Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Warren Commission


Recommended Posts

Okay, Pat:

If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy?

Key words: "Most reasonable explanation".

I'd like to see if your explanation is more "reasonable" than the SBT.

David, the SBT does not work because an object cannot exit at a point HIGHER than the entry, when traveling DOWNWARD at 17+ degrees

and NOT striking any bone...

NOt having a reasonable explanation that YOU like does not give the SBT any more validity... it simple means that YOU do not accept other explanations...

The responsibility os on YOU david, not us... YOU claim the SBT works... yet your supporting evidence proves the opposite...

Maybe if you took the time to make your case, instead of tautological reasoning, you'd have a SBT to defend... rather than one that trips you up each and every time you try to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"Rankin hired a stand in to pose as the stenographer". Jim/Glenn, from an unashamedly self admitted amateur, would you tell me where this info came from? To think that they would do this to a U.S. Senator of Russell's stature is extremely sad. So, understanding that I am nit picking here, It's just that I would like to read further about this action. It seems that I do remember a promise of a statement required by Russel that there should be some parts of the findings (primarily, the single bullet theory), which was never done.

Terry,

You will certainly find the info on the change in findings in "Breach of Trust" by Gerald McKnight on P. 298 but I seem to remember others. Although I can't find a reference to it you might also find a reference to the stenographer also in the book.

James

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

Your question was just too tempting not to answer.

“If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy?”

I’m sure Pat will answer you and his answer will be thorough.

First, I have no answer to what happened to the bullet. It is a serious question, and hopefully someone will be able to answer it at some point. But the throat wound, as an entry wound, to JFK I believe can be answered.

1.) Dr. Carrico stated that the entry wound was right of center. H6 P. 10

That can be confirmed by drawing a line from the center of JFK in the FOX 1 picture: “The Stare of Death.” That means the shot came from the Grassy Knoll. To strike right of center the shooter had to be to JFK’s right. Why the Grassy Knoll, because the trajectory of the bullet is declining, after entering the body, and hence the shot was taken from above his position. Why declining, because the lung is lower than trachea rings 3&4.

For the bullet to be able to enter right of center in JFK’s throat, he had to be seated facing forward. That places the shot from Z 202 onwards.

2.) Dr. Carrico stated that the trachea was deviated slightly to the left. H6 P. 10

He is saying the trachea was bent slightly to the left. Bending the trachea to its left means the shot impacted to the right of the trachea. Dr. Carrico further confirms that the shot entered right of JFK’s midline by saying that he noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. H3 P. 370

He is stating that as the bullet passed by the trachea, the trachea was also bruised.

3.) Commander Humes states that the right strap muscle was damaged. MD 3 P. 4

A further confirmation that the bullet entered the body right of center. Right of center of the trachea, is exactly where the right strap muscle is.

4.) Now in his testimony Malcolm Perry makes six references to the amount of blood he saw within the upper throat after he had cut the Tracheotomy. H3 P. 371, H3 P. 370, H3 P 381, H3 P. 388, H3 P. 832 and H6 P. 11.

What is striking about these comments is that Commander Humes stated that no major vessels and arteries were damaged. H2 P. 363 If you know anything about the anatomy of the upper chest area of the human body, that is an astonishing feat for any missile to achieve in that area of the body. The most interesting of Perry’s comments is the last one where he said “There was there was so much blood that the tissues were discolored.” Within 10 minutes of the assassination, which would be about the time Perry cut the trachea, there was so much blood in the upper chest area, not only could Perry not see details of organs and muscles ( in the other references ) the tissues of the body were discolored. There had to be substantial blood in that area to disclour tissues within 10 minutes. That suggests that as the bullet moved forward it did infact damage major veins and/or arteries. The route the bullet was taking, takes it right towards the major arteries and veins in the upper neck area.

5) Because of the bending of the Trachea and bruising of it, that makes clear that the bullet’s path will take it over the Apex of the lung. The Apex of the lung is very close to the position of the Trachea. Commander Humes describes the bruise H2 P. 367/8.

As Pat Speer has described to you this bruise was shaped as an inverted pyramid that was positioned on top of the Apex and was attached to the lung. Pat has suggested that bone could have caused that damage. I don’t like to disagree with Pat, but Humes is clear that no bones were damaged. H2 P. 361 + 364 I suspect the bruise might have been the pressures and forces created by the bullet that caused this damage.

6.) In his autopsy Commander Humes laid down certain criteria that this bullet had to undertake. It had to do the following:-

a) Damage the right strap muscle.

B) Damage the Trachea.

c) Damage the lung.

The above account describes all three.

So you might then say, “but what about the bullet? Where was the bullet that did all this?” O.k. I do not know the answer to that, but because no bullet was found, does not mean that the injuries had to be caused by the SBT.

Dr’s Perry and Carrico as well as Fox 1 make it clear that the bullet entered, or exited in your case, right of center. That is as close to an established fact as we can get. Unless you intend to dispute Fox 1, the entry point is clearly right of center which does not help you.

The SBT requires the bullet to exit in the center of the neck. As Fox 1 shows the entry point is reasonable significantly right of center. Exiting right of center is going to throw out your trajectory both to the back wound as well as onwards to Connally. The SBT is based on the bullet exiting in the center of the throat.

So just because I can’t explain what happened to the bullet, does not mean the only answer is the SBT. And don’t forget, you have a far bigger problem than mine of no bullet. You support CE 903 as the definition of where the bullet entered. As I have pointed out any trajectory from there has got to pierce the lung. No bullet is able to say “hang on a minute, I’ll have to go left here…and I’d better go right here” If CE 903 is your position there is no way the lung would not be pierced. Just on its own that would invalidate the SBT.

As I said to you before. The injuries to John Connally are irrelevant if the injuries to JFK do not sustain the SBT. Only, if the injuries to JFK support the SBT can we then consider the injuries to Connally. And it is clear the injuries to JFK do not support the SBT.

James.

Edited by James R Gordon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Pat:

If the SBT isn't correct, then tell us what the most reasonable explanation is to explain the wounds in both JFK & JBC, and the total lack of bullets in the body of President Kennedy?

Key words: "Most reasonable explanation".

I'd like to see if your explanation is more "reasonable" than the SBT.

You know full well I have a website in which I propose an alternative scenario. But this thread isn't about me; it's about the WC. My "theories" could be wrong as snow on the 4th of July, and it wouldn't make the SBT any more feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rankin hired a stand in to pose as the stenographer". Jim/Glenn, from an unashamedly self admitted amateur, would you tell me where this info came from? To think that they would do this to a U.S. Senator of Russell's stature is extremely sad. So, understanding that I am nit picking here, It's just that I would like to read further about this action. It seems that I do remember a promise of a statement required by Russel that there should be some parts of the findings (primarily, the single bullet theory), which was never done.

There is no proof Rankin hired a fake stenographer. But the underlying assertion appears to be true. Senator Russell told researcher Harold Weisberg that he thought a stenographer was present during the executive session in which he admitted he didn't believe the SBT, and in which McCloy came up with the compromise language suggesting the commissioners were in agreement on the issue.

When Weisberg told Russell no transcript for this session existed, Russell was horrified, and felt he'd been played. This, according to Weisberg, was even a factor in Russell's cutting off contact with his long-time protege, Johnson.

Ironically, however, we know this wasn't just a case of Russell's misremembering what happened, because the tape of his phone call to Johnson, in which he talked about the session, was preserved by the Johnson Library.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c;

On 9-18-64, President Johnson and Warren Commissioner Richard Russell have an intriguing conversation. This conversation further illuminates Johnson's desire that the murder of his predecessor just disappear. The conversation reflects the dissent within the Commission over Arlen Specter’s single-bullet theory, as well as Russell and Johnson’s inability to understand the importance of the single-bullet theory to the single-assassin conclusion.

Senator Richard Russell: “No, no. They’re trying to prove that the same bullet that hit Kennedy first was the one that hit Connally, went through him and through his hand, his bone, and into his leg…I couldn’t hear all the evidence and cross-examine all of ‘em. But I did read the record…I was the only fellow there that…suggested any change whatever in what the staff got up. This staff business always scares me. I like to put my own views down. But we got you a pretty good report.”

President Lyndon Johnson: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

Senator Richard Russell: Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that…the commission believes that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.

President Lyndon Johnson: I don’t either.

Senator Richard Russell: And so I couldn’t sign it. And I said that Governor Connally testified directly to the contrary and I’m not gonna approve of that. So I finally made ‘em say there was a difference in the commission, in that part of ‘em believed that that wasn’t so. And, course if a fellow was accurate enough to hit Kennedy right in the neck on one shot and knock his head off in the next one—and he’s leaning up against his wife’s head—and not even wound her—why he didn’t miss completely with that third shot. But according to their theory, he not only missed the whole auto mobile, but he missed the street! Well, a man that’s a good enough shot to put two bullets right into Kennedy, he didn’t miss that whole automobile.”

This last conversation becomes even more intriguing once one takes into account that the minutes of the 9-18-64 executive session of the Warren Commission fail to note Russell’s dissent, or even that the single-bullet theory was discussed. (When researcher Harold Weisberg pointed this out to Russell in 1968, Russell cut-off contact with his one-time protege Johnson. While this was probably not the only reason for his cutting Johnson off--he was also upset about Johnson dragging his feet on the appointment of a judge--it is symptomatic of most historians' refusal to understand the dark legacy of the assassination and subsequent investigation that they fail to mention it as even one of many reasons.)

This suggests, then, that the fix is in. The commission's report and records are to indicate that Oswald did it alone, no matter what the commissioners actually suspect. No dissent is acceptable, as it might reflect negatively on President Johnson, and the country as a whole. That the Johnson Administration and intelligence community are banking on having a unanimous report claiming Oswald did it alone, moreover, is made clear by a 9-22 CIA memo entitled "Propaganda Notes." This memo, (not released until 1976), declares "Reports from around the world indicate that there is a strong belief in many countries that the assassination of the president was the result of a 'political plot;' the unwarranted interpretation that Ruby's murder of Oswald was committed to prevent Oswald from revealing the purported conspiracy adds to this belief. Communist regimes have used both murders to denigrate American society and the release of the Report will undoubtedly be used as a new peg for the same purpose. Covert assets should explain the tragedy wherever it is genuinely misunderstood and counter all efforts to misconstrue it intentionally--provided the depth of impact warrants such action. Communists and other extremists always attempt to prove a political conspiracy behind violence. In countries accustomed to assassination by political conspiracy, American dedication to institutions of law and government with stable administrative procedures can be described, and American presidents can be shown the victim (with the exception of Lincoln) of single, fanatical individuals." The memo then explains that copies of the report have been purchased and will be widely disseminated.

It's ironic, then, that Chief Justice Warren agreed to chair the commission so he could help prevent the right wing of American politics from convincing the public there was a communist conspiracy, and that his finalized report is to be used primarily to stop communists from convincing the public there was a right wing conspiracy. If he ever noted this irony, and wondered if it wasn't, hmmm, by design, or if he in fact knew it from the start, is unclear.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "theories" could be wrong as snow on the 4th of July, and it wouldn't make the SBT any more feasible.

Well, something has got to be right if the SBT is so wrong. Those two men (JFK & JBC) were both hit in their respective upper backs with a rifle bullet at just about the very same time on Nov. 22. And Governor Connally was seated in the perfect spot (or very close) to be hit by the same bullet that would have exited from JFK's throat. And we know that no bullets were found inside JFK's body.

The dots seem pretty simple to connect. (Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, I guess.)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "theories" could be wrong as snow on the 4th of July, and it wouldn't make the SBT any more feasible.

Well, something has got to be right if the SBT is so wrong. Those two men (JFK & JBC) were both hit in their respective upper backs with a rifle bullet at just about the very same time on Nov. 22. And Governor Connally was seated in the perfect spot (or very close) to be hit by the same bullet that would have exited from JFK's throat. And we know that no bullets were found inside JFK's body.

The dots seem pretty simple to connect. (Unless you're a conspiracy theorist, I guess.)

Between those dots there is a multitude of X's saying "don't go this way." You opt to go there anyhow. I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between those dots there is a multitude of X's saying "don't go this way." You opt to go there anyhow. I don't.

Fair enough.

You opt to disbelieve both U.S. Government inquiries which both endorsed the SBT as the truth (the WC and the HSCA). I don't choose that option.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David, Governmental investigations and inquiries SHOULD NOT REQUIRE BELIEF - the evidence and conclusions presented SHOULD MAKE LOGICAL SENSE and be supportable.

That YOU NEED TO BELIEVE in these reports is probably the beginning of your problems...

We BELIEVE in G^d, we BELIEVE in concepts... We PROVE innocence/guilt with authenticated evidence... got any?

American Politics rule #1 - Don't Believe ANYTHING until it has been officially denied

(from one of DVP's "Gov't inquiries").....

C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to

it, that President John Kennedy was probably assassinated as a

result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other

gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.

1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available

to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination

of President Kennedy.

2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available

to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination

of President Kennedy.

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available

to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved

in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available

evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members

may have been involved.

4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available

to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group,

was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but

that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that

individual membersmay have been involved.

5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and

Central Intelligence Agency, were not involved in the assassination

of President Kennedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Between those dots there is a multitude of X's saying "don't go this way." You opt to go there anyhow. I don't.

Fair enough.

You opt to disbelieve both U.S. Government inquiries which both endorsed the SBT as the truth (the WC and the HSCA). I don't choose that option.

it is disingenuous to say both inquiries endorsed the SBT when you know full well both inquiries were misled about the back wound location and its relationship to the SBT.

1. Specter KNEW the back wound was several inches below where it was depicted on the Rydberg drawings, yet chose not to tell the Warren Commissioners about this "problem." If he had, moreover, it's almost certain that Russell, Boggs and Cooper, and possibly even McCloy, would have insisted on another solution.

2. The HSCA was similarly deceived. The Forensic Pathology Panel, made up of...doctors...thought the SBT viable PROVIDED it happened when Kennedy was bent over. They assumed, moreover, that he was bent over when he passed behind the sign in the Zapruder film. They were not asked their opinion on its viability should Kennedy have been standing tall when hit. The HSCA's photography panel then concluded Kennedy was hit before he went behind the sign...which meant the Pathology Panel was no longer on board with the SBT. So how did the HSCA's investigators get around this? At the last minute they hired a flunky from NASA and gave him the authority to move the wounds to make them compatible with trajectories from the sniper's nest. He then not only moved the wounds, but proposed that Kennedy was leaning further forward when receiving his back wound than when receiving his fatal head wound--something even YOU know to be untrue.

So, to repeat, it's quite silly to cite the conclusions of people we both know were lied to, as support for your position.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DiEugenio's tirades get funnier every day. I especially love this one from ol' Jimbo (which means he's got to endorse the absurd theory that TWO bullets--not just one--disappeared off the planet after entering JFK's upper back and neck):

IT WAS A WOUND OF ENTRANCE KIDDO!

Jim's a howl.

Jimbo, naturally, totally ignores this testimony of Dr. Perry:

Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?

Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.

The above testimony was uttered, of course, after Perry had been coerced into lying his butt off in front of the WC, right Jimbo?

And the thing is, he [DVP] never feels any kind of regret in selling arguments he knows are BS. Which makes him a psychiatric oddity.

DiEugenio acts as if I'm the only person on the planet who believes in the SBT.

You're really strange, Jimmy.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. In fact, that Z film excerpt is so deceiving as to be useless. Because the HSCA , Speer, myself, Ray Marcus, and anyone with eyes knows that the first shot hit JFK before he went behind the sign. Even Duncan agreed with that when he saw the uncensored film, much to DVP's chagrin.

Jim

I used to believe this, but I don't now. Assuming the shooter was firing from the North Knoll, then the shot had to have been fired either after JFK went behind the Stemmons sign or as he was.

Dr. Carrico stated that the wound was right of centre. I have checked this with Fox 1 and indeed the lower half of the wound is indeed right of centre. Now from Z190 - Z 200 JFK is still turned to his right. Therefore although a gunman could strike the throat left of centre they would have great difficulty striking right of centre. It is not until Z 204 that JFK is fully facing forward allowing a shot to strike him in the throat right of centre. At that point he is either going behind the sign or just begun to travel behind the fence. For me the critical point in determining when that shot was fired is when is JFK facing forward and thereby allowing a gunman to strike him in the throat right of centre, and the only moment I can see when this can be done is from around Z 204 onwards.


And in fact, both Dr. Nichols and Mantik, even with these bad landmarks did the simple geometry. The cervical vertebra would have had to been fractured or broken. They were not. Nichols testified to this at the Shaw trial.

I hate to disagree with such experienced men, but something is wrong with C6-C7 vertebra muscle. AUT X-RAY 8 clearly shown an anomaly there. The shape of it suggests that it has been seriously damaged. AUT X-RAY 9 seems to confirm this in two ways.

a) It agrees that this some sort of anomaly at this point.

B) This X-RAY also shows that the neck is best at exactly this point. The neck can be clearly seen to have dropped at this point. Now the neck cannot drop its position at this point, unless the support [which this muscle is] has been damaged and there is nothing now to support it.

See image of X-Ray 9

X-AUT-9.png

There is one error with my image. I say it is the disk. It is not, it is the support muscle above it: the C6-C7 muscle. This X-Ray makes it clear that the neck has moved to the right. Unlike X-Ray 8, which was taken after the autopsy had begun, This one was taken before the autopsy began. There is no reason, as far as I can see for the neck falling unless something has happened to this C6-C7 muscle.

And that is why, even though such highly respected men suggest there is nothing wrong here, I say something is wrong there.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. SPECTER - Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?

Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.

David,

If you must insist on being so pedantic please, at least recognise, that Perry does not simply support your position. He is ambiguous in his reply.

Dr. PERRY - It could have been either.

If you insist on taking Malcolm Perry literally then you are admitting that the throat wound could be either an entry wound or an exit wound.

The best you can get from this quote is that we are both right.

It certainly does not confirm your side and deny our side. Basically it is not the best quote you could use. Could you not get a better one???

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone besides me notice that Mr. Von Pein hasn't attempted to refute the information cited by Mr. Gordon? I believe he can't do it and maintain any credibility...which is why he instead chooses to argue with Pat Speer, Jim DiEugenio, and everyone else instead of Mr. Gordon.

So how about it, Mr. Von Pein...bone up on your anatomy and physiology, and then explain why Mr. Gordon is wrong in his conclusions. I can hardly wait. [Odds are, Von Pein will instead attack me for suggesting this, and continue to ignore Mr. Gordon's quite logical arguments. But then, I'm a much easier--and most likely larger--target to attack.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...