Pat Speer Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 “Pistols, submachine guns and any sort of improvised carbine or rifle which will take a low velocity cartridge can be silenced. Because permissible velocity is low, effective precision range is held to about 100 yards with rifle or carbine type weapons.” This seems like a good time to re-post a great quote from an LNer named "Bud" who hangs out at the acj Usenet newsgroup and punishes CTers relentlessly with his common sense: "The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006 Uhhh... NOBODY chose to use bullets that inflict non-lethal wounds. As explained in the CIA Manual on Assassination, subsonic rounds are plenty lethal. It is a fact, however, that mistakes are sometimes made when hand-loading rounds for a reduced charge. This could explain the shallow back wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Greg, You are missing the point. It is a monumental difference as to whether they knew, or did not know, that they were covering up something? Do I have to ask whether you understand this? I have studied this question extensively and had in mind to bring forward a whole range of alternative reasons for the WCs behavior and their from the outset flawed mission. What they should have done, or did not do is an entirely different question. That's not what I wanted this thread to be about. Start another thread about this question if you find it interesting. However, it is not possible for me to discuss any issue - some members here are more interested in bullying me than discuss the questions I raise, which is why I will no longer be a member of this site. The bullying is of no concern, the fact that I cannot raise questions is. Best to you, //GV Let me re-phrase my answer. In my opinion, the Warren Commission members knew that obstruction of justice was taking place. This is evidenced by many different things. However, I originally phrased my answer as "knew or should have known" because I do not believe that some of the members necessarily knew the extent of the cover-up. Still, they chose to "look the other way" when evidence of obstruction was right before their eyes. One example: Gerald Ford even admitted to changing the location of the back wound by moving it up! He did this in order to mislead us into believing that the SBT was plausible. Glenn, I have not bullied you. I think I have been rather kind under the circumstances. FWIW, I've come to believe Ford is not actually to blame for this deception. My understanding is that he changed the wording of one sentence. This was almost certainly done to bring it in line with dozens of other sentences. These sentences were written by Arlen Specter and Norman Redlich--the creators of the single-bullet theory and the masterminds of the May 24 re-enactment. Here are the descriptions of the back wound in chapters 2 and 3 of the Warren Report. If Ford changed but one of them, the other lies pre-dated his "correction." One bullet passed through the President's neck p. 48 The autopsy also disclosed a wound near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck p.61 The nature and characteristics of this neck wound p.61 The President's Neck Wounds p.87 another bullet wound was observed near the base of the back of President Kennedy's neck p.88 in its path through the President's neck p.88 By projecting from a point of entry on the rear of the neck p.88 Concluding that a bullet passed through the President's neck p.88 the doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital rejected a theory that the bullet lodged in the large muscles in the back of his neck p.88 the surgeons were unable to find a path into any large muscle in the back of the neck p.88 This led to speculation that the bullet might have penetrated a short distance into the back of the neck p.88 Dr. Perry did not know about either the wound on the back of the President's neck or the small bullet-hole wound in the back of the head p.90 After reviewing the path of the bullet through the President's neck p.91 the experts simulated the neck p.91 The autopsy disclosed that the bullet which entered the back of the President's neck p.91 After the examining doctors expressed the thought that a bullet would have lost very little velocity in passing through the soft tissue of the neck p. 91 A photograph of the path of the bullet traveling through the simulated neck p. 91 The clothing worn by President Kennedy on November 22 had holes and tears which showed that a missile entered the back of his clothing in the vicinity of his lower neck p.91 all the defects could have been caused by a 6.5-millimeter bullet entering the back of the President's lower neck p. 92 The back of the stand-in for the President was marked with chalk at the point where the bullet entered p. 97 The position of President Kennedy's car when he was struck in the neck p.97 the point of impact on the President's back p. 98 the next point at which the rifleman had a clear view through the telescopic sight of the point where the bullet entered the President's back p.98 the President was probably shot through the neck between frames 210 and 225 p. 105 the bullet which passed through the President's neck p. 105 The bullet that hit President Kennedy in the back and exited through his throat p. 105 at the time when the President was struck in the neck p. 105 which followed the shot which hit the President's neck p. 106 A surveyor then placed his sighting equipment at the precise point of entry on the back of the President's neck p. 106 That angle was consistent with the trajectory of a bullet passing through the President's neck p. 106 the angle of that shot could have accounted for the wounds in the President's neck p. 106 of a test simulating the Governor's chest wound with the neck and wrist experiments p.107 concluded that it was probable that the same bullet passed through the President's neck and then inflicted all the wounds on the Governor p. 109 Referring to the President's neck wound p. 109 Thus, the Governor's wrist wound suggested that the bullet passed through the President's neck p. 109 the bullet which entered the Governor's chest had already lost velocity by passing through the President's neck p. 109 as to whether the same bullet did or did not pass through the President's neck p. 109 it was probable that the same bullet traversed the President's neck p. 109 After a bullet penetrated President Kennedy's neck p. 109 From the initial findings that (a) one shot passed through the President's neck p. 111 Agent Bennett stated: ... I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder p. 111 It is possible, of course, that Bennett did not observe the hole in the President's back p.111 30 to 45 frames (approximately 2 seconds) later than the point at which the President was shot in the neck p. 112 from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds between the shot which struck President Kennedy's neck p. 115 That approximation was most probably based on the earlier publicized reports that the first shot struck the President in the neck p. 117 If Ford was responsible for but one of these lies, well, then, this means that the biggest fraud on this issue is still with us, telling jokes and yelling at radio personalities in Pennsylvania. Specter, we should keep in mind, wrote these chapters just a few days AFTER he'd seen the back wound photo and KNEW for certain the wound he claimed was on the neck was really on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Pat, Even though the commission's counsel were not technically "members" they were under the command of the commissioners. Again...my original answer to Glenn's question is apropos here: The commissioners either knew or should have known that obstruction was taking place since a lot of it was due to activity on the part of their own staff including counsel. Whether or not Ford was actively or passively guilty of obstruction is irrelevant. I believe he was and you believe he was not. However, we both agree that Specter was and is guilty of obstruction. Do we also agree that Ford and the rest of the members "knew or should have known" that obstruction was taking place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Uhhh... NOBODY chose to use bullets that inflict non-lethal wounds. Unless they felt the need to paralyze the target first. The CIA tested such weapons on humans, after all. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) For Cliff Varnell: Go to 12:30 of this video (the person talking at that time is WC counsel Wesley Liebeler): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7eNdyp8-g8 Complete Program: http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/defending-warren-commission-report.html Edited June 16, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) For Cliff Varnell: Go to 12:30 of this video (the person talking at that time is WC counsel Wesley Liebeler): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7eNdyp8-g8 Complete Program: http://dvp-video-aud...ion-report.html Liebeler was making stuff up out of thin air in regards to the bullet hole in JFK's shirt. Pure double-talk. "It's clear that the bullet entered the base of the President's neck." David, how could this be true given the fact that JFK's jacket collar rested in a normal position around C6/C7? How do you bunch up multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck -- C7/T1 -- without displacing the jacket collar? Enough of the double-talk! Show us! Edited June 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) How do you bunch up multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck -- C7/T1 -- without displacing the jacket collar? You're misrepresenting the location of the back wound. It wasn't "entirely above the base of the neck". Why on Earth are you saying such an outlandish thing? The wound, in fact, was just where the Autopsy Face Sheet says it was -- 14 cm. below the mastoid, in the upper back...not in the neck. One of the big problems regarding the back wound, IMO, is not the place where the wound really was located. The bigger problem is merely the terminology that has been utilized by many of the people in Officialdom who have discussed the wound. The terms "neck", "base of the neck", "back", "upper back", "back of the neck", and "base of the back of the neck" have been used interchangably throughout the Warren Report and the witness testimony. This causes confusion when people read these varying terms. But, just as Wesley Liebeler said in 1966 on KCBS-Radio, the best way to determine where the wound was located is certainly not by examining the clothing of JFK. It's by looking at the autopsy photos and the measurements written into the margin of Dr. Boswell's Face Sheet. Moreover, the autopsy photo and the Face Sheet are in perfect harmony with the WC's own photographic re-creation regarding the place on JFK's body where the bullet entered--in the upper back, not up in the "neck"--as verified in Commission Exhibit No. 903. And since there's only ONE hole in the upper back (skin) of President Kennedy....and there's also only ONE hole in the shirt of JFK....and there's also only ONE hole in the jacket of JFK....then where can a person like Cliff Varnell really go with their theory about those three holes not lining up perfectly? Where does it really lead? It appears to me that there are only two possible places a person like Mr. Varnell can go: 1.) Make the claim that the autopsy photo shown above is a fake and a fraud. (Which it isn't, of course, as proven by the 20 or so members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel.) or: 2.) Make another unfounded claim about the bullet holes in JFK's shirt and coat being fake in some way. If there's a third choice here, I sure can't figure out what it might be. Edited June 16, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) The terms "neck", "base of the neck", "back", "upper back", "back of the neck", and "base of the back of the neck" have been used interchangably throughout the Warren Report and the witness testimony. This causes confusion when people read these varying terms. David, You are absolutely right, these terms have indeed caused confusion. Of course, it is not helped by Commander Humes 14cm reference which changes depending on body position. However, irrespective of the definition of these terms, there is within the contours of JFK's back examples of medical geographical points that are plain for all to see. In addition they are medical factual features that are outwith dispute. You might want to debate your impression of where that wound in the back is, or is not. However the geography of the body can lead to a much more precise location. One identifying feature that is plainly evident on JFK's back [and beyond dispute] is the right hand Scapular. In addition, we can also see the Scapular spine and that again, is beyond dispute. It is possible, therefore to be able to give a much more accurate assessment of where that wound is regardless of Commander Humes 14cm reference. The position of the Scapular on the human body as well as the position of the Spine, within the Scapular, are the same in all human bodies. As a consequence that allows us to have a much detailed assessment of where the wound is. It would appear to me that the wound is where the yellow dot is on the model. Being generous, it could be as far up as the green dot on the model. Commander Humes 14cm reference allows for a wide variety of interpretations, depending on body position. The Scapular and the Scapular Spine are much more precise locations. In addition both are clearly visible and are therefore outwith dispute. In addition, I take it that you can see that hand holding JFK's shoulder. The bone he is holding onto is the Clavical R. That means the wound is lower than the Clavical R, but higher than the Scapular Spine. That places the wound most likely where the yellow dot is, and no higher than the green dot. Either way your SBT is in serious problems. Be it the position of the yellow dot or the green dot the wound is behind the lung. Hence, if the SBT is a reality, the lung has got to be punctured. This is the difference between generalised theorising and medical factuality. James Edited June 16, 2012 by James R Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 (edited) How do you bunch up multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric entirely above the base of the neck -- C7/T1 -- without displacing the jacket collar? You're misrepresenting the location of the back wound. It wasn't "entirely above the base of the neck". I'm referring to the 4+ inches of shirt and jacket fabric which the SBT requires to have bunched up entirely above the in-shoot at the base of the neck. Read the sentence again... David, please address the simple physical facts. Look at the location of the folds in this photograph -- a photo you put into evidence. The folds are almost entirely above the bottom of the shirt collar, right? According to your theory 4+ inches of clothing fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot at the lower margin of the base of the neck. But the Dealey Plaza films and photos show JFK's jacket collar dropped to a normal position at the upper margin of the base of his neck. How could the jacket collar drop if there were 4+ inches of clothing bunched up at that location? Can you answer the question, David? Edited June 16, 2012 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 It appears to me that there are only two possible places a person like Mr. Varnell can go: 1.) Make the claim that the autopsy photo shown above is a fake and a fraud. (Which it isn't, of course, as proven by the 20 or so members of the HSCA's Photographic Panel. That same panel singled out the Fox 5 BOH photo as especially deficient as scientific evidence, that it was "difficult or impossible to obtain accurate measurements," was "more confusing than informative." The woman on record as having developed the Fox 5 photograph denies having developed any of the extant autopsy photos, so a chain of possession for them is decidedly lacking. The wound in the BOH photo shows an abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below. There is nothing in the Fox 5 photo to identify the subject. The HSCA concluded the autopsy photos were prima facie inadmissible in court, and that was before we found out there is no chain of possession for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) How could the jacket collar drop if there were 4+ inches of clothing bunched up at that location?Can you answer the question, David? I have no idea what you're talking about. All pictures of JFK at about the time he was shot show his coat to be bunched-up in the back, including the Croft picture taken at circa Z161. So, given the pictures which verify some degree of "bunching", I can't understand the beef that CTers still have regarding this issue. Edited June 17, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) You are absolutely right, these terms have indeed caused confusion. Of course, it is not helped by Commander Humes 14cm reference which changes depending on body position. But measuring from the top of the head (as pathologists like Cyril Wecht say is the proper place to measure from) will also change depending on the body's position, because the head is always on a rotating and movable neck. So that "changing body position" argument won't fly just because the Bethesda doctors decided to measure the back wound from an unusual location (the mastoid). Logic would dictate that measurements that are taken at an autopsy are taken when the body is in the "anatomic/autopsy" position. And that would certainly include the JFK autopsy measurements as well. Edited June 17, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 Pat, Even though the commission's counsel were not technically "members" they were under the command of the commissioners. Again...my original answer to Glenn's question is apropos here: The commissioners either knew or should have known that obstruction was taking place since a lot of it was due to activity on the part of their own staff including counsel. Whether or not Ford was actively or passively guilty of obstruction is irrelevant. I believe he was and you believe he was not. However, we both agree that Specter was and is guilty of obstruction. Do we also agree that Ford and the rest of the members "knew or should have known" that obstruction was taking place? Yes. It seems clear to me that most everyone working on the report---both counsel and commissioner--knew that they were not really telling the whole truth, but were instead selling Oswald;s guilt. These men were mostly former or current prosecutors, and skewing information to fit an agenda was second nature to them. Unfortunately, it also seems clear to me that some of these men--Warren, Specter,, Eisenberg, Redlich and Belin come to mind--knew there was reason to believe Oswald didn't act alone, and/or that some of the evidence against him was questionable, and pretended everything was just fine and dandy. I sometimes play the "if only" game and think "If only" the HSCA counsel interviewing the likes of Specter knew then what I know now, things might have been different. WAY different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James R Gordon Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) So that "changing body position" argument won't fly just because the Bethesda doctors decided to measure the back wound from an unusual location (the mastoid). David, I suppose I should not be surprised that from my post all you can comment about is this quote 'You are absolutely right, these terms have indeed caused confusion. Of course, it is not helped by Commander Humes 14cm reference which changes depending on body position." You are quite interesting. That part was the least important element of what I had to say. The main focus was pointing out to you that we can identify skeleton outlines that allow a confident analysis of where the back wound most likely struck. I take it that all of that went right over your head. James Edited June 17, 2012 by James R Gordon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) I take it that all of that went right over your head. But what hasn't gone over my head is the fact that BOTH of the official investigations (14 years apart) concluded that one bullet (CE399) passed through JFK's body. That's a lot of people that have got to be dead wrong about a pretty important fact, James. Doesn't it bother you that all of those investigators who were tasked with arriving at the truth regarding the assassination of an American President would come to a conclusion that Bullet CE399 passed through JFK's body and wounded Governor Connally? How could they have come to that one-bullet conclusion if there weren't ample reasons for them to do so? Am I supposed to really just toss the SBT conclusions of both the WC and HSCA right in the garbage can because of your analysis? Really? Edited June 17, 2012 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now