A Criticism of DVP

[Robert Prudhomme]

Another thing claimed by Jerrol Custer was that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many small fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

From the HSCA anaylsis of the cervical x-ray:

<quote>

On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the

region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because

of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because

these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I

assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that

this film was exposed.<quote off>

Custer was speaking of far more than two fragments.

At C3/C4...a result of the head shot/s, I'd reckon.

Its possible, though why there wouldn't be an equal number of fragments at C1 and C2 is a bit of a mystery, assuming the fragments would have travelled through the opening in the base of the skull, at the top of the spine, called the foramen magnum.

I was thinking they might have more to do with the projectile that entered the throat.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Cliff and Robert,

Do you believe the extant autopsy x-ray images are authentic? Why or why not? To the extent not, can an inauthentic image be used in any way legitimate to reconstruct bullet paths?

I have my own ideas. Because you are basing your interchange upon x-ray images, I'd like to know what you think about their authenticity.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Thomas Graves]

Cliff and Robert,

Do you believe the extant autopsy x-ray images are authentic? Why or why not? To the extent not, can an inauthentic image be used in any way legitimate to reconstruct bullet paths?

I have my own ideas. Because you are basing your interchange upon x-ray images, I'd like to know what you think about their authenticity.

Dear Mr. Tidd,

What are your own ideas?

Thank you,

--Tommy

[Robert Prudhomme]

Jon

Interesting question. I'm reading the deposition to the ARRB of Jerrol Custer (Bethesda x-ray technician) at the moment and seeing a couple of things I never noticed the first time through.

It seems Custer helped remove JFK from the shipping casket and assisted in laying him out on the dissecting table. Following this, he, his assistant and one of the FBI agents (not sure if Sibert or O'Neil) were kicked out of the autopsy room and made to wait for an hour until being summoned back to the autopsy to take his first x-rays. How many were still present in the theatre, while he was gone, who were not autopsy doctors or high ranking military brass is difficult to determine.

When he returned, he observed the "Y" incision had been made on JFK's abdomen and some, if not all, of the organs had been removed. He was unsure if the heart and lungs were removed by this point, but he did see one of the doctors dissecting JFK's liver.

If JFK's lungs had been removed, prior to his chest being x-rayed, the chest x-rays could be quite legitimate, yet not show a single fragment from a frangible bullet in JFK's right lung.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff and Robert,

Do you believe the extant autopsy x-ray images are authentic? Why or why not? To the extent not, can an inauthentic image be used in any way legitimate to reconstruct bullet paths?

I have my own ideas. Because you are basing your interchange upon x-ray images, I'd like to know what you think about their authenticity.

The only autopsy photographic image that hasn't come under withering critique is the cervical x-ray.

Since there may have been pre-autopsy surgery to the head, the head x-rays are not reliable.

The autopsy photos lack a chain of possession.

But since the cervical x-ray shows a pattern of damage consistent with a round that didn't exit, I can't cite a specific reason to dispute its authenticity.

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's say the bullets that caused the back wound and throat wound were removed before autopsy. (That seems to me the most likely explanation, given Humes's reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head as noted in the FBI report, i.e. the body was altered.) What would be the purpose of removing the bullets? Seems to me the logical explanation would be that the bullets were not fired from the patsy's brand of rifle. And this removal only became necessary when the lone-nut scenario was hastily put into effect. Otherwise there would been no need to alter the body at all. The official story would have been the true one: JFK was ambushed by a team of shooters. (The fiction would have been it was a team sent by Castro.) In sum, there is IMO a logical and likely explanation to this bullet mystery.

What weighs against its likelihood for me are the two defective rounds.

What are the odds of firing two conventional rounds, hit nothing but soft tissue, and neither exit?

You are referring to the back shot that went no where and the throat shot? yes and that would also be from 2 different shooters. Would seem like odds would be against it

If the tactical planning for the Dealey ambush featured a first-shot/kill-shot, the execution was nearly disastrous.

Not only was the first shot a short load but it hit the throat and not the head.

Second shot, short load and another miss, hitting JFK in the back.

The world's top shooters, stone cold killers.

Two shots, two misses, two defective rounds.

What are the odds of that?

That hound don't hunt in my book...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Let's say the bullets that caused the back wound and throat wound were removed before autopsy. (That seems to me the most likely explanation, given Humes's reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head as noted in the FBI report, i.e. the body was altered.) What would be the purpose of removing the bullets? Seems to me the logical explanation would be that the bullets were not fired from the patsy's brand of rifle. And this removal only became necessary when the lone-nut scenario was hastily put into effect. Otherwise there would been no need to alter the body at all. The official story would have been the true one: JFK was ambushed by a team of shooters. (The fiction would have been it was a team sent by Castro.) In sum, there is IMO a logical and likely explanation to this bullet mystery.

What weighs against its likelihood for me are the two defective rounds.

What are the odds of firing two conventional rounds, hit nothing but soft tissue, and neither exit?

You are referring to the back shot that went no where and the throat shot? yes and that would also be from 2 different shooters. Would seem like odds would be against it

If the tactical planning for the Dealey ambush featured a first-shot/kill-shot, the execution was nearly disastrous.

Not only was the first shot a short load but it hit the throat and not the head.

Second shot, short load and another miss, hitting JFK in the back.

The world's top shooters, stone cold killers.

Two shots, two misses, two defective rounds.

What are the odds of that?

That hound don't hunt in my book...

And you criticize me for presenting my theories as stone cold facts.......

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's say the bullets that caused the back wound and throat wound were removed before autopsy. (That seems to me the most likely explanation, given Humes's reference to pre-autopsy surgery to the head as noted in the FBI report, i.e. the body was altered.) What would be the purpose of removing the bullets? Seems to me the logical explanation would be that the bullets were not fired from the patsy's brand of rifle. And this removal only became necessary when the lone-nut scenario was hastily put into effect. Otherwise there would been no need to alter the body at all. The official story would have been the true one: JFK was ambushed by a team of shooters. (The fiction would have been it was a team sent by Castro.) In sum, there is IMO a logical and likely explanation to this bullet mystery.

What weighs against its likelihood for me are the two defective rounds.

What are the odds of firing two conventional rounds, hit nothing but soft tissue, and neither exit?

You are referring to the back shot that went no where and the throat shot? yes and that would also be from 2 different shooters. Would seem like odds would be against it

If the tactical planning for the Dealey ambush featured a first-shot/kill-shot, the execution was nearly disastrous.

Not only was the first shot a short load but it hit the throat and not the head.

Second shot, short load and another miss, hitting JFK in the back.

The world's top shooters, stone cold killers.

Two shots, two misses, two defective rounds.

What are the odds of that?

That hound don't hunt in my book...

And you criticize me for presenting my theories as stone cold facts.......

I'm critiquing the theory that JFK was hit with two short loads.

What facts am I leaving out?

That JFK was struck in the throat from the front is not a theory.

[Ron Ecker]

Let's handle the odds against two defective rounds this way. The back wound was a defective round. The throat wound was caused by a paralyzing, dissolving fletchette from an umbrella gun. (Remember that such a gun existed at the time, and we know that the umbrella man was playing some kind of game with his umbrella.)

Edited June 1, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

Let's handle the odds against two defective rounds this way. The back wound was a defective round. The throat wound was caused by a paralyzing, dissolving fletchette from an umbrella gun. (Remember that such a gun existed at the time, and we know that the umbrella man was playing some kind of game with his umbrella.)

Right church, wrong pew.

The Umbrella man was standing too far to JFK's right to account for the slightly left-to-right trajectory of the throat shot.

JFK's head was turned to the right circa Z190, with a laceration on the right side of the trachea, broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes.

And almost straight-on shot, slightly left to right.

Fits Black Dog Man to a tee, perhaps with one of these, developed by the same folks who developed the umbrella weapon.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

Edited June 1, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

Fits Black Dog Man to a tee, perhaps with one of these, developed by the same folks who developed the umbrella weapon.

Possible. But I just can't wrap my head around the idea that a shooter could fire a weapon in that position in broad daylight without someone seeing him do it. (In particular a carload of Secret Service agents who were facing that way at the time. Were they all complicit?) And even if he did shoot from that position with no one seeing him do it, why would they plan such a shot, on the seemingly wild assumption that "don't worry, no one will see him do it"?

Not only that, but he's photographed there, yet of all the people in the photograph, only he, as conspicuous as he is, is just some doglike blur. How did those conspirators get so lucky?

Edited June 1, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Ray Mitcham]

Let's handle the odds against two defective rounds this way. The back wound was a defective round. The throat wound was caused by a paralyzing, dissolving fletchette from an umbrella gun. (Remember that such a gun existed at the time, and we know that the umbrella man was playing some kind of game with his umbrella.)

Right church, wrong pew.

The Umbrella man was standing too far to JFK's right to account for the slightly left-to-right trajectory of the throat shot.

JFK's head was turned to the right circa Z190, with a laceration on the right side of the trachea, broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes.

And almost straight-on shot, slightly left to right.

Fits Black Dog Man to a tee, perhaps with one of these, developed by the same folks who developed the umbrella weapon.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

[Kenneth Drew]

Let's handle the odds against two defective rounds this way. The back wound was a defective round. The throat wound was caused by a paralyzing, dissolving fletchette from an umbrella gun. (Remember that such a gun existed at the time, and we know that the umbrella man was playing some kind of game with his umbrella.)

Right church, wrong pew.

The Umbrella man was standing too far to JFK's right to account for the slightly left-to-right trajectory of the throat shot.

JFK's head was turned to the right circa Z190, with a laceration on the right side of the trachea, broken blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1 and C7 transverse processes.

And almost straight-on shot, slightly left to right.

Fits Black Dog Man to a tee, perhaps with one of these, developed by the same folks who developed the umbrella weapon.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

'Well, except that shot would not have passed through the windshield where it did. I might also add that a shot from umbrella man would not have passed through that spot in the windshield.

[Ron Ecker]

A shot from the drain opening on the North side of Elm Street would suit your proposed trajectory.

Also I don't think Black Dog Man is far enough left for a left-to-right trajectory.

[Ron Ecker]

DELETED

Edited June 1, 2015 by Ron Ecker