Jump to content
The Education Forum

Rago's "Arlen Specter has passed away"


Mike Rago
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since it looks like this thread is devolving into a debate of the SBT...

The following is a primary source of data. (I mention this for all you historians)

It clearly shows that Connally reacts to his left as Kennedy is reacting to the bullet which struck him. That bullet (CE399) passed through Kennedy's neck and struck Connally on his left side(looks like he is swatting a bee with his hat). Connally was struck by a second bullet as he turned back to his right. The Single Bullet Theory is half right, the bullet did pass through Kennedy but it was not the bullet which caused all the damage to Connally.

I am confident because I rely on an interpretation of primary sources of data.

One thing is clear, the truth is on both sides of the isle. Some things the LN'ers have right and some things the CT'ers have right.

CE 399 caused big problems for Specter.

It would have been a lot easier to argue the SBT if CE 399 did not exist.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because there is no 302 you do not think the FBI interviewed him or the Secret Service.

You think Tomlinson lied about that. I do not think that is something that someone would lie about. I do not think he lied and I do not think that a reasonable person would think he lied about it.

You are trying to create a world that did not exist at that time. Thanks to Jack Ruby we never had a real, adversarial trial.

If you look at any adversarial trial you will see many places where exact investigative procedures were not followed. I suspect way more so then than now.

All you are discovering are the flaws in a system and trying to exploit them.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone says that everyone lied, like you do, that is like saying that all the photographic evidence is faked.

The less often you have to resort to someone lying the stronger your case. The more often you have to resort to someone lying the weaker your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am confident because I rely on an interpretation of primary sources of data.

No, you don't. Your Valley Girl fantasies about the photo evidence are a long way from "primary sources."

The bullet holes in the back of JFK's shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars.

That is not the back of the neck.

At least 15 witnesses with a prolonged view of the body described a wound in the back in the location of the bullet holes in the clothes, too low to allow any possibility of a round transiting thru the throat.

The back wound was probed at the autopsy with no lane of transit found. Three properly prepared contemporaneous documents also verify the T3 location of the back wound.

Those are primary sources of data.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been through this before Cliff. The HSCA said that autopsy doctors did not probe the wound properly.

"Probing the wound with a finger is hardly sufficient"

Look at item 5 in the list below.

(Click on image to enlarge)

medicalpanelconclusions.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone says that everyone lied, like you do, that is like saying that all the photographic evidence is faked.

The less often you have to resort to someone lying the stronger your case. The more often you have to resort to someone lying the weaker your case.

15 people described the back wound in a location consistent with the Third Thoracic vertebra, but according to Mike Rago they all got it wrong!

More than a half-dozen people at Parkland described the throat wound as an entrance, but according to Mike Rago they all got it wrong!

JFK had the most amazing wounds -- everyone who saw them suffered an identical hallucination!

Or were they just liars, Mike?

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have been through this before Cliff. The HSCA said that autopsy doctors did not probe the wound properly.

"Probing the wound with a finger is hardly sufficient"

Look at item 5 in the list below.

(Click on image to enlarge)

medicalpanelconclusions.png

Dr. Finck probed the wound with more than his finger.

From Floyd Reibe's ARRB depostion:

Q: Do you recall anyone having used any probes in the body during the autopsy?

A: I think Dr. Finck did for that wound in the back. But he didn't go in very far. And they didn't let it go from there.

Q: Do you recall whether a photograph was taken while there was a probe in the body?

A: I don't think so.

Q: Do you recall any probes in the head?

A: No. No, I don't recall that.

From Pierre Finck's ARRB deposition:

Q: Dr. Finck, do you recall having seen any x-rays at the time of the autopsy?

A: X-ray films of the head, yes. And I recall asking for more x-ray films and I don't remember when I saw them, probably during the autopsy. There was a radiologist present, and it was his job to interpret the x-ray films. But I am the one who asked for more x-ray films in addition to the ones of the head. That I recall.

Q: Why did you ask that additional x-rays be taken?

A: To detect the possibility of presence of projectiles in the body outside of the head,. The head had been x-rayed, and I wanted to have a more complete survey.

Q: Is this because you were attempting to locate the path of the bullet that entered in the upper thoracic?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you looked for the bullet, where was it that you were looking in the body?

A: Well, there was no bullet in the body, in addition to the fragments in the head, we did not see a bullet in other parts of the body and that was the reason for asking for more x-ray films, having an entrance and no exit at the time of the autopsy.

Q: At the time you concluded the autopsy, on the night of November 22nd-23rd, did you have any conclusion in your own mind about what had happened to the bullet that entered the upper thoracic cavity?

A: No. And that was the reason for the phone call of Dr. Humes the following morning, and he found out there was a wound of exit in the front of the neck. But at the time of the autopsy, we were not aware of that exit wound in the front of the neck.

Q: Can you explain to me why there was no prosector who apparently had believed that the thoracic wound would have exited from the throat? Why was it that that was not being considered as an option?

A: I don't know.

Q: Did you insert a probe into the wound in the back?

A: From what I remember, we tried at the time. It was unsuccessful.

Q: Did the angle of the probe show that the bullet, at least of what you were aware of at the time, went down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?

A: Can you repeat that?

Q: Sure. Did the angle of the probe when you inserted the probe into the wound, begin in a direction that pointed down into the thoracic cavity rather than out the throat?

A: I don't think I can answer the question, because we said the probing was unsuccessful. So how can I determine an angle if the probing was unsuccessful?

Q: How far into the wound did the probe go?

A: I don't know. We said it was unsuccessful from what I remember, and not how far it would go.

I note you have no answer for the holes in the clothes or the witness testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?

As I said, you think SS Agent Johnsen lied when he wrote this memo. I do not think that a reasonable person will think he lied when he wrote this memo.

richardjohnsen3.png

Lee is relying on typos now to support his case.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?

As I said, you think SS Agent Johnsen lied when he wrote this memo. I do not think that a reasonable person will think he lied when he wrote this memo.

richardjohnsen3.png

Lee is relying on typos now to support his case.

Mike, Johnsen's memo actually hurts the SBT. His description of the stretcher matches Ronnie Fuller's stretcher, not Connally's. If you'd have read Six Seconds in Dallas you'd have known this.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my whole point. The pristine bullet, no matter whose stretcher it was on does not help the SBT. That bullet caused more problems for conspirators. It was not planted. And if it was not planted then it would be very unlikely that a 6.5 mm full metal jack bullet, just like the ones used in the murder, would end up on some third party stretcher.

I do not believe that Johnsen is lying in that memo. I do not think that you are saying he is lying either.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, it may have been planted, but if it was, it was planted on the wrong stretcher.

I'm still on the fence after all these years.

I think it's possible it was switched by the FBI to frame Oswald.

But I also think it's possible it was the under-charged bullet creating Kennedy's back wound, and was found in the limo, or the driveway. And then planted on the wrong stretcher by someone who didn't want to get involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I also think it's possible it was the under-charged bullet creating Kennedy's back wound,

I also believe it was likely an undercharged bullet. But I believe it actually made it all the way through JFK. We know that witnesses say that shot did not sound like a shot, it sounded like a firecracker. (And we do not need any disappearing bullets)

I think an undercharged, slow moving bullet is consistent with what we see in the Zapruder film and consistent with CE 399's condition and being found on a stretcher.

Here is testimony that I find interesting from Dr Jones.

The Testimony of Dr. Ronald Jones.

Dr. Ronald Jones was one of the first doctors to see the president at Parkland Hospital.

He saw the neck wound before the tracheotomy was performed.

He says that the wound in the throat is consistent with an exit wound of a very low velocity missile.

Arlen Specter asked Dr. Jones if he saw any wounds. Dr Jones responded he saw a small wound in the neck no greater than a quarter inch in diamter.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds?

Dr. JONES - As we saw him the first time, we noticed that he had a small wound at the midline of the neck, just above the superasternal notch, and this was probably no greater than a quarter of an inch in greatest diameter, and that he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head.

Arlen Specter then asks Dr. Jones to describe the wound in the throat as precisely as he can.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the wound that you observed in the throat?

Dr. JONES - The wound in the throat was probably no larger than a quarter of an inch in diameter. There appeared to be no powder burn present, although this could have been masked by the amount of blood that was on the head and neck, although there was no obvious, amount of powder present. There appeared to be a very minimal amount of disruption of interruption of the surrounding skin. There appeared to be relatively smooth edges around the wound, and if this occurred as a result of a missile, you would have probably thought it was a missile of very low velocity and probably could have been compatible with a bone fragment of either--probably exiting from the neck, but it was a very small, smooth wound.

Dr. Jones says the wound in the neck is consistent with a very low velocity exit.

Mr. SPECTER - In this report, Dr. Jones, you state the following, "Previously described severe skull and brain injury was noted as well as a small hole in anterior midline of the neck thought to be a bullet entrance wound. What led you to the thought that it was a bullet entrance wound, sir?

Dr. JONES - The hole was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. If this were an exit wound, you would think that it exited at a very low velocity to produce no more damage than this had done, and if this were a missile of high velocity, you would expect more of an explosive type of exit wound, with more tissue destruction than this appeared to have on superficial examination.

Mr. SPECTER - Would it be consistent, then, with an exit wound, but of low velocity, as you put it?

Dr. JONES - Yes; of very low velocity to the point that you might think that this bullet barely made it through the soft tissues and just enough to drop out of the skin on the opposite side.

The very low velocity exit wound described by Dr. Jones is exactly consistent with the video clip below showing that the bullet which passed through JFK's neck then struck Connally on his left side(Connally hat flap where it looks like he is swatting a fly). And is also consistent with the condition of CE 399 as described by Pool and as shown in the NARA pictures. Connally was struck by a second bullet (which missed JFK completely) as Connally turned back to his right

Link to complete testimony of Dr. Ronald Jones

http://jfkassassinat...ony/jones_r.htm

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?

As I said, you think SS Agent Johnsen lied when he wrote this memo. I do think this is a lie and I do not think that a reasonable person will think he lied when he wrote this memo.

richardjohnsen3.png

Oh my sweet Lord.

You are a waste of space and a disgrace to this forum.

I agree. So why are people arguing with him????

Dawn

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...