicted in Commission Exhibit 388.

I suggest that we have a court reporter present so that we may examine Dr. Humes after the x-rays and photographs are reviewed to put on the record:

1. Any changes in his testimony or theories required by a review of the x-rays and films, and

2 Corroboration of the portions or all of his prior testimony which may be confirmed by viewing the photographs and x-rays.

Analysis of the May 7 letter of J. Lee Rankin and May 12 memo of Arlen Specter

The Rankin letter is fairly straightforward, and indicates that, since the writing of Redlich's April 27 memo to him, he has been convinced of the necessity of the single-bullet theory. Rankin mentions that they are trying to establish whether Connally was hit before frame 240 by the second of the three shots. He fails to mention that the eyewitness testimony suggests the second shot was fired after frame 240. It may very well be he has no idea that the statements of the bystanders, motorcycle cops, and Secret Service agents almost all disagree with the Connallys, and suggest the second shot was fired very close to frame 313. Rankin shows his bias in other ways as well. He tells Hoover that they need to show that the shots were 41 frames or more apart, saying that a weapons expert testified that the shots were no closer than 2 ¼ seconds apart. Apparently, he has forgotten that this “weapons expert” was one of Hoover’s own men and that he’d testified that a half second should be added onto his time of 2.3 seconds in order to estimate the time necessary to fire at a moving target. Rankin makes another mistake as well. Along with just about everyone else, he discusses a third and final shot at frame 313 as if it were an established fact, when it is in opposition to the bulk of the eyewitness evidence as well as the visual aids packet supplied by the FBI in January. On May 24, the proposed simulation took place. (It is discussed in more detail in the Back Wound in Motion section of the Examining the Examinations chapter.)

The Specter memo is far more intriguing. Here, Specter reveals that the examination of the autopsy photos discussed in the April 30th executive session is about to take place. Specter also expresses that he is now interested in determining the exact locations of the wounds. Especially ironic is his suggestion that Exhibit 388 be compared to Exhibit 389. Any layman could look at the two and see that they were not compatible. In 1967, the discrepancy between these two exhibits led researcher Josiah Thompson to print them side by side in his book Six Seconds in Dallas. This showed that for the purported entrance and exit wounds in Kennedy’s skull to be aligned as in Exhibit 388, the sniper would have to have fired from the trunk of the Presidential limousine. Specter seems to know this and is apparently hoping to get it straightened out.

The most shocking aspect of Specter’s memo, of course, is that the examination he found so necessary, and the examination agreed upon by Rankin, McCloy, Dulles, and Warren, NEVER HAPPENED. Dr. Humes was not permitted to look at the photos he’d ordered to be created. Specter was then forced to go to Dallas and analyze the trajectories without adequate knowledge of the entrance locations. The supposed reason for this is that Chief Justice Warren took a look at the photos by himself and found them so horrible that he shuddered at the thought of the photos becoming part of the public record. This is nonsense, however…a complete fairy tale. The transcript of the April 30 executive session shows that it was agreed that a doctor would be necessary to interpret the photos. The transcript shows that it was Warren’s belief that the photos could be analyzed without being entered in the record. Since Dr. Humes had already testified, and since doctors performing autopsies are routinely entitled to view (and quite frequently retain) the photos of the autopsies they perform, there would have been no reason for the photos to be entered into the record, simply because Humes had looked at them. The only possible reason they would be entered in the record would be if WARREN looked at them, which he later admitted doing. From this, Warren’s refusal to let Humes look at the photos can be interpreted in two ways: one, Warren was senile; and two, he knew that the wounds in the photos failed to match the wounds in the drawings, and lacked the nerve or desire to open up that door and see what lay inside. This is discussed in more detail in the Examining the Examinations section of this website.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

I've been following this thread without comment for some time. But I think it's time to address some of Mr. Varnell's criticisms of the work of both Mr. Gordon and Pat Speer.

Cliff, are you not familiar with the phrase, "hoisted by [or "on"] one's own petard? For this is what, IMHO, James Gordon is attempting to do to both the autopsy doctors and the Warren Commission themselves. If he can prove, using their own testimony and drawings, that the SBT upon which the WC Report hangs is an impossibility--and he's done a quite good job so far, IMHO--then the LNers will have little to hang their hats upon, as the house of cards that is the WC Report comes tumbling down.

Hi Mark,

There are two ways to approach "hoisting the WC on their own petard." One is to assume, for the sake of argument, that everything Humes/Boswell produced post-autopsy was infallible truth except for the lies uncovered by Gordon and Speer. This would be an intellectual exercise where the final autopsy report etc. are accepted strictly for the sake of argument.

It's an entirely different conversation when the post-autopsy work product of Humes/Boswell is advanced for the sake of historical truth, which is what James and Pat are doing -- begging the question of post-autopsy authenticity.

And the part I'm enjoying most is...Mr. Gordon is doing this in a way such that, if he can prove the physical impossibility of the SBT using 3D modeling of the human body, his explanation should be totally irrefutable.

We already have a plethora of arguments against the SBT which are irrefutable. The bullet hole in the shirt alone destroys the SBT. That doesn't mean we're entitled to write our own history and move vertebral fractures around and claim that the words of serial lairs are golden truth.

So I suggest you stand back and let him work.

I think he's done terrific work while under fire! The A-B-C trajectory graphic is a keeper!

And anytime someone says JFK's back wound was at T1 I'm going to challenge them. And they'll not put up much fight because when you boil it down they don't have a legitimate argument.

Never mind, for the moment, that JFK's jacket and shirt can't have bunched as the WC apologists try to say it did; if [or when] Mr. Gordon's work demonstrates the impossibility of the SBT, then your arguments about the shirt will have been vindicated as well...as the entire implausible scenario put forth in the WC Report will have been thrown out on its [figurative] ear.

At least that's how I see it.

The public humiliation of the Warren Report occurred back in 1966 when Gaeton Fonzi confronted Arlen Specter with the clothing evidence.

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/fonzi/WC_Truth_Specter/WC_Truth_Specter.html

It doesn't matter what kind of evidence you put forth, Lone Nutters will find something to spew bile over. Hold the clothing evidence before a lone nutter and they spew bile, do they not?

If James Gordon framed his work correctly I'd be his biggest fan. But as long as he frames his work as based on the historical veracity of the final autopsy report -- I'm his biggest critic.

[Cliff Varnell]

The face sheet and measurements are in complete accord, and both support the location of the back wound in the autopsy photos.

The factual inaccuracy of this comment has been pointed out repeatedly. The dot on the face sheet written in pencil matches the location of the holes in the clothes. The measurements were recorded in pen -- violation of autopsy protocol -- so obviously the placement of the dot and the recording of the measurements did not occur at the same time.

How can someone caught in so many lies as Humes be regarded as so infallible, Pat?

[Cliff Varnell]

The half-assed and rushed nature of the autopsy is fairly obvious when one studies the medical evidence. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you trying to make the case that the military deliberately interfered with the autopsy, in order to hide that there was more than one shooter, and that some of those in attendance were in on the assassination? Because, although that sure is intriguing, there's just not a lot of evidence for that.

One wouldn't have to be "in" on the assassination to take part in the cover-up.

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

One needn't rely on Humes and Boswell to believe the photo is legit.

We can't rely on anything they said post-autopsy. That doesn't stop you from citing them as authenticators of the autopsy photos.

A number of other witnesses to the autopsy claimed the photos represented the wounds as they remembered them.

There are far more witnesses who describe a wound well below the base of the neck, consistent with the clothing holes.

There's also James Fox, the source for the photo as we know it.

Evidently not. Saundra Kay Spencer, the one on record as developing the extant autopsy photos, said Fox dropped off some film but she denies that the extant autopsy photos are the ones she developed! We have no idea what the source for Fox 5 is.

He made copies of the photos within days of the shooting, and supplied them to Crouch and Lifton decades later. Well, the wounds in his photos matched the wounds in the photos Groden borrowed or copied from the HSCA. Which means, unless one is to claim Fox was a xxxx, and part of a plot, that one claiming the photos are fake must simultaneously acknowledge that the photos were faked within days of the shooting, at a time when few in the government--as far as can be determined--were concerned about the exact location of the back wound.

Of course they were concerned about the location of the back wound! Humes was very concerned as soon as he found out about the Magic Bullet. He had to make the final autopsy report link the back wound to the throat wound. The first leg of the Magic Bullet Theory was born the night of the autopsy.

I mean, IF there was a cover-up involving the back wound from the day of the shooting, wouldn't SOMEONE involved in this cover-up be sure the FBI--the agency actually investigating the murder--was in the loop? I suspect so.

The FBI Lab was in the loop. Sibert and O'Neill were not in the loop.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Yes, I know this. I've written what amounts to a book on it. As discussed, the PROOF they lied is the photo you prefer to believe is a fake. Now, come the 50th, which tactic do you think will be more successful when arguing our case before the public, a long diatribe about how everyone lied and all the photos are fakes,

What an absurd distortion of the prima facie case! According to Pat Speer everyone who saw the low back wound got it wrong, so who's witness bashing here, Pat?

You are!

It isn't just the autopsy photos, it's the corruption of everything which occurred after the autopsy. It's a lie, and just because the lie still can't make the SBT work doesn't make it any less a lie.

or holding up the Rydberg drawings and the back wound photo, and telling the public the doctors, after being schooled by the Johnson Justice Department, told the press their inspection of the back wound photo confirmed the wound location in the Rydberg drawing...? I propose the latter.

Yes, but we'll need to find someone who can do the "telling the public" bit...Hmmm, I wonder who we should get?...Any suggestions, Pat, other than yourself?...Heck with it, let's just do what Gaeton Fonzi did to Arlen Specter back in 1966 -- raise an arm and show the fact that the clothing can't bunch up with that posture.

[Pat Speer]

The face sheet and measurements are in complete accord, and both support the location of the back wound in the autopsy photos.

The factual inaccuracy of this comment has been pointed out repeatedly. The dot on the face sheet written in pencil matches the location of the holes in the clothes. The measurements were recorded in pen -- violation of autopsy protocol -- so obviously the placement of the dot and the recording of the measurements did not occur at the same time.

How can someone caught in so many lies as Humes be regarded as so infallible, Pat?

The dot on the face sheet matches the clothing holes when measuring from the back of the head, Cliff. Well, the outline on the face sheet is not an accurate outline for Kennedy's anatomy. When one measures down from the shoulder tip--not back of the head--the dot is actually a bit higher than placed by the HSCA on Figure 24. The dot on Fig 24 is at T-1. The dot on both the face sheet and Fig 24 is, moreover, a bit higher in comparison to the shoulder tip than the hole on the jacket. Well, this has an explanation as well. Kennedy's back wasn't flat. The material stretching down from his neck did not stretch straight down, but at a significant angle, which served to lift the hole on the clothing in comparison to the shoulder tip, and bring it closer to the level of the back wound.

But is it close enough? It seems clear there was some bunching of the clothing. I suspect there was enough bunching to lift the hole on the clothing in line with the hole on the body, but not enough to lift it in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You think there was not enough bunching to lift the clothing in line with a hole at T-1.

But you also think the wound was at T-3.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Pat Speer

[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..)

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.

I agree, Richard. That and much, much else too, regarding the bullet that hit Governor Connally. However, it's probably not such a good idea to continue on that subject in this thread.

[James R Gordon]

An Amendment to my position on the damage to C7 and T1

In the last few days I have been in discussion, on the Lancer forum, with Charlie DeArmonde about my work on the SBT. Although there has not been the amount of response in Lancer as there has been here, in the last few days Charlie contributed a number of important comments. The most important, and the trigger for this posting, was his feeling that any damage to C7 would be most likely to affect T1. In total the comment that Charlie made, which has made me reflect on my position is as follows:-

“This part of C7 is where the downward counter-balancing muscle
between C7 and T1 is attached. Damaging this area would easily
account for the upward derangement of the broken section of
the right C7 TP. That is to say that the muscle between C7 and
C6 is probably responsible for most of the actual dislocation
of this fragment, as it would no longer be countered
adequately by the damaged muscle between C7 and T1.”

I am very grateful for this comment by Charlie. By focusing my attention on the issue of the muscles it allowed me to understand something that had always puzzled me since I posted my statement on C7. At that time I had been curious what that point below the damaged C7 ( as I then called it ) was. This is labeled A1 is X-AUT-8. Eventually I just ignored it, and that was my fatal mistake in that posting. This was because, as I now realize, what I then called C7, was not C7 but the muscle above it, Interventebral Disc C06 C07. The object I could not understand and had eventually ignored is in fact C7. If you look closely at X-AUT-8, you can even see C6 above the damaged Interventebral Disc C06 C07 muscle.

See combined image below:-

What does the Image show you:-

(1) X-AUT-8 has two pointers.

A2 points to the Interventebral Disc C06 C07

A5 points to the Interventebral Disc C07 T01

A1 points to C7

(2) X-AUT-8 shows a close-up of the damage to C7 as pointed to by A1b.

(3) Shows the back Trachea vertabrae’s and the Temporal Membrane. This is highlighted by pointer A3.

(4) Shows a close-up of the Trachea and points out Interventebral Disc C06 C07 pointed out by A2 and the C7 Transverse Process pointed to by A1

(5) Shows X-AUT-9. With the help of arrows the slope in the neck is highlighted.

So what is my amended position?

In this description I will invoke three kinds of statements.

a) Fact. This is where the evidence, e.g. X-rays, clearly support the point.

Logical Assertion. This is where, although there is no factual evidence .e.g. an X-Ray, the logic of what must have happened is irrefutable.

c) Assertion. This is where the point has no evidence to support it and the conclusion is debatable.

The first three points described are the same as in the original C7 positing:-

1. The bullet enters between Trachea rings 3&4.

This is a fact. The Autopsy report, the testimony of Commander Humes, the observations of the Parkland doctors all testify to this point

2. The bullet damages the right strap muscle as it passes it by

This is a logical assertion. Humes testimony and the Autopsy report state that this muscle was damaged. It can also be said that the trajectory of the bullet is such that it seems certain that damage would have been done to the strap muscle as the bullet passed by. However there is no external evidence to prove it.

3. The bullet strikes the C7 Transverse Process at the A1 position. It is not possible for the bullet to strike Interventebral Disc C06 C07 because it lies at a higher position than the trajectory of the bullet. The damage to C7 can be seen in X-AUT-8 at the A1b position. It appears that a chip has been removed from the edge of C7

This is a fact. X-AUT-8 point A1b supports this. In addition damage to Interventebral Disc C06 C07 ( See A2) could only be accomplished had C7 be struck hard by an object and the vibrations of that strike impacted on Interventebral Disc C06 C07 thus damaging it.

The essential elements in the change in my position are described in what follows:-

4. The bullets impact with C7 does the following

a) It diverts the bullets trajectory and allows it to pass over the lung and damage it.

This is a logical assumption. This is because we know from testimony that the lung was damaged. It is logical to assume that having struck C7 this could well have an impact on the bullet’s trajectory. Any bullet striking a solid surface, like a bone, invariably changes its direction. And because the lung’s Apex was damaged the assumption is that the bullet changes direction towards the Apex of the lung.

It causes significant damage to the Interventebral Disc C06 C07, damage that is very visible in X-AUT-8 at A2

This is a fact. X-AUT-8 demonstrates this at point A2.

There is also a logical assumption built in here. A strike that hard on C7 that causes such damage to Interventebral Disc C06 C07 is bound to have had an impact on Interventebral Disc C07 T01. ( See point A5 ) Although it does not show the kind of damage that Interventebral Disc C06 C07 does, it must have been damaged and weakened by this same strike.

c) That damage to Interventebral Disc C06 C07, most likely had an impact on the Tectorial Membrane that lies behind these muscles ( See Point A3 ). This membrane links all the Interventebral Discs. It is likely that this damage/weakness to this muscle continued down to the C7 level.

This is a bridge between an Assumption and a logical assumption. All these muscles are interconnected and it would seem unlikely that the kind of damage that Interventebral Disc C06 C07 suffered would not also impact on the Tectorial Membrane. That said there is no evidence to support this.

d) What now happens is now is that the neck ( from C6 and above ) moves and slopes to the right a bit, because the damaged muscle Interventebral Disc C06 C07 as well as the likely damage to the Tectorial Membrane, are now not able to sustain the weight above them etc.

This is a Fact. X-AUT-9 demonstrates that as indicated by point A4. The upper neck has clearly shifted and sloped to the right and also moved downwards.

d) That movement may well have damaged Interventebral Disc C07 T01 ( See point A5 ) thereby allowing C7 to slip down onto T1 and to damage it.

This is a bridge between logical assertion and assertion. It seems logical that when the neck from Interventebral Disc C06 C07 ( Point A2 ) moves it is logical to assume that it impacted with Interventebral Disc C07 T01 ( Point A5 ) and that continued a movement down onto T1 and thereby damaged it on the right T1 Transverse process.

And so my revised position is this:-

a) The damage that we see on X-AUT-8 is not to C7 but infact to the muscle above it the Interventebral Disc C06 C07

As a consequence of the damage to this area, JFK’s whole neck slopes slightly to the right and slips down a bit.

c) It is now possible that T1 could well have been damaged, not by a bullet striking it, but as a consequence of the neck slipping down because of the damage to Interventebral Disc C06 C07 as well as damage/weakening of Tectorial Membrane which combined have an effect on Interventebral Disc C07 T01. It is this damage, the Interventebral Disc C07 T01, that allows C7 to fall onto T1.

Two thoughts:-

1. Although Jackie gives some assistance when JFK slopes down to his left, is it not possible that a further reason for this slope is because of the damage to his neck? He is needing to find support for his neck.

2. Everybody has thought, and that includes me, that when JFK’s arms rise to upper neck it is a response to the throat wound and his difficulty in breathing. It may still be partly about that. However I am now wondering is it also a response to what is going on in his neck. If the upper neck has sunk slightly because of the damage to Interventebral Disc C06 C07 that would be excruciatingly painful. It is bad enough to have damage to the bones in the neck, but to also have the bones in the neck move, that must be extraordinarily painful.

Addition:-

Although I tried very hard to make this posting very clear, I began thinking that the amount of detail I included may have made it very difficult to follow.

Therefore I have included a video today that hopefully will explain my position a little clearer.

http://s1187.photobucket.com/albums/z388/jamesg27/Movies/?action=view&current=RevisedPosition.mp4

James.

Edited May 13, 2012 by James R Gordon