Clint Hill debunks Paul Landis

[Benjamin Cole]

35 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The bullet never entered the back. That is what Humes observed. It left a divot at the surface. But did not enter. 

Didn't Humes say the bullet hole (or divot) in JFK's back went down at a 60 degree angle?

How does that make sense with no bullet hole at all? 

[Cliff Varnell]

Didn’t Humes eventually claim the bullet transited?

[Benjamin Cole]

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It should also be noted that Baden has long pretended Finck had no hands-on experience. This is a con he pulls so that people will believe his colleagues' claim the autopsy doctors were idiots, and incorrectly placed the bullet entrance on the back of the head. Finck lived a long time after Baden started playing this game. Unfortunately he moved to Switzerland and washed his hands of the matter. If he hadn't, and had confronted Baden on his slander, well,, that would have been interesting. 

Finck had been a peacetime Army autopsist in Germany, if memory serves, for a couple of years. 

And not a forensic pathologist. 

You would think for the murder of the US president...there could be better people to have do the autopsy. 

The description of the JFK autopsy is famous and unchallenged---harried, confusion, directions barked from nonprofessionals in the viewing area, film being destroyed, unorthodox procedures, but fundamental procedures undone, records destroyed afterwards, rank amateurs Hume and Boswell doing their Laurel and Hardy routines---and hardly inspires confidence regarding any conclusions. 

Baden may even be worse.

Did a bullet transit JFK or not? Who knows?  

JFK's body was not sectioned. X-rays did not show any bullets in the body. 

The Landis tale, if true, may answer the question. The bullet struck JFK, went in an inch or two, but was popped out by subsequent shot(s) that sent shock waves through JFKs body. That is what Landis suspects. 

The JFK throat wound? Perhaps a glass shard from the limo windshield, which exhibited a hole from a shot. 

The other answer is a bullet did transit JFK, as posited by the WC (but I do not think that bullet struck JBC). 

 

[Pat Speer]

58 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Citation please.

It's in Humes' testimony. He said it was a defect in the fascia that did not continue into the muscle. The fascia is the layer just below the skin. IOW, the "hole" they observed was just a few millimeters deep. Later, after finding out about the throat wound and  realizing they couldn't come to a single-assassin solution if the bullet failed to transit, they conjured up that the bullet somehow magically passed through the back and exited the throat without making a hole in the Trapezius muscle. It was a magic bullet, long before Specter came along and made it even more magical. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

It's in Humes' testimony. He said it was a defect in the fascia that did not continue into the muscle. The fascia is the layer just below the skin. IOW, the "hole" they observed was just a few millimeters deep.

Humes description is not consistent with a bullet that “did not enter,” as you put it.

The wound was shallow, there was a defect in the fascia, but that doesn’t mean the skin wasn’t broken.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Finck had been a peacetime Army autopsist in Germany, if memory serves, for a couple of years. 

And not a forensic pathologist. 

Finck said he took part in 200 autopsies, “many” involving gunshots.  Pet theorists always bash witnesses who don’t confirm their biases.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You would think for the murder of the US president...there could be better people to have do the autopsy. 

The description of the JFK autopsy is famous and unchallenged---harried, confusion, directions barked from nonprofessionals in the viewing area, film being destroyed, unorthodox procedures, but fundamental procedures undone, records destroyed afterwards, rank amateurs Hume and Boswell doing their Laurel and Hardy routines---and hardly inspires confidence regarding any conclusions.

Especially if you’re a pet theorist married to one scenario or another debunked by hard facts.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Baden may even be worse.

Did a bullet transit JFK or not? Who knows?  

We know the bullet didn’t transit — the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

JFK's body was not sectioned. X-rays did not show any bullets in the body. 

The Landis tale, if true, may answer the question. The bullet struck JFK, went in an inch or two, but was popped out by subsequent shot(s) that sent shock waves through JFKs body. That is what Landis suspects. 

If the bullet was so drastically undercharged how did it hit the target?

Was the shooter aiming at the sun?

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The JFK throat wound? Perhaps a glass shard from the limo windshield, which exhibited a hole from a shot. 

Glass shows up on X-rays.  JFK had a couple of inches of ripped trachea, burst blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 transverse processes.  No glass on x-ray, no bullet.

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The other answer is a bullet did transit JFK, as posited by the WC (but I do not think that bullet struck JBC). 

 

Thanks for the crypto Lone Nut garbage.

Edited September 14, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Joe Bauer]

One can only wonder how much more of a thorough, experienced and professional autopsy Earl Rose would have performed on JFK versus James Humes.

American forensic pathologist, professor of medicine, and lecturer of law Rose was the medical examiner for Dallas County, Texas, at the time of the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy.

Rose had performed hundreds if not thousands of autopsies, including surely many hundreds of gunshot victims and many of those being head shot victims.

Ever read Humes responses to the various JFKA investigation committees questions about his personal hands-on experience autopsying gunshot victims?

Ha. Just two that he could clearly remember. In Hawaii when he was stationed there? He then mumbles vaguely about "maybe" doing a few more in his San Diego duty.

Humes knew he was out of his league in this specific area of head gunshot wound examination.

Of course he asked for back up assistance. Hence the emergency call to Pierre Finck? And wasn't Finck an Army man?  Kind of embarrassing a Navy man having to call for help from an Army man?

Regardless, Dallas was much more quality experienced and staffed to have done a better autopsy on JFK.

Meanwhile, back at Bethesda, Finck helped, but Humes was the main man.

Heck, he didn't even make sure JFK's brain was weighed upon removal and had no clue as to why?

 

 

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Crane]

20 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

1932/1964:

They would have a hard time hanging him.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Humes description is not consistent with a bullet that “did not enter,” as you put it.

The wound was shallow, there was a defect in the fascia, but that doesn’t mean the skin wasn’t broken.

 

Let's be clear. The bullet broke the skin and broke the fascia. It did not "enter" the underlying muscle. Entering implies the whole bullet entered the body and was surrounded by tissue. Many "experts" have pushed that the bullet must have transited, because it "entered" and bullets don't just work their way out once in the body. Some even say that it is purported to have turned around within the body. What they miss, or refuse to see, is that Humes' testimony strongly suggests that the bullet never entered the body. 

I think Specter knew this, moreover. He took Humes' claim there was bruising on the front of the neck and spun it into their being brushing high on the back of the back, where the bullet slid between two muscles. This is a deception. Beyond that Humes noted no such bruising, there is only one muscle in the presumed location of the wound. 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Let's be clear. The bullet broke the skin and broke the fascia. It did not "enter" the underlying muscle. Entering implies the whole bullet entered the body and was surrounded by tissue.

You’re making the unsupported assumption the round was conventional.  Your dismissal of the Autopsists’ “general feeling” JFK was hit with a high tech weapon is wrongheaded.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Many "experts" have pushed that the bullet must have transited, because it "entered" and bullets don't just work their way out once in the body.

Again, the unsupported assumption of a conventional round.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Some even say that it is purported to have turned around within the body. What they miss, or refuse to see, is that Humes' testimony strongly suggests that the bullet never entered the body. 

Humes testimony strongly suggests the damage was done by a high tech round which dissolved.  That’s what they seriously considered with the body in front of them.

[Benjamin Cole]

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Finck said he took part in 200 autopsies, “many” involving gunshots.  Pet theorists always bash witnesses who don’t confirm their biases.

Especially if you’re a pet theorist married to one scenario or another debunked by hard facts.

We know the bullet didn’t transit — the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the throat wound.

If the bullet was so drastically undercharged how did it hit the target?

Was the shooter aiming at the sun?

Glass shows up on X-rays.  JFK had a couple of inches of ripped trachea, burst blood vessels, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, and an air pocket overlaying the right T1/C7 transverse processes.  No glass on x-ray, no bullet.

Thanks for the crypto Lone Nut garbage.

CV-

Try for a civil, collegial tone in your presentations.

The curious case of the JFK body and wounds, made worse by an opaque autopsy, do not compel objective observers to any particular theory. 

In fact, I suspect at least two shooters on 11/22, and that LHO was a CIA asset, as was the other shooter. 

The EF-JFKA can be a pleasant place that builds membership. 

[Vince Palamara]

12 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Wow. This is important. Thanks for sharing this.

My pleasure!

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

CV-

Try for a civil, collegial tone in your presentations.

I have little patience for those who habitually misrepresent the evidence.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The curious case of the JFK body and wounds, made worse by an opaque autopsy, do not compel objective observers to any particular theory. 

For example, the above pretends the evidence of a shallow T3 back wound and throat entrance simply doesn’t exist.  Ben, your willful dismissals do not compel respect.

[Michael Griffith]

On 9/13/2023 at 7:27 PM, Vince Palamara said:

HSCA attorney Belford V. Lawson*, in charge of the Secret Service area of the "investigation," is the author of a recently uncovered memo in regard to an interview with Nathan Pool conducted on 1/10/77 and headlined "POOL's CO-DISCOVERY OF THE 'TOMLINSON' BULLET." In the memo, Pool mentions the fact that TWO Secret Service agents were by the elevator, one of which " remained there throughout most or all of Pool's stay". Before we can catch our breath, a THIRD Secret Service agent enters the picture; although all these men were in the immediate vicinity of the discovery of the bullet, one particular agent "was within 10 feet when Pool recognized the bullet". According to Pool, the bullet was pointed, and he added that it "didn't look like it had hit anything and didn't look like it had been in anything".

Lawson felt that further development of Pool's testimony may reveal the following:

QUOTE: "A SECRET SERVICE AGENT WAS FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE ELEVATOR TO PLANT A BULLET; MAY LEAD TO AN IDENTIFICATION OF THAT AGENT..."

Pool Nathan 01.pdf (archive.org)

As chance would have it, while I was re-reading your book Survivor's Guilt yesterday, I came across the section on Pool and saw that I had highlighted large parts of it the first time I read it. Great stuff.

Pool's description of the stretcher bullet as pointed matches O. P. Wright's description. Ah, I can hear WC apologists now: They were both "mistaken."

[Vince Palamara]

On 9/15/2023 at 9:05 AM, Michael Griffith said:

As chance would have it, while I was re-reading your book Survivor's Guilt yesterday, I came across the section on Pool and saw that I had highlighted large parts of it the first time I read it. Great stuff.

Pool's description of the stretcher bullet as pointed matches O. P. Wright's description. Ah, I can hear WC apologists now: They were both "mistaken."

Thanks!