Jump to content

Alterationists vs Non-Alternationists?


Mike Rago
 Share

Recommended Posts

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact".

The correct answer would have been -- yes!

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mike,

Had this question been raised, even five years ago, I would have been very skeptical of such a notion. However, today I am beginning to see it as the central question of the assassination.

I still have some reluctance to embrace that someone somewhere medled with the body, and the theories of Douglas Horne are just too extreme to accept. I have a high respect for David Lifton, and I will await his material on Zapruder manipulation, but I have always found it difficult to accept, especially understanding the enormity of what would be involved.

However, all that said, I am beginning to think that body alteration may well have taken place. And if that took place, then maybe it happened elsewhere.

As this forum will know I have spent he last few months looking at he medical evidence. In looking at this material too many questions are being raised.

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

A bullet entered the throat AND that bullet did not exit the body. From a logical perspective I can only see three possibilities, outlined above, and since two are non starters for me, that leaves only one option: at some point it was removed.

I am coming to his view, not from a theoretical perspective but from one of logic.

Although I have only just started my study of the head wound, there are already serious questions being raised that I can find no logical answer for.

The damage to the Pons being severed from the Midbrain makes no sense. Humes was not aware that this had happened until he turned the head over. Such damage was not visible from the top of the head. O.k. I am sure some of you will already being offering reasons why Fox 2 shows significant brain matter at the top of the skull.

The first problem for me is that the top of the head, although damaged, has a significant portion of the brain matter still there and visible. Yet underneath this area, that is still contained within the head, is a major dislocation of critical areas of the brain. As well, the position of the Pons is well behind the skull damage that we see in Fox 2.

If it is to be argued that Pons could be damaged by the force of the explosive powers created by the passage of the bullet, then I find it curious that the upper brain matter was left essentially intact, as seen in Fox 2, yet below that extraordinary damage has been done.

However where this contradiction becomes extremely curious is when you map the damage on a 3D model. Then I become faced with a multitude of "Why's" and "How's". And it is these unanswered questions that lead me to wonder whether there is another process been going on. If this damage had been done by the consequence of the bullet, I would have expected to see much more damage in the upper brain area and hopefully see some of this damage to he Pons from above. But you don't, and neither did Humes. He only was aware of it when he turned he brain over.

David Lifton argues that this damage was done in order to find and remove bullets. he would argue that in cutting to find and remove the bullets that is how his was done. I noticed an interesting comment by Humes. In this lower area of the brain, Humes comments that there was a number of lacerations going in all directions. He suggests that the reason for all these tears was the effect of the power of the bullet on the brain. It is possible, but I could think of another reason for these tears.

Alteration or Non-Alteration. My movement towards alteration is not based on any particular theoretical perspective. For me it is based of impossible contradictions and unanswerable questions. Too many questions, which I am daily being confronted with, is making me more and more suspicious and my suspicions are leading me to the only logical conclusion: at some point the body was tampered with.

James

James, Dr. Kemp Clark told the New York Times a few days after the assassination that the bullet that entered his throat "ranged downward" and did not exit. I looked into this further and the best I can tell is that this information was relayed to him by Dr. Perry. Recall now that the FBI report and death certificate indicated a shallow back wound around T-3. So there would be no corresponding exit to the anterior throat wound. Think also if the autopsy description of the throat wound (its size and condition) sounds like a trach incision. Lifton has Perry on record as indicating the size as 2-3 cm in length. That's less than half the size of the wound appearing in the photos and described by Humes. I think one can reasonably connect the dots and ascertain that the bullet was removed by widening the trach incision somewhere between Parkland and the official autopsy beginning at 8:00 pm at Bethesda or shortly thereafter. That's alteration to remove evidence of the real nature of the killing. And if the perps were willing to dig into Kennedy's throat, they would certainly want to dig into his head, as gruesome as this sounds, to complete their job. That would certainly explain the horrible condition of the top of the skull as seen in the autopsy photos and the absence of such at Parkland, and would account for Humes' comment which the FBI picked up about surgery of the head area, at the top of the skull.

Daniel,

I am moving towards removal as the only logical answer. As I commented, I am getting more questions than answers...and it is that, that is directing me towards removal.

Laying the SBT aside for a moment, a bullet entered the throat and did not exit the body. No bullet was discovered during the autopsy and no bullet was recorded on the X-rays. Unless a bullet was recovered and not recorded, that logical only leaves one option open: the bullet was removed.

It is logic that driving me towards the idea of pre-autopsy removal.

It is the contradictions in the head wounds ( and admittedly I have only begun looking at it ) that are driving also towards removal.

I am uncomfortable with the idea of removal, but logic is compelling me towards it as the only solution.

James.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact".

The correct answer would have been -- yes!

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

You are right Cliff, there is that alternative.

I have difficulty accepting that people serious in their determination to assassinate a President would use ice bullets.

But I accept that is an alternative.

Since I would discount that as a possibility, I would still be led back to removal.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact".

The correct answer would have been -- yes!

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

You are right Cliff, there is that alternative.

I have difficulty accepting that people serious in their determination to assassinate a President would use ice bullets.

I have difficulty accepting that people serious in their determination to kill JFK would first shoot him in the throat with a low-powered, small caliber weapon that caused no major damage -- didn't even exit -- and then shoot thim a second time with another low-powered round that left a shallow wound in the back, again no exit.

I have no difficulty with the notion that serious people would first strike him with a blood soluble paralytic in order to create an effect exactly like we see in the Zapruder film -- paralysis in a couple of seconds.

I have no difficulty accepting that such people would shoot the President a second time in the back with a blood soluble toxin that would guarantee his death even if subsequent conventional shots missed.

Your "removal" scenario requires two malfunctioning rounds, doesn't it? The wound sequence doesn't indicate a "first-shot/kill-shot" strategy. A shot to the throat and a shot to the back -- not only were the rounds duds but the shooters missed their target!

What were the chances of that?

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a) Assuming you are not a supporter of the Warren Commission, then you will be aware that a bullet entered JFK's throat. However no bullet was discovered. As I see it there are only three options

i. The SBT theory is not a theory but a fact and that explains it. I have presented, along with many other members, reasons why that is not a valid proposition.

ii. That a bullet actually was discovered, but never registered. It is possible, but I find it difficult to see how such a find could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neil. For those reasons, although it has logic, I don't see this as avalid proposition.

iii) That just leaves the option that a bullet was removed at some point and that is why a bullet was not found.

There is another option directly indicated in the historical record.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

The autopsists wanted to know if there existed rounds which would "dissolve after contact".

The correct answer would have been -- yes!

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

You are right Cliff, there is that alternative.

I have difficulty accepting that people serious in their determination to assassinate a President would use ice bullets.

But I accept that is an alternative.

Since I would discount that as a possibility, I would still be led back to removal.

James

I really did not want to voice my opinion on this (because I hate to agree with David Von Pein on anything) but some of the posts in this thread are getting so ridiculous I must.

James, if the single bullet theory is not correct then you have to find either two exit wounds that do not exist or start to postulate absurd things like ice bullets or bullet removal that we do not know about.

I think , based on this very simple logic,( that if it is not true then where did the two bullets go), the single bullet theory is probably correct.

However, the single bullet theory being correct does not imply there was only one assassin. The double hit occurred at the Grassy Knoll.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, the single bullet theory being correct.........

Mike,

What you are saying is complete nonsense.

Humes established five criteria that the SBT had to comply with:-

a) That the entry wound was above Costa IR

B) That the bullet passed over the Apex of the right lung

c) That the bullet bruised the right strap muscle

d) That the bullet exited between Trachea rings 3&4

e) no bones were damaged

Humes then conceded, Dr. Carrico’s observation, that the bullet exited through the trachea. That meant that it had to enter the trachea.

Thus he added a sixth criteria.

All of that you will find in his testimony in H2

Now you show me how a bullet could create a path to do all that. That is the difference between abstract theory and reality.

It is easy to rattle off quotes that support your position, the difficulty is being able to establish that what the theory suggests can also be replicated in the real world.

That is why I said at the beginning that what you are saying is complete nonsense. It is nonsense because when you apply the criteria of the SBT to the reality of the human upper chest area, what is demanded by the theory cannot be replicated. The theory at that point fails.

Don’t take my word for it, get a 3D model and try it out for yourself.

James.

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

I know people like to use the word "nonsense" a lot but it has lost its meaning because it is used inappropriately.

Where did the two bullets go? Where are the corresponding exit wounds? I know about your anatomical studies. I followed almost all your posts. However, after all those studies your theory cannot answer a very simple question.

You are working with a 3D model. The keyword is "model".

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The keyword is "model".

No Mike, the key word, well actually key phrase, is “accurate model.”

The quality of these models is such that they are used throughout the world for the teaching and learning of the medical profession.

They are the best thing we have to going back to 8:00pm on the night of 22nd of November 1963 and checking for ourselves whether what is said in the medical testimony stands up.

There is no exit wound to the back wound because it was a shallow wound. However, where the bullet went is a much much more difficult question to answer.

There is no exit wound to the throat wound because the bullet did not exit. I am of the opinion that the bullet had to have been removed. As you will have seen in posts I have made today, it is logic that has driven me there.

But back to the point I made earlier, that I noticed you dodged. Even if these models are not 100% accurate, and I am not saying they are not, they are sufficiently accurate to be able to replicate the SBT. You will find free 3D models online. Maybe not the most accurate, but they will do. Log on to one of these sites and try to apply the criteria of the SBT. It is then you will be confronted with the difference between theory and reality.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to the point I made earlier, that I noticed you dodged. Even if these models are not 100% accurate, and I am not saying they are not, they are sufficiently accurate to be able to replicate the SBT. You will find free 3D models online. Maybe not the most accurate, but they will do. Log on to one of these sites and try to apply the criteria of the SBT. It is then you will be confronted with the difference between theory and reality.

James

James the 3D model you used was not good enough. That is the most simple and most logical explanation. If the single bullet theory is not correct you have find either two bullets or two exits.

The burden is on you to show that the models are sufficiently accurate to model the SBT. A 3D model is not reality.

You also have to show that the Doctor's testimony is sufficiently accurate to model the wound. I suspect the problem is a combination of inaccurate doctor statements and the model.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, if the single bullet theory is not correct then you have to find either two exit wounds that do not exist or start to postulate absurd things like ice bullets or bullet removal that we do not know about.

"Ice bullet" is a colloquial expression for blood soluble rounds. In the early '60's the Central Intelligence Agency and Army Special Forces had access to weapons which fired blood soluble rounds containing paralytics or toxins that would not show up on x-ray, or be discovered in an autopsy.

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

From CIA Director William Colby's Church Committee testimony 9/16/75

The primary Agency interest was in the development of

dissemination devices to be used with standard chemicals off the

shelf...A large amount of Agency attention was given to the problem of

incapacitating guard dogs. Though most of the dart launchers were

developed for the Army, the Agency did request the development of a

small, hand-held dart launcher for its peculiar needs for this

purpose. Work was also done on temporary human incapacitation

techniques. These related to a desire to incapacitate captives

before they could render themselves incapable of talking, or

terrorists before they could take retaliatory action.

Given Lee Harvey Oswald's intelligence connections, it shouldn't be a big surprise to find evidence of intelligence connections to the killing of JFK, should it?

What's so absurd about assassins using technology at their disposal?

And remember, this is not a "theory," per se. It was one of the conclusions of the autopsists the night of the autopsy. It is part of the historical record. It finds powerful corroboration in JFK appearing to seize up paralyzed in the limo, as we see in the Zapruder film. As per the topic of this thread, I have seen no cogent argument that the crucial Zap frames Z186 to Z255 are inauthentic.

The "general feeling" of the autopsists about blood soluble rounds finds substantiation in the pattern of damage in the neck x-ray -- broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air-pocket overlaying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes.

This minor damage is wholly inconsistent with a standard round.

The phrases "Single Bullet Theory" and "common sense" are mutually exclusive.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, if the single bullet theory is not correct then you have to find either two exit wounds that do not exist or start to postulate absurd things like ice bullets or bullet removal that we do not know about.

Like it or not, the evidence of the T3 back wound location is unchallenged, as determined by the holes in the clothes, 4 inches below the bottom of the collars and more than 3 inches below the SBT inshoot.

Since the back wound is too low to be related to the throat wound, we can only conclude the throat wound resulted from a shot from the front. No exit.

That's two entrance wounds, no exits, no rounds recovered during the autopsy.

Either the rounds were removed prior to the autopsy -- a possibility indicated in the FBI report on the autopsy re: "apparent" surgery to the head -- or the rounds dissolved.

These are not "theories". These are scenarios taken seriously by the autopsists during the autopsy before they were corrupted by news of the Magic Bullet.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article you reference is talking about a dart launcher.

It's not an article. It's the testimony of William Colby and Charles Senseney concerning the development of blood soluble technology used to "disseminate" paralytics and toxins.

Now we have to find either two bullets or two exit holes or two darts!

Care to read the entire testimony?

We can't find the darts because they dissolve and don't show up on x-ray or during the autopsy.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one more alternative...the single bullet theory is correct.

Please reconcile your "theory" with the bullet holes in JFK's clothing -- 3+ inches below any possible SBT inshoot -- plus the consensus observations of at least 15 T3 back wound eye-witnesses and two properly prepared medical documents locating the wound at T3.

Please show me the testimony that says the darts dissolve and the caliber of the darts.

I did.

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

Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which

would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

Colby: We have indeed.

Church: Does this pistol fire the dart?

Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is

obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a

normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by

electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a

small dart.

Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently?

Colby: Almost silently; yes.

Church: What range does it have?

Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100

meters.

Church: About 100 meters range?

Colby: Yes.

Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the

target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used.

There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in

various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which

potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved

designing a gun that could strike at a human target without

knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin

itself would not appear in the autopsy?

Colby: Well there was an attempt--

Church: Or the dart?

Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was

hit.

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...