John Dolva Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 More info on the "second bullet hole through the coat of JFK", please...maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but the only bullet hole I recall being discussed is the one which generated the "bunched/not bunched" controversy re: the back/neck wound...obviously, I've missed this...?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As have most. First, review the testimony of Dr. Humes when the coat of JFK was introduced into evidence. At this time, the coat had attached to it a "note'. I like to call it a "Note from Mom", actually it was my Grandma who I used to get to write those phoney notes to skip school in order to not miss the first hunting day of squirrel season; deer season; turkey season; watermelon season; whatever. The "Note" is now also one of those items which has been found missing from the National Archives. Nevertheless, the testimony of Dr. Humes will reveal the second hole, located just below the edge of the collar, in the coat of JFK. And, this hole penetrates the collar as well as the liner at an oblique tangent. It is the hole created by the third/last/final shot as the bullet passed through the slightly raised collar, exited and struck JFK at the edge of the hairline, with the back of the neck in virtually the horizontal position. Thereafter to continue on an approximately 12-degree downward angle into the skull of JFK approximately 2cm right and slightly above the EOP. Which by the way created the elongated entry wound into the skull of JFK. Thereafter, read Frazier's comments on the second hole and then we will will get down to the "real story" of the spectrographic examination of the clothing of JFK. NOT the hearsay evidence of "notes from mom" and what Frazier thought and reported. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello again, Mr. Purvis. I'd like to present to you a debate that took place between a fellow collaborator from Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's site and Dr. Kenneth Rahn, during the summer of 2001. I would like to hear your comments on it, if you would be so kind to go through it for me. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Mauro ******************************************************************** Chris (9/1/01 5:35 am) Reply <http://pub78.ezboard.com/ffletcherproutyfrm1.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=14.topic> Debating Assassination educator Ken Rahn Hi Everybody, I've been busy this summer but have still had time to participate in various arenas of the JFK case and thought I would share my correspondances with a Dr. Ken Rahn, who I mentioned before in the old forum as teaching a course on the JFK Assassination at the University of Rhode Island. He teaches this course as part of a "critical thinking" model in which his students are funneled toward a "LHO-could-have-easily-done-it-alone" conclusion. He has a website supporting his course located here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> Instead of an in-depth review, it appears to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review was as biased as anyone's based on what was shown in the "further thoughts" section of his course outline: 1. There is overwhelming physical evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. 2. There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved. 3. No other credible suspects, general or named, have emerged after 37 years of intensive investigation. Thus the exceedingly strong working hypothesis must be that Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. The logical and procedural errors of the critics and conspiracists are so clear and obvious that further discussion of conspiracy is no longer justified without solid new evidence. Given that no conspiracy has emerged in 37 years, there is no reason to expect the present situation to change (although it could at any time). Therefore the era of national soul-searching and angst that followed the JFK assassination and the distrust of the government it created were unnecessary and hurtful. The spotlight should have been turned inward on the critics rather than outward on the government. Recognizing these things, we are now ready to write the simple, clear, and true history of the assassination. Re: karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/...ughts.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Further_thoughts.html> Obviously, when the "teacher" puts statements like that into a course outline, the direction of that course has already been determined. As such, the students in the class already know what is necessary...though not necessarily correct...to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor's stated opinion would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that. Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated, confronted by the prestige of his professional standing. I believe we should hold our educators to high standards in their methodology. They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating a false history. And so, I decide to engage our esteemed Dr. Rahn in an evidence debate to see just how strongly he could hold up to a lowly alaskan wilderness guide in support of his university course objectives. ******************************************************************* Following is our email debate: 6/6/01 (9:25pm) Hi Mr. Rahn, My name is Chris Dolmar and I'm writing to you from the far south coast of Alaska. After studying the JFK event since about 15 when I saw a bootlegged copy of the Zapruder film shown on an early Geraldo Rivera tv show, I have personally come to the conclusion that the evidence surrounding CE 139 indicates that NOBODY, much less LHO could have performed the shooting skills required to accomplish the assassination as presented by the WC to the American people. WHAT THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ACTUALLY SHOWED: 1. The 2 sheriff's deputies who found a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was taken from the floor. 2. ALL identified it as a "7.65mm Mauser". Subsequent documents and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it that way. (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323) 3. CIA documents still identified it as a "Mauser", 4 days later. One of the officers, decorated deputy sheriff, Roger Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony before the Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had the word "MAUSER" stamped on the barrel. 4. Craig also told researchers that his WC testimony had been altered in 14 different places by WC counsel David Belin so that it appears "bland" in the 26 volumes. 5. Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also sold rifles while working for many years, in a sporting goods store and therefore, had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. 6. Police officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses. 7. The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this "problem" with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a "glance" at the weapon. 8. The tape recording of a news broadcast of November 22, 1963 on Dallas radio station K-BOX said: "Sheriff's deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty- five Mauser, a German-made Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three spent shells were found nearby." (CE 304) 9. Additionally, in his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins", Jim Garrison claims to have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day which he claims showed a police officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the 6th floor were missing from the FBI files on the Presidential assassination when presented to the WC. Those documents were: 1) DPD Lt. Carl Day's dictated memorandum on the weapon 2) Day's description to FBI S.A. Bardwell Odum 3) Odum's subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio 4) Constable Weitzman's original report to the FBI 5) DPD Detective C.N. Dhority's written report. The legal "chain of possession" of CE 139 was never properly established. The officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so. Neither identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally done some six hours later, at DPD Headquarters, after the weapon found had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly laid in the evidence room for several hours. What chain of possession that existed after that was again broken when the rifle was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., by FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain on the night of November 22nd, unaccompanied by any officer of the DPD. In 1963, even though threatening the President was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely an all too common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction, whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas Police officer to maintain the legal "chain of possession". The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal officers are very suspicious. This type of handling would have been questionable enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any trial of LHO. How fortunate they were that there was no trial. Despite all the controversy over the initial "misidentification" of the rifle, at no time did the WC show CE 139 to any of the Dallas law enforcement officers who found it and ask them, point blank, if CE 139 was the weapon that they had found. What they showed them were photographs, but not the weapon itself. Not one of those Dallas witnesses could positively state that the weapon in the photos was the weapon that they had found. Even today, you and I still can only see photographs of this infamous weapon at the National Archives. We cannot see nor measure the weapon itself. The paper bag found on the 6th floor showed no signs of any gunpowder residue nor any gun oil, and contained no verifiable fingerprints (a partial palm print that had some characteristics similar to Oswald's palm print was found. However, there were too few similarities for a legal match), according to the FBI examination conducted of it. The package's size was also too small to have contained CE 139, unless the rifle was broken down. (CE 1304) Next, when broken down, the weapon contained a number of sharp-edged parts which, logically, should have made some scratches, or tears in the paper, had it been in there. Not only were there no scratches or tears, they wasn't a single crease which the FBI could match to any part of CE 139. Basically, we find that there was no physical evidence that any gun had ever been inside the bag found on the 6th floor and alleged by the WC to have carried CE 139 from Irving, Texas to the TSBD that day. If the rifle was broken down for transport, its accuracy would have suffered further without the ability to be sighted-in after re-assembly . Military experts stated that a minimum of 10 shots would have been required, adjusting the scope after each, to re-sight any rifle for accurate shooting. Both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, the only people to have seen it, testified that the package LHO had in Frazier's car was no more than 26" in length, yet the longest part of CE 139, even when broken down was 34.8". (CE 1303) Frazier further testified that when Oswald laid the package in the back seat of the car, it took up less than half of the length of the seat. The back seat's total length was 62". Frazier also testified that when they arrived at work, Oswald took the package out of the back seat and, holding one end in the palm of his hand, tucked the other end under his arm. For the package Frazier saw to have contained CE 139, even broken down, would have required Oswald to have an arm length of over 36". Rather amazing for a man of 5' 9". (2 WCH 210-245) We see, therefore, that there was also absolutely no testimony corroborating the WCR conclusion about how Oswald allegedly got the rifle into the depository, either. How and why then was this conclusion drawn? While the Warren Commission Report used as evidence an FBI document (Dallas 89-43) which says that the FBI laboratory found the materials used to construct the paper bag entered into evidence to be consistent with materials found at the TSBD, and could have been constructed from them, researcher Livingstone in his book, "High Treason", shows another copy of that same said document which states that the materials were not similar. While there is no way to categorically determine which is the correct copy, there would appear to be no logical reason for the FBI to have revised the report to deny the similarities, then enter the incorrect one into evidence. However, if my belief that they altered evidence is correct, then changing the report from NOT SIMILAR, to SIMILAR, fits in quite nicely with that scenario. FBI tests of CE 139`s accuracy showed that the rifle was: 1) inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549), 2) carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560); [LHO was right-handed], and 3) unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, nor notated in any previous description of CE 139 (3 WCH Pg 440-445). Nothing resembling a shim was found at the TSBD, Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, or on his person, when arrested. During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military, or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 in the condition it was found, within the time frame established, and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle, and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else, crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.(3 WCH 390-430) In addition, the HSCA testimony of Firearms Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope: Mr. LUTZ: This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle. Mr. MCDONALD: Would you, in your opinion, classify it as an accurate scope? Mr. LUTZ: The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in, and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement, or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So, the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope. (HSCA Vol 1, pg 449) Why the HSCA experts did not use the real exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps, it was because the original examination by the FBI in 1963-1964 showed that CE 139 was inaccurate at 15 yards, or someone involved knew the shooting could not be duplicated using that weapon. Former HSCA Firearms Panel member Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that to his knowledge, no one had ever duplicated LHO's alleged shooting feats, using CE 139 in the condition it was found. Also, in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps sniper with combat experience in Vietnam, professional law enforcement officer, and world-class rifleman, states in his book, "Kill Zone", that even using his precise equipment loaded with matched rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place. It is very hard to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm St from the "sniper's window". Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way. In fact, efforts to duplicate the shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba, Israel, and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion: The shooting, as outlined by the Warren Commission, was virtually impossible! The time frames required were established by the FBI after the review and calculation of time between shots shown on the Zapruder film, also taking into consideration the time required to operate CE 139, and the view from the 6th floor. The HSCA findings concluded that only if Oswald had fired using open sights, could he have fired 3 shots accurately within the WCR time frames. No possible scenario that included any additional gunmen was ever considered, meaning all shots must have come from that rifle and during the designated time frames. DPD searches of Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, and his family's residence in Irving, failed to unearth any additional ammunition, or any cleaning supplies normally associated with the operation of a rifle. In fact, additional checks by agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, failed to find any evidence that either LHO, or Alec Hidell, had ever purchased any ammunition for the rifle, either. Yet, an FBI memorandum described the rifle, when presented to them, as being in "...a well-oiled condition...". Additional ammunition would have been needed to practice, and that same FBI memorandum, signed by Director J.Edgar Hoover himself, noted that an examination of the firing pin showed that "numerous" shots had been fired through CE 139. (CE 2974) Also, the three experts who first test-fired the rifle showed concern that the firing pin might break because it was rusted. (3 WCH 444) Ammunition isn't purchased one bullet at a time. The minimum would be a box of twenty. It would be inconsistent with the way LHO allegedly purchased the weapon for him to hide the purchase of the ammunition. And, rusted firing pins are not what one would consider suitable for a rifle being used in such a high profile political assassination...what if it broke on the first shot? FBI searches of every gun range in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area failed to come up with even a single shell casing that could be matched to CE 139. In all, literally millions of used casings were reviewed, and 13,000 possible Mannlicher-Carcano casings were recovered and compared. None ballistically matched CE 139. This lack of physical evidence came despite the testimony of several witnesses who told stories of a man, allegedly LHO, practicing at various ranges with a high-powered rifle, and being very visible doing so...in some cases going out of his way to draw attention to himself. The fact is, that the FBI could find absolutely no physical evidence which showed that LHO had ever purchased ammunition, or practiced firing CE 139. Yet again, in spite of this lack of evidence, not only did the WCR conclude that he had, but they also concluded that he became so good at shooting that he could make shots that documented experts could not. The length of CE 139 and the length of the rifle depicted in the ad allegedly used to order it, from the February, 1963 issue of American Rifleman Magazine, are significantly different. The weapon depicted in that ad, a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm Italian Carbine, model # C20-T750, is 36" long, assembled. This is the weapon reportedly shipped, on March 20, 1963 to: A. Hidell PO Box 2915 Dallas, Texas The length of CE 139 is 40.2" assembled and it is model # C20-750. Representatives of Kleins were unable to adequately explain these differences. (CE 773) Also, the FBI records of the length of the rifle they tested show 3 different figures, none of which was 36". (NOTE: the author owns a Mannlicher-Carcano of the same model as CE 139. Its length is 40.2") Klein's was also able to state how it was paid for (postal money order), when it was deposited, AND they were able to produce both the envelope it was received in, and the stamp used to mail the order to them! While the serial number of CE 139---C2766---was the same as that of the weapon shipped by Kleins to A. Hidell, the FBI discovered that, due to the manufacturing techniques used by Italy during World War II, this serial number was not necessarily unique to only one such weapon. In fact, it is possible that as many as 5 different rifles could have had the serial number C2766. The FBI eventually traced another Carcano, serial number C2766, to Canada. In addition, Scottish researcher, and friend Bill MacDowall, has done significant research in this area and has traced the rifle mailed by Kleins to A. Hidell, all the way back to its manufacture. He has found evidence that ALL identifying markings were supposedly removed prior to Kleins purchase of the weapon. Bill has written an extensive paper on this weapon and has made it available to be posted exclusively on this site. While evidence showed that the rifle from Kleins was shipped to the post office box of LHO, no one knows for sure who actually took possession of it, on its arrival. For Oswald to have received it, the Dallas Post Office would have needed to violate Postal Regulations since it was addressed to "Hidell", and it was Oswald's PO box. Amazingly, the FBI was able to track this weapon to the retailer (Kleins) even before S.A. Vince Drain actually took possession of it at 11:30 PM, that first night. This is truly amazing since, as late as 9:00 PM on the night of November 22nd, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, was still calling it a "Mauser", and other than the serial number, there was nothing to go on to search for its owner. That serial number was only worthwhile if the FBI knew the manufacturer, and in this case even that would not have been enough, since more than one Mannlicher-Carcano had that serial number. Yet, by 11:00 PM, government agents were already at Kleins to look up the purchase and shipping orders, despite the fact that the retailer would have been next-to-last on the possession time-line. Few of the eyewitnesses who testified that they saw a gun firing, from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, described anything similar to CE 139. Several felt that the weapon was an automatic rifle because of the speed of the firing, and those few witnesses who testified as to seeing a scope mounted on the rifle they saw, did not see the rifle actually being fired. There is no notation, anywhere within the twenty-six volumes of evidence that either, the DPD or FBI, ever tested CE 139 to see if it had been fired recently... they simply assumed that it had been fired that day. This, despite the fact that no one testified to smelling gunpowder, in or around, the "sniper's nest", and with no notations that forensic examinations of the boxes, showed any traces of gunpowder residue. Documents concerning what was recovered from the 6th floor all state that one live round was in the chamber when the rifle was found. One live round was also turned over to the FBI. The problems with this are generally overlooked. They are: 1) None of the witnesses who testified as to seeing the shots fired, spoke of seeing the shooter eject a round after the fatal head shot, thus meaning a spent cartridge, not a live round should have been in the chamber. 2) If the shooter did eject the fired round, why would he do it after moving away from the window? 3) And if he did so, why were all 3 casings allegedly recovered together? If it was LHO who did this, we must factor in the additional delay that ejecting the final spent round, for reasons unknown, would have on his ability to wipe the gun clean of prints, hide it, and still be on the first floor no more than 90 seconds after firing the fatal shot. Do you have any opinions, input, feedback, or any other comments relating to these issues concerning CE 139 as I have expressed them? Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ***************************************************************** Rahn's response: 6/11/01 (11:03am) Dear Chris, Thanks for your note. I just returned from two weeks of traveling and found it last night. I do indeed have much to say about your views, but I don't know when I will get time enough. Basically, you are emphasizing the apparent negatives and avoiding all the positive physical evidence that shows that the assassination was an easily doable feat. I urge you to take more time on the sites maintained by John McAdams and me. More later, but I don't know quite when. Best regards, Ken Rahn Kenneth A. Rahn Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, USA ***************************************************************** My 2nd email to Rahn: 6/28/01 (2:14am) Hello Mr. Rahn, No doubt you are a busy man as I am, but I thought I would maintain our correspondance regarding CE 139. I think as was outlined in my initial email to you, that the ability of THE WEAPON itself, is in serious question as to whether it (CE 139) could have been remotely mechanically capable of accomplishing the accuracy attributed to it by the SBT & WC, the shooting skills of the alleged assassin, notwithstanding. The only way the assassination "could have been an easily doable feat", as you stated to me previously, is if LHO had acted like the Lone Gunman that the WC portrays him as, and taken the Best Percentage shot he had - which was a straight away, dead-on, head shot at Kennedy - as the limousine was traveling down Houston Street - almost straight at him - before it took the dog-leg left turn onto Elm Street. But, being that LHO was, allegedly, using a rifle (CE 139) which the FBI determined was: 1. INACCURATE at 15 yards. 2. Had a scope mounted for a LEFT-handed shooter (LHO was a RIGHT-handed shooter). 3. And, was missing 2 metal shims that further compromised its accuracy. 4. That LHO, the lone gunman, STILL passed up "The Perfect Shot" on Houston Street, for a tree-filtered, going-away, MUCH lower-percentage shot, on Elm Street? 5. Why did LHO pass on the EASY Houston Street shot? 6. - and let's not debate the difficulty of the Houston & Elm Street shots: a. The Houston Street shot would have been, BY FAR, the EASIEST shot for ANY shooter in the, alleged, "sniper's nest" of the TSBD~especially a "lone nut assassin", who (in his mind) would have known that ONLY HE would have a chance to kill the president. b. Knowing that as a lone assassin, in your opinion, Mr. Rahn, why didn't LHO take the high percentage, easy shot on Houston Street? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's response: 6/28/01 (5:28am) Chris, I cannot pretend to get inside Oswald's head. I can only say that the shot on Houston Street has a couple of obvious disadvantages: The Secret Service agents would be looking right at him. And, Gov. Connally would have blocked much of Kennedy's body. I think I also heard something about the metallic "rollbar" blocking something as well, but I can't really remember. I believe you are overstating the inaccuracy of the rifle. But, your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle, to the exclusion of all others. We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically. In general, I think that it is an error to start asking "Why?", too soon. First, we settle what happened, and only then do we worry about why. Ken Rahn ****************************************************************** My Followup email to Rahn: 8/25/01/ (2:53pm) Hello Mr. Rahn, It's been a couple of months since we corresponded. This is the biggest push of the year, business-wise, for me and thus my infrequent exchanges. I thought I would continue our correspondance regarding some of the issues you last mentioned. You said: " But your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle to the exclusion of all others." From what I can ascertain, allegedly, no human matter of any kind was found on CE 399 despite the necessary assumption that it had caused numerous wounds, nor was it recovered from either victim's body. It, therefore, could not be scientifically linked to either, Kennedy or Connally. In fact, in what appears to be an effort to hide this, the WC leads FBI S.A. Robert Frazier through contradictory testimony about CE 399. (WCH 3, Pgs 228-244) He finally states, however, that even under microscopic examination, no blood nor human tissue was found. No striation marks (tiny scratches) were found by the FBI on the bulbous, undamaged nose of CE 399, despite allegedly going through JFK's jacket, shirt, possibly nicking his tie, JBC?s jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket, jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket and pants. Striation marks, around the nose, are common even when bullets are fired only into cotton for ballistic comparison purposes. Because of this, CE 399 cannot scientifically be determined to have gone through either man's clothes, much less both. No traces of copper were found on JFK's tie. This is very inconsistent with the copper traces found in the other clothes and/or wounds of both men. CE 399 is copper jacketed. If traces of copper were found on JFK's suit (entrance), and in JBC's wounds (entrance and exit), logic would dictate that there should be traces on the tie (JFK exit), IF they were caused by the same bullet, or even the same type of bullet. In addition: The testimony of every one of the autopsy doctors and the physician who treated Connally at Parkland, stated that none of them could believe that CE 399 could have caused all the wounds because of its "pristine" condition and because too much metal was removed or remained in the victims. Their testimony on this point was unequivocal. (2 WCH 374-375, 382; 4 WCH 109, 113-114) Dr. Shaw's testimony about the wound in JBC's thigh (4 WCH 109-135) is extremely important yet, almost always overlooked. For the SBT theory to hold up, the wound to Connally must have been made by the complete bullet (CE 399) which later "fell out". The wound must therefore show these characteristics. Shaw's testimony, while ambiguous on this point, appears to describe the wound as being made by a fragment, not a complete bullet. CE 399 is not a fragment, and the largest fragment that could have come from it would have been no more than 3 grains, hardly large enough to cause a treatable wound. Additionally, Dr. Shaw has told researcher Livingstone that the thigh wound was indeed caused by a fragment, larger than 5 grains. The Parkland Hospital report on Connally (CE 392), appears to corroborate this point, and Dr. Shaw again identified the thigh wound as being made by a fragment in the NOVA documentary, "Who Killed President Kennedy?". This seriously undermines the theory that CE 399 fell out of JBC's leg while he was on the stretcher, and that CE 399 caused all his wounds. In addition, fragments too large to have come from CE 399 show up in X-rays of Connally. Parkland nurse, Audrey Bell, described these fragments as, "Anywhere from 3-4 millimeters in length by a couple of millimeters wide." (Dallas Morning News interview, 4/1/77) Finally, Dr. Charles Gregory, who worked on Connally, testified (6 WCH 122-123) that he saw multiple fragments that were large enough for him to determine their color. Darrel Tomlinson, the Parkland hospital employee who recovered the bullet from a stretcher in the hall of the emergency room, required much cross-examination by Commission counsel Arlen Specter before he would say that it was even possible that the stretcher in question was the one that carried John Connally. His initial, and vigorously maintained testimony was that the bullet he found came from a stretcher that had not been used by either, Connally or Kennedy (6 WCH 130-134). He has stood by that contention ever since. (NOVA, November 15, 198?) Neither Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen, nor Secret Service Chief J.J. Rowley, the first four people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher, could later identify CE 399 as that bullet, leaving open the possibility that another bullet was originally found and CE 399, a ballistic match to CE 139, was substituted to implicate LHO. This would have been possible, since many hours passed before the proper chain of possession was established. (CE 2011) But you fail to backup your statement, "We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically.", with any available supporting source references concerning this issue. CE 567 and CE 569---Two bullet fragments, one from the front of a bullet, the other from the rear of a bullet. They were supposedly found, on the night of November 22-23, 1963, inside the President's limousine while it was being searched at the White House Garage. Secret Service agents, allegedly, found both of these fragments on the floor, near the front seat. Each fragment was ballistically linked to CE 139, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.--- However, I find NO source references concerning this evidence anywhere that they could be linked, in any fashion, to any of the other fragments removed from either victim, nor could they be scientifically linked to either victim. Please list official source references for me to review concerning this issue. So, as can be seen, there is NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY, and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, to support the KEY WCR conclusion that: "All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all the wounds." I have spent some time browsing your website, Dr. Rahn, and I couldn't help but notice that at the bottom of your 1st page, you state: "My JFK course at the University of Rhode Island takes this academic approach. Each year it enlightens a significant fraction of the students who take it, often with striking results. That is also the goal of this web site - enlightenment though proper academic procedures. I welcome any and all reactions from readers, and will post them for all to see." When I went to view your "Reactions from Readers" link, I was disappointed to see the most recent exchange of messages was posted from Aug 30, 2000 -almost a year ago - and thought I would suggest you update your link to that page, perhaps starting with our exchange. I think visitors, to that particular link on your site, would enjoy seeing that debates over differences of opinions (and, on reaching critical-thinking conclusions) on issues surrounding this case, can be discussed in a courteous and respectful manner, even between a renowned university professor and a simple Alaskan wilderness guide, and judge for themselves which one of us is displaying true critical-thinking skills over the issues being debated. Thank you for taking time to debate these issues with me. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's last reply: 8/25/01 (8:00pm) Chris, Please understand that I didn't let, "Replies from Readers" go because I wanted to. It was a casualty of general workload, including preparing the big monograph on NAA, which was a huge undertaking but very important to the JFK case. Also, the kinds of messages you write, with many questions and weak premises, take hours to answer properly. I seldom have that amount of time to spare these days. Lastly, if you are implying that I am not thinking critically in my class and my writings, I am out of this discussion immediately. I will discuss things, but I will not be put under the gun. Ken Rahn ************************************************************ And my most recent reply to Rahn: 8/28/01 (5:03am) Good Morning Mr. Rahn, I just finished reading your reply to my last email to you. I did not mean to put you on the defensive, and had thought that according to your WORLD WIDE WEBSITE that you defined your course analysis of the JFK as an objective one. Oh yes, Dr. Rahn, I have spent a considerable amount of my leisure time examining your site, and have thus directed my own VERY OBJECTIVE queries to you regarding THE EVIDENCE in a courteous, albeit, professional manner, as you might review throughout our correspondances. Your last response does you no justice as far as confronting the issues I brought forth backed up with solid, supporting WC, and/or HSCA testimony and evidence. "weak premises"????? Are you accusing me of providing false source references to you concerning the issues we have been debating? Please elaborate and don't try to tell me it would take hours, as I drafted my email to you in less than one hour, referencing everything with which you've confronted me concerning the issues I've brought forth to you with WC, and/or HSCA recorded testimony/evidence. In most of my emails I have not asked questions, simply provided the FACTS. If I asked you for source references regarding your unsupported replying statements to me - you should have been able to reference them, and cut & pasted them into your reply emails to me in a matter of minutes. After all, you're an acknowledged expert on the case and happen to have the ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY of providing AN OBJECTIVE presentation of the assassination events to numerous generations of our impressionable youth, some of whom may one day become leaders in various fields in our country. I waded through your very dated, "Reactions From Readers", page and enjoyed it very much. But, am I willing to bet (and, to be honest with you, I'm not a wagering man) that OUR CORRESPONDENCES will never see the light of day on any "Reactions From Readers" page on your website because you CANNOT (and SO FAR REFUSE) to refute ANY of the issues I have confronted you with in an OBJECTIVE way that would do justice to your website statement: "I can state with surety, and will demonstrate in the coming months, that anyone in command of the core physical data, and the principles of critical thinking, can circumscribe the right answer to the assassination in a matter of minutes." BUT YOU TOLD ME it would take HOURS to answer my questions???? I didn't really pose many questions to you, JUST FACTS, that you for one reason or another, REFUSE to refute. WHY? For example, (from our last correspondance): "But you fail to backup your statement: 'We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments, chemically.', with any available supporting source references concerning this issue." Is this an issue you can't support with any verifiable source references? C'mon DR. Rahn, you're an educator of this case - BACK IT UP, OR DON'T TELL ME my "premises" are "weak". When you take on the responsiblity of educating college students (WHO ARE PAYING YOU TO BE OBJECTIVE) then at least assume that responsibility, OBJECTIVELY, as you CLAIM you are. Your defensive attitude reeks of an official who thinks his "credentials" automatically enable him to preach his "gospels" in a manner that is unquestionable. Please, OBJECTIVELY, respond to my very ACCURATE source references concerning the FEW issues we have debated, in a professional manner, so that I may ponder ALL my "weak premises". Thank you for taking time to consider my statements. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ From: Chris Dolmar To: Kenneth A. Rahn 8/28/01 (5:35am) Dear Dr. Rahn, I thought I would add a list of "objective" source references concerning various issues of this case for you to review. Although, they are manied and varied, as an objective historian of the case, they merit review. Sources and Notes: Oswald: Michael Benson, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination" (New York: Citadel Press, 1993), pp. 124, 329-352; John M. Newman, "Oswald and the CIA" (Carroll & Graf, 1995) Paul Brancato, "Coup d'etat" illustrated card set (Forestville, California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 1, 7, 10. Although we often assume that most of the American public initially accepted the lonegunman scenario, some of the following source references show that this was not necessarily the case. Public doubt: Paul B. Sheatsley and Jacob J. Feldman, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public", National Opinion Research Center, [stanford University Press, 1965] (a large majority expressing doubt over Oswald's guilt). For sources of public opinion for the period Nov. 1963 through Feb. 1977, see: "Studies of Public Reactions," items 1673-1714, DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone, "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979" [Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 198 pp. 174-177; hereafter cited as Guth and Wrone 174-177.] It's also interesting to note that on Sunday, Nov. 24, 1963, soon after Oswald had been shot, Gordon McClendon, owner of Dallas radio station KLIF, reported the following from Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, where 40,000 spectators were attending the Dallas Cowboys-Cleveland Browns football game: "People seem to think that the Dallas Police Department really had the wrong man, or that Oswald was being held for want of a better suspect...No one here that we've talked to -- taxi drivers, hotel employees, the various people we've had an opportunity to be around since we arrived here yesterday afternoon -- no one really thought that Oswald was the guilty party." ("The Fateful Hours: a Presentation of KLIF News in Dallas," Capitol Records, 1964; reissued on audiotape by KLIF, 1993.) For sources of public opinion just before and after the release of the Oliver Stone film; "JFK", see: Kenneth Auchincloss, "Twisted History," Newsweek Dec. 23, 1991, p. 46, and Ted Gest and Joseph Shapiro, "JFK: The Untold Story of the Warren Commission," U.S. News & World Report Aug. 17, 1992, p. 29. No "credible" evidence: Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) p. 374; hereafter cited as R 374. Official doubt: Chairman Warren: William M. Blair, "Warren Commission Will Ask Mrs. Oswald to Identify Rifle Used in the Kennedy Assassination," New York Times Feb. 5, 1964, p. 19; Richard Bartholomew discussion with Clint Richmond, Mar. 5, 1997; Commissioners Russell, Cooper and Boggs: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies [senate Report 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, Final Report, Book V] p. 80; cited in Bernard Fensterwald, "Coincidence or Conspiracy" (New York: Zebra Books, 1977) pp.74-75 (hereafter cited as Fensterwald 74-75); Edward Jay Epstein, "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (New York: Viking, Jun. 1966) pp. 149-50, (Bantam, Oct. 1966) p. 122; see also Fensterwald 86, 91, 96, 99; Commissioner McCloy: Hearings Before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. XI (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979) note 11 at p. 14; hereafter cited as 11 HH 14 n.11; see also Fensterwald 86; Griffin statements: Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, "The Declassification of Dealey Plaza: After Thirty Years, A New Disclosure Law At Last May Help To Clarify the Facts of the Kennedy Assassination," South Texas Law Review, Vol. 34:407, Oct. 1993; later published in "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" (ARCA), The Fourth Decade, Special Edition, 1994, pp. 411-12 n.8; hereafter cited as Sanders and Zaid 411-12 n.8; President Johnson: Walter Cronkite interview, CBS News, broadcast on Apr. 25, 1975 (President Johnson's doubt); see also Fensterwald 76, 124; FBI policy: Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, v. V) p. 99 ; cited hereafter as 5H 99 (Hoover?s policy); see also Sanders and Zaid, p. 412 n.11. Evidence problems: Robert Sam Anson, "They've Killed the President!" (New York: Bantam, 1975) p. 356; hereafter cited as Anson 356; Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993) pp. 58, 60-61, 69; hereafter cited as Scott 58, 60-61, 69; Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew, "The Gun that Didn't Smoke" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 19, November-December 1997); Karen Gullo, "No JFK Shirt Material on Bullets," Associated Press, January 21, 2000, (AP-NY-01-21-00 1120EST, www.wire.ap.org/); <http://www.wire.ap.org/);> Joe Backes, "Backes responds to NARA's blundered test report, and Gullo's AP piece" (self published critique, January 21, 2000, 19:32:42 EST); Charles E. O'Hara, "Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation" (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas Books, 1956, 1970, 2nd ed., 2nd printing) pp. 5-6, 30, 67, 69, 80, 197, 199, 438, 450, 493, 562, 575, 681, 684-85, 687; hereafter cited as O'Hara with page number(s). As if speaking to the crime-scene investigators of the JFK assassination, O'Hara wrote the following in a brief preface to his second edition: "On review, however, it would appear that insufficient attention had been given to the role of the investigator in establishing the innocence of persons falsely accused. It was thought that this aspect of investigation was too obvious to stress; that the continued insistence on objectivity and professionalism in the investigator's conduct should meet this requirement. After all, the process of establishing innocence is hardly separable from the task of detecting the guilty. One does not, that is to say, prove guilt by the method of exhaustion." (O'Hara vii) See also: Walt Brown, Ph.D.,"The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald" (Carroll & Graff, 1994). "Two Oswalds": John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee," A lecture by John Armstrong, including text and documents; Introduction by Jim Hargrove (Self published, 199 100 pgs.; Deb Riechmann, "Tape: Call on JFK wasn't Oswald," Associated Press, Nov. 21, 1999, 1246EST; Joe Nick Patoski, "The Two Oswalds," Texas Monthly magazine, November 1998, pp. 135, 160. Conflicting single bullet theories: Warren Commission: Sanders and Zaid 410-12 n.8; House Committee: Guth and Wrone xxvii-xxx; American Bar Association: Gerald Posner, "Case Closed" (New York: Random House, 1993) p. 317, 326,-35, 474, 477, 478-79; hereafter cited as Posner with page number(s) (Posner's theory is taken from the American Bar Association Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald prosecution single bullet theory. It was presented uncritically and without credit to the A.B.A. by Posner. The entire, unabridged transcript of the 1992 American Bar Association's two-day mock trial presentation: "The United States v. Lee Harvey Oswald" can be found in American Jurisprudence "Trials" Volume 56, published by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing). JFK and Vietnam: L. Fletcher Prouty, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1992); John M. Newman, "JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue and the Struggle for Power" (New York, NY, 1992), CIA - Oil industry & Wall Street connections: Darwin Payne, "Initiative in Energy: Dresser Industries, Inc. 1880-1978" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), Appendix C; Donald Gibson, "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994) The Assassination and Academic History: Michael L. Kurtz (is a Professor of History at Southeastern Louisiana University and has taught a course on the assassination for several decades), "Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian?s Perspective"(University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 2nd ed); Kenneth A. Rahn, "The Academic JFK Assassination Website": karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html<http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> which supports the University of Rhode Island's Political Science course: "The JFK Assassination." The Assassination in the Media: Dr. George Michael Evica produces a weekly half-hour radio program on the assassination and related matters, "Assassination Journal," which is broadcast by the University of Hartford's radio station WWUH. It is the Longest-Running Public Affairs Program in the United States. Live webcasts are broadcast every Tuesday from 12noon-12:30pm EST & repeated(sameday)from 8:30-9:00pm EST at: uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/<http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/> The program focuses mainly on the JFK assassination, but has covered coups, murders, and mysteries such as TWA 800, the Gulf War Syndrome, and the failed war on drugs. Dr. Evica is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Hartford, Connecticut. He has been interested in the JFK assassination from its inception. He is the author of one book, "And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence And Analysis In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy," published in 1978 by the University of Hartford. For several years he was Editor of "Assassination Chronicles", published by JFK Lancer, Inc., in Dallas, Texas. During the last decade, he has published several articles and has lectured at many JFK conferences. Len Osanic, "Black Ops Radio", webcast live: Thurdays, 6pm PST / 9pm EST Call in... 1 604 525- 4167, see: www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm <http://www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm> Misc. Assassination-related topic sources: David G. Armstrong, "Where Was George?," Austin Chronicle, February 28, 1992, pp. 20-22; Richard Bartholomew, "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy" (self-published manuscript, 1993, p. 63; Fair Play Magazine, Issue 17, July-August 1997). Malcolm Wallace Fingerprint: John Kelin, "JFK Breakthrough?", (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 23, July-August 1999 ; "A. Nathan Darby's Affidavit" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 24, September-October, 1999; Barr McClellan, "Mac Wallace Update: Statement Regarding Print Evidence" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 28, May-June 1999). And finally, a couple of notes to conclude with: Let's consider that a bullet fired from the 6th floor window of TSBD entered the back of JFK's head and killed him. The building in question was horizontally located to the President's rear, while the 6th floor of that building was considerably, vertically above the President's head. Therefore, any such bullet must have entered the President's head from above and behind. That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President's injuries were published at the time, but the Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) did provide drawings (which can also be found in James H. Fetzer's, Ph.D. [editor] "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK", p 38, Catfeet Press, 199. Since these illustrations are published in the Warren Report, we must assume they are official and accurate portrayals of the President's injuries. The drawings of the head wound do therefore, appear to show a trajectory from above and behind, as the official account requires. In what I consider to be a solid study of the most basic evidence in this case by Stewart Galanor for his work "Cover-Up" (Kestrel Books, 199, he has juxtaposed the official WC drawing with frame 312 of the Zapruder film, which the WC itself regarded as the instant before the fatal head shot incident to frame 313, with the following result: when the images of the WC head wound drawing and Zapruder frame 312 are super-imposed over each other and the President's head is properly positioned, the WC's own drawing displays an upward rather than downward trajectory. If the official WC drawing of the injury to the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President's head wound was sustained from a hit from above and behind cannot be true. The Zapruder film itself confirms this. Let's also consider that the bullets that hit JFK & JBC were fired by LHO using a high-powered rifle, which the WC also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. The President's death certificates, The Warren Report, articles published in the Journal of the AMA, as well as other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high velocity missiles. (Some of these articles are reprinted in Fetzer's, "Assassination Science") The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only weapon that LHO is alleged to have used to kill the President, but the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon: its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 fps indicates that it qualifies as a medium to low velocity weapon. This issue is especially noteworthy, because the extensive and severe damage sustained by JFK's skull and brain, could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind. The ammunition that LHO is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round which is supposed to have been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears as CE 399. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but pass through the body leaving a fairly clean, small wound, as far as bullet wounds go. I In other words, this type of ammo does not explode on impact. Yet, if you examine the lateral cranial X-ray of the President's head, it reveals an obvious and definitive pepper-like display pattern of metallic debris which classically exhibits the effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind LHO was alleged to have used. The axis of the debris in the above mentioned X-ray also appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley's, Ph.D. "The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries", The Third Decade (March 1993) pp 1-15, in David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. research on the X-rays published in James Fetzer's "Assassination Science"(199, in his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in his present study of the medical evidence. The major fatal trauma the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high velocity weapons. Any comments? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ****************************************** <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. This article is considerably more "long winded" than even I am. 2. I pay absolutely no attention to Col. Fletcher Prouty, considering my limited experience with "real" covert opns warriors such as Col. Bull Simons, as well as still having a very close personal friend (Full Colonel) serving in Special Operations Forces.*, to include many, many others, Pentagon Coffee makers "don't impress me much". *Dumb-A**, retired full Colonel, volunteered for re-activation and is now again serving in Iraq. 3. Bullets can and do continue to amaze persons with what they achieve in human injury. A review of "Every Bullet has it's Billet" will provide insight into this. And, the mv of approximately 2,360 fps is considered as medium to the lower range of high on the velocity scale if recalled correctly. As regards the Carcano, any serious researcher should know that it carries the name of the "Italian Mauser". It is in fact built on the Mauser design. 4. Ken Rahn is one of those "rigid" researchers who can not seem to see or grasp that we are dealing with humans. Physical Science may be exact, and as I have frequently informed him, the NAA is quite accurate. Still does not mean that the SBT is fact. Tom Tom, I don't want to distract from other things, but I wonder if you could point to a comprehensive description/discussion of the rifle and scope as it was when found, prior to any adjustments/testing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted November 1, 2005 Author Share Posted November 1, 2005 More info on the "second bullet hole through the coat of JFK", please...maybe I'm not thinking clearly, but the only bullet hole I recall being discussed is the one which generated the "bunched/not bunched" controversy re: the back/neck wound...obviously, I've missed this...?? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> As have most. First, review the testimony of Dr. Humes when the coat of JFK was introduced into evidence. At this time, the coat had attached to it a "note'. I like to call it a "Note from Mom", actually it was my Grandma who I used to get to write those phoney notes to skip school in order to not miss the first hunting day of squirrel season; deer season; turkey season; watermelon season; whatever. The "Note" is now also one of those items which has been found missing from the National Archives. Nevertheless, the testimony of Dr. Humes will reveal the second hole, located just below the edge of the collar, in the coat of JFK. And, this hole penetrates the collar as well as the liner at an oblique tangent. It is the hole created by the third/last/final shot as the bullet passed through the slightly raised collar, exited and struck JFK at the edge of the hairline, with the back of the neck in virtually the horizontal position. Thereafter to continue on an approximately 12-degree downward angle into the skull of JFK approximately 2cm right and slightly above the EOP. Which by the way created the elongated entry wound into the skull of JFK. Thereafter, read Frazier's comments on the second hole and then we will will get down to the "real story" of the spectrographic examination of the clothing of JFK. NOT the hearsay evidence of "notes from mom" and what Frazier thought and reported. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hello again, Mr. Purvis. I'd like to present to you a debate that took place between a fellow collaborator from Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's site and Dr. Kenneth Rahn, during the summer of 2001. I would like to hear your comments on it, if you would be so kind to go through it for me. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Terry Mauro ******************************************************************** Chris (9/1/01 5:35 am) Reply <http://pub78.ezboard.com/ffletcherproutyfrm1.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=14.topic> Debating Assassination educator Ken Rahn Hi Everybody, I've been busy this summer but have still had time to participate in various arenas of the JFK case and thought I would share my correspondances with a Dr. Ken Rahn, who I mentioned before in the old forum as teaching a course on the JFK Assassination at the University of Rhode Island. He teaches this course as part of a "critical thinking" model in which his students are funneled toward a "LHO-could-have-easily-done-it-alone" conclusion. He has a website supporting his course located here: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> Instead of an in-depth review, it appears to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review was as biased as anyone's based on what was shown in the "further thoughts" section of his course outline: 1. There is overwhelming physical evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. 2. There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved. 3. No other credible suspects, general or named, have emerged after 37 years of intensive investigation. Thus the exceedingly strong working hypothesis must be that Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone. The logical and procedural errors of the critics and conspiracists are so clear and obvious that further discussion of conspiracy is no longer justified without solid new evidence. Given that no conspiracy has emerged in 37 years, there is no reason to expect the present situation to change (although it could at any time). Therefore the era of national soul-searching and angst that followed the JFK assassination and the distrust of the government it created were unnecessary and hurtful. The spotlight should have been turned inward on the critics rather than outward on the government. Recognizing these things, we are now ready to write the simple, clear, and true history of the assassination. Re: karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/...ughts.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Further_thoughts.html> Obviously, when the "teacher" puts statements like that into a course outline, the direction of that course has already been determined. As such, the students in the class already know what is necessary...though not necessarily correct...to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor's stated opinion would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that. Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated, confronted by the prestige of his professional standing. I believe we should hold our educators to high standards in their methodology. They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating a false history. And so, I decide to engage our esteemed Dr. Rahn in an evidence debate to see just how strongly he could hold up to a lowly alaskan wilderness guide in support of his university course objectives. ******************************************************************* Following is our email debate: 6/6/01 (9:25pm) Hi Mr. Rahn, My name is Chris Dolmar and I'm writing to you from the far south coast of Alaska. After studying the JFK event since about 15 when I saw a bootlegged copy of the Zapruder film shown on an early Geraldo Rivera tv show, I have personally come to the conclusion that the evidence surrounding CE 139 indicates that NOBODY, much less LHO could have performed the shooting skills required to accomplish the assassination as presented by the WC to the American people. WHAT THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ACTUALLY SHOWED: 1. The 2 sheriff's deputies who found a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was taken from the floor. 2. ALL identified it as a "7.65mm Mauser". Subsequent documents and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it that way. (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323) 3. CIA documents still identified it as a "Mauser", 4 days later. One of the officers, decorated deputy sheriff, Roger Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony before the Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had the word "MAUSER" stamped on the barrel. 4. Craig also told researchers that his WC testimony had been altered in 14 different places by WC counsel David Belin so that it appears "bland" in the 26 volumes. 5. Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also sold rifles while working for many years, in a sporting goods store and therefore, had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. 6. Police officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses. 7. The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this "problem" with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a "glance" at the weapon. 8. The tape recording of a news broadcast of November 22, 1963 on Dallas radio station K-BOX said: "Sheriff's deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty- five Mauser, a German-made Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three spent shells were found nearby." (CE 304) 9. Additionally, in his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins", Jim Garrison claims to have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day which he claims showed a police officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the 6th floor were missing from the FBI files on the Presidential assassination when presented to the WC. Those documents were: 1) DPD Lt. Carl Day's dictated memorandum on the weapon 2) Day's description to FBI S.A. Bardwell Odum 3) Odum's subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio 4) Constable Weitzman's original report to the FBI 5) DPD Detective C.N. Dhority's written report. The legal "chain of possession" of CE 139 was never properly established. The officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so. Neither identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally done some six hours later, at DPD Headquarters, after the weapon found had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly laid in the evidence room for several hours. What chain of possession that existed after that was again broken when the rifle was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, D.C., by FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain on the night of November 22nd, unaccompanied by any officer of the DPD. In 1963, even though threatening the President was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely an all too common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction, whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas Police officer to maintain the legal "chain of possession". The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal officers are very suspicious. This type of handling would have been questionable enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any trial of LHO. How fortunate they were that there was no trial. Despite all the controversy over the initial "misidentification" of the rifle, at no time did the WC show CE 139 to any of the Dallas law enforcement officers who found it and ask them, point blank, if CE 139 was the weapon that they had found. What they showed them were photographs, but not the weapon itself. Not one of those Dallas witnesses could positively state that the weapon in the photos was the weapon that they had found. Even today, you and I still can only see photographs of this infamous weapon at the National Archives. We cannot see nor measure the weapon itself. The paper bag found on the 6th floor showed no signs of any gunpowder residue nor any gun oil, and contained no verifiable fingerprints (a partial palm print that had some characteristics similar to Oswald's palm print was found. However, there were too few similarities for a legal match), according to the FBI examination conducted of it. The package's size was also too small to have contained CE 139, unless the rifle was broken down. (CE 1304) Next, when broken down, the weapon contained a number of sharp-edged parts which, logically, should have made some scratches, or tears in the paper, had it been in there. Not only were there no scratches or tears, they wasn't a single crease which the FBI could match to any part of CE 139. Basically, we find that there was no physical evidence that any gun had ever been inside the bag found on the 6th floor and alleged by the WC to have carried CE 139 from Irving, Texas to the TSBD that day. If the rifle was broken down for transport, its accuracy would have suffered further without the ability to be sighted-in after re-assembly . Military experts stated that a minimum of 10 shots would have been required, adjusting the scope after each, to re-sight any rifle for accurate shooting. Both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, the only people to have seen it, testified that the package LHO had in Frazier's car was no more than 26" in length, yet the longest part of CE 139, even when broken down was 34.8". (CE 1303) Frazier further testified that when Oswald laid the package in the back seat of the car, it took up less than half of the length of the seat. The back seat's total length was 62". Frazier also testified that when they arrived at work, Oswald took the package out of the back seat and, holding one end in the palm of his hand, tucked the other end under his arm. For the package Frazier saw to have contained CE 139, even broken down, would have required Oswald to have an arm length of over 36". Rather amazing for a man of 5' 9". (2 WCH 210-245) We see, therefore, that there was also absolutely no testimony corroborating the WCR conclusion about how Oswald allegedly got the rifle into the depository, either. How and why then was this conclusion drawn? While the Warren Commission Report used as evidence an FBI document (Dallas 89-43) which says that the FBI laboratory found the materials used to construct the paper bag entered into evidence to be consistent with materials found at the TSBD, and could have been constructed from them, researcher Livingstone in his book, "High Treason", shows another copy of that same said document which states that the materials were not similar. While there is no way to categorically determine which is the correct copy, there would appear to be no logical reason for the FBI to have revised the report to deny the similarities, then enter the incorrect one into evidence. However, if my belief that they altered evidence is correct, then changing the report from NOT SIMILAR, to SIMILAR, fits in quite nicely with that scenario. FBI tests of CE 139`s accuracy showed that the rifle was: 1) inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549), 2) carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560); [LHO was right-handed], and 3) unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, nor notated in any previous description of CE 139 (3 WCH Pg 440-445). Nothing resembling a shim was found at the TSBD, Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, or on his person, when arrested. During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military, or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 in the condition it was found, within the time frame established, and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window, and still they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald. Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle, and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else, crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.(3 WCH 390-430) In addition, the HSCA testimony of Firearms Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope: Mr. LUTZ: This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle. Mr. MCDONALD: Would you, in your opinion, classify it as an accurate scope? Mr. LUTZ: The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in, and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement, or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So, the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope. (HSCA Vol 1, pg 449) Why the HSCA experts did not use the real exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps, it was because the original examination by the FBI in 1963-1964 showed that CE 139 was inaccurate at 15 yards, or someone involved knew the shooting could not be duplicated using that weapon. Former HSCA Firearms Panel member Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that to his knowledge, no one had ever duplicated LHO's alleged shooting feats, using CE 139 in the condition it was found. Also, in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps sniper with combat experience in Vietnam, professional law enforcement officer, and world-class rifleman, states in his book, "Kill Zone", that even using his precise equipment loaded with matched rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place. It is very hard to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm St from the "sniper's window". Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way. In fact, efforts to duplicate the shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba, Israel, and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion: The shooting, as outlined by the Warren Commission, was virtually impossible! The time frames required were established by the FBI after the review and calculation of time between shots shown on the Zapruder film, also taking into consideration the time required to operate CE 139, and the view from the 6th floor. The HSCA findings concluded that only if Oswald had fired using open sights, could he have fired 3 shots accurately within the WCR time frames. No possible scenario that included any additional gunmen was ever considered, meaning all shots must have come from that rifle and during the designated time frames. DPD searches of Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, and his family's residence in Irving, failed to unearth any additional ammunition, or any cleaning supplies normally associated with the operation of a rifle. In fact, additional checks by agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, failed to find any evidence that either LHO, or Alec Hidell, had ever purchased any ammunition for the rifle, either. Yet, an FBI memorandum described the rifle, when presented to them, as being in "...a well-oiled condition...". Additional ammunition would have been needed to practice, and that same FBI memorandum, signed by Director J.Edgar Hoover himself, noted that an examination of the firing pin showed that "numerous" shots had been fired through CE 139. (CE 2974) Also, the three experts who first test-fired the rifle showed concern that the firing pin might break because it was rusted. (3 WCH 444) Ammunition isn't purchased one bullet at a time. The minimum would be a box of twenty. It would be inconsistent with the way LHO allegedly purchased the weapon for him to hide the purchase of the ammunition. And, rusted firing pins are not what one would consider suitable for a rifle being used in such a high profile political assassination...what if it broke on the first shot? FBI searches of every gun range in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area failed to come up with even a single shell casing that could be matched to CE 139. In all, literally millions of used casings were reviewed, and 13,000 possible Mannlicher-Carcano casings were recovered and compared. None ballistically matched CE 139. This lack of physical evidence came despite the testimony of several witnesses who told stories of a man, allegedly LHO, practicing at various ranges with a high-powered rifle, and being very visible doing so...in some cases going out of his way to draw attention to himself. The fact is, that the FBI could find absolutely no physical evidence which showed that LHO had ever purchased ammunition, or practiced firing CE 139. Yet again, in spite of this lack of evidence, not only did the WCR conclude that he had, but they also concluded that he became so good at shooting that he could make shots that documented experts could not. The length of CE 139 and the length of the rifle depicted in the ad allegedly used to order it, from the February, 1963 issue of American Rifleman Magazine, are significantly different. The weapon depicted in that ad, a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm Italian Carbine, model # C20-T750, is 36" long, assembled. This is the weapon reportedly shipped, on March 20, 1963 to: A. Hidell PO Box 2915 Dallas, Texas The length of CE 139 is 40.2" assembled and it is model # C20-750. Representatives of Kleins were unable to adequately explain these differences. (CE 773) Also, the FBI records of the length of the rifle they tested show 3 different figures, none of which was 36". (NOTE: the author owns a Mannlicher-Carcano of the same model as CE 139. Its length is 40.2") Klein's was also able to state how it was paid for (postal money order), when it was deposited, AND they were able to produce both the envelope it was received in, and the stamp used to mail the order to them! While the serial number of CE 139---C2766---was the same as that of the weapon shipped by Kleins to A. Hidell, the FBI discovered that, due to the manufacturing techniques used by Italy during World War II, this serial number was not necessarily unique to only one such weapon. In fact, it is possible that as many as 5 different rifles could have had the serial number C2766. The FBI eventually traced another Carcano, serial number C2766, to Canada. In addition, Scottish researcher, and friend Bill MacDowall, has done significant research in this area and has traced the rifle mailed by Kleins to A. Hidell, all the way back to its manufacture. He has found evidence that ALL identifying markings were supposedly removed prior to Kleins purchase of the weapon. Bill has written an extensive paper on this weapon and has made it available to be posted exclusively on this site. While evidence showed that the rifle from Kleins was shipped to the post office box of LHO, no one knows for sure who actually took possession of it, on its arrival. For Oswald to have received it, the Dallas Post Office would have needed to violate Postal Regulations since it was addressed to "Hidell", and it was Oswald's PO box. Amazingly, the FBI was able to track this weapon to the retailer (Kleins) even before S.A. Vince Drain actually took possession of it at 11:30 PM, that first night. This is truly amazing since, as late as 9:00 PM on the night of November 22nd, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, was still calling it a "Mauser", and other than the serial number, there was nothing to go on to search for its owner. That serial number was only worthwhile if the FBI knew the manufacturer, and in this case even that would not have been enough, since more than one Mannlicher-Carcano had that serial number. Yet, by 11:00 PM, government agents were already at Kleins to look up the purchase and shipping orders, despite the fact that the retailer would have been next-to-last on the possession time-line. Few of the eyewitnesses who testified that they saw a gun firing, from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, described anything similar to CE 139. Several felt that the weapon was an automatic rifle because of the speed of the firing, and those few witnesses who testified as to seeing a scope mounted on the rifle they saw, did not see the rifle actually being fired. There is no notation, anywhere within the twenty-six volumes of evidence that either, the DPD or FBI, ever tested CE 139 to see if it had been fired recently... they simply assumed that it had been fired that day. This, despite the fact that no one testified to smelling gunpowder, in or around, the "sniper's nest", and with no notations that forensic examinations of the boxes, showed any traces of gunpowder residue. Documents concerning what was recovered from the 6th floor all state that one live round was in the chamber when the rifle was found. One live round was also turned over to the FBI. The problems with this are generally overlooked. They are: 1) None of the witnesses who testified as to seeing the shots fired, spoke of seeing the shooter eject a round after the fatal head shot, thus meaning a spent cartridge, not a live round should have been in the chamber. 2) If the shooter did eject the fired round, why would he do it after moving away from the window? 3) And if he did so, why were all 3 casings allegedly recovered together? If it was LHO who did this, we must factor in the additional delay that ejecting the final spent round, for reasons unknown, would have on his ability to wipe the gun clean of prints, hide it, and still be on the first floor no more than 90 seconds after firing the fatal shot. Do you have any opinions, input, feedback, or any other comments relating to these issues concerning CE 139 as I have expressed them? Thanks for your time. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ***************************************************************** Rahn's response: 6/11/01 (11:03am) Dear Chris, Thanks for your note. I just returned from two weeks of traveling and found it last night. I do indeed have much to say about your views, but I don't know when I will get time enough. Basically, you are emphasizing the apparent negatives and avoiding all the positive physical evidence that shows that the assassination was an easily doable feat. I urge you to take more time on the sites maintained by John McAdams and me. More later, but I don't know quite when. Best regards, Ken Rahn Kenneth A. Rahn Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies Graduate School of Oceanography University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, USA ***************************************************************** My 2nd email to Rahn: 6/28/01 (2:14am) Hello Mr. Rahn, No doubt you are a busy man as I am, but I thought I would maintain our correspondance regarding CE 139. I think as was outlined in my initial email to you, that the ability of THE WEAPON itself, is in serious question as to whether it (CE 139) could have been remotely mechanically capable of accomplishing the accuracy attributed to it by the SBT & WC, the shooting skills of the alleged assassin, notwithstanding. The only way the assassination "could have been an easily doable feat", as you stated to me previously, is if LHO had acted like the Lone Gunman that the WC portrays him as, and taken the Best Percentage shot he had - which was a straight away, dead-on, head shot at Kennedy - as the limousine was traveling down Houston Street - almost straight at him - before it took the dog-leg left turn onto Elm Street. But, being that LHO was, allegedly, using a rifle (CE 139) which the FBI determined was: 1. INACCURATE at 15 yards. 2. Had a scope mounted for a LEFT-handed shooter (LHO was a RIGHT-handed shooter). 3. And, was missing 2 metal shims that further compromised its accuracy. 4. That LHO, the lone gunman, STILL passed up "The Perfect Shot" on Houston Street, for a tree-filtered, going-away, MUCH lower-percentage shot, on Elm Street? 5. Why did LHO pass on the EASY Houston Street shot? 6. - and let's not debate the difficulty of the Houston & Elm Street shots: a. The Houston Street shot would have been, BY FAR, the EASIEST shot for ANY shooter in the, alleged, "sniper's nest" of the TSBD~especially a "lone nut assassin", who (in his mind) would have known that ONLY HE would have a chance to kill the president. b. Knowing that as a lone assassin, in your opinion, Mr. Rahn, why didn't LHO take the high percentage, easy shot on Houston Street? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's response: 6/28/01 (5:28am) Chris, I cannot pretend to get inside Oswald's head. I can only say that the shot on Houston Street has a couple of obvious disadvantages: The Secret Service agents would be looking right at him. And, Gov. Connally would have blocked much of Kennedy's body. I think I also heard something about the metallic "rollbar" blocking something as well, but I can't really remember. I believe you are overstating the inaccuracy of the rifle. But, your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle, to the exclusion of all others. We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically. In general, I think that it is an error to start asking "Why?", too soon. First, we settle what happened, and only then do we worry about why. Ken Rahn ****************************************************************** My Followup email to Rahn: 8/25/01/ (2:53pm) Hello Mr. Rahn, It's been a couple of months since we corresponded. This is the biggest push of the year, business-wise, for me and thus my infrequent exchanges. I thought I would continue our correspondance regarding some of the issues you last mentioned. You said: " But your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle to the exclusion of all others." From what I can ascertain, allegedly, no human matter of any kind was found on CE 399 despite the necessary assumption that it had caused numerous wounds, nor was it recovered from either victim's body. It, therefore, could not be scientifically linked to either, Kennedy or Connally. In fact, in what appears to be an effort to hide this, the WC leads FBI S.A. Robert Frazier through contradictory testimony about CE 399. (WCH 3, Pgs 228-244) He finally states, however, that even under microscopic examination, no blood nor human tissue was found. No striation marks (tiny scratches) were found by the FBI on the bulbous, undamaged nose of CE 399, despite allegedly going through JFK's jacket, shirt, possibly nicking his tie, JBC?s jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket, jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket and pants. Striation marks, around the nose, are common even when bullets are fired only into cotton for ballistic comparison purposes. Because of this, CE 399 cannot scientifically be determined to have gone through either man's clothes, much less both. No traces of copper were found on JFK's tie. This is very inconsistent with the copper traces found in the other clothes and/or wounds of both men. CE 399 is copper jacketed. If traces of copper were found on JFK's suit (entrance), and in JBC's wounds (entrance and exit), logic would dictate that there should be traces on the tie (JFK exit), IF they were caused by the same bullet, or even the same type of bullet. In addition: The testimony of every one of the autopsy doctors and the physician who treated Connally at Parkland, stated that none of them could believe that CE 399 could have caused all the wounds because of its "pristine" condition and because too much metal was removed or remained in the victims. Their testimony on this point was unequivocal. (2 WCH 374-375, 382; 4 WCH 109, 113-114) Dr. Shaw's testimony about the wound in JBC's thigh (4 WCH 109-135) is extremely important yet, almost always overlooked. For the SBT theory to hold up, the wound to Connally must have been made by the complete bullet (CE 399) which later "fell out". The wound must therefore show these characteristics. Shaw's testimony, while ambiguous on this point, appears to describe the wound as being made by a fragment, not a complete bullet. CE 399 is not a fragment, and the largest fragment that could have come from it would have been no more than 3 grains, hardly large enough to cause a treatable wound. Additionally, Dr. Shaw has told researcher Livingstone that the thigh wound was indeed caused by a fragment, larger than 5 grains. The Parkland Hospital report on Connally (CE 392), appears to corroborate this point, and Dr. Shaw again identified the thigh wound as being made by a fragment in the NOVA documentary, "Who Killed President Kennedy?". This seriously undermines the theory that CE 399 fell out of JBC's leg while he was on the stretcher, and that CE 399 caused all his wounds. In addition, fragments too large to have come from CE 399 show up in X-rays of Connally. Parkland nurse, Audrey Bell, described these fragments as, "Anywhere from 3-4 millimeters in length by a couple of millimeters wide." (Dallas Morning News interview, 4/1/77) Finally, Dr. Charles Gregory, who worked on Connally, testified (6 WCH 122-123) that he saw multiple fragments that were large enough for him to determine their color. Darrel Tomlinson, the Parkland hospital employee who recovered the bullet from a stretcher in the hall of the emergency room, required much cross-examination by Commission counsel Arlen Specter before he would say that it was even possible that the stretcher in question was the one that carried John Connally. His initial, and vigorously maintained testimony was that the bullet he found came from a stretcher that had not been used by either, Connally or Kennedy (6 WCH 130-134). He has stood by that contention ever since. (NOVA, November 15, 198?) Neither Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen, nor Secret Service Chief J.J. Rowley, the first four people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher, could later identify CE 399 as that bullet, leaving open the possibility that another bullet was originally found and CE 399, a ballistic match to CE 139, was substituted to implicate LHO. This would have been possible, since many hours passed before the proper chain of possession was established. (CE 2011) But you fail to backup your statement, "We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically.", with any available supporting source references concerning this issue. CE 567 and CE 569---Two bullet fragments, one from the front of a bullet, the other from the rear of a bullet. They were supposedly found, on the night of November 22-23, 1963, inside the President's limousine while it was being searched at the White House Garage. Secret Service agents, allegedly, found both of these fragments on the floor, near the front seat. Each fragment was ballistically linked to CE 139, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.--- However, I find NO source references concerning this evidence anywhere that they could be linked, in any fashion, to any of the other fragments removed from either victim, nor could they be scientifically linked to either victim. Please list official source references for me to review concerning this issue. So, as can be seen, there is NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY, and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, to support the KEY WCR conclusion that: "All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all the wounds." I have spent some time browsing your website, Dr. Rahn, and I couldn't help but notice that at the bottom of your 1st page, you state: "My JFK course at the University of Rhode Island takes this academic approach. Each year it enlightens a significant fraction of the students who take it, often with striking results. That is also the goal of this web site - enlightenment though proper academic procedures. I welcome any and all reactions from readers, and will post them for all to see." When I went to view your "Reactions from Readers" link, I was disappointed to see the most recent exchange of messages was posted from Aug 30, 2000 -almost a year ago - and thought I would suggest you update your link to that page, perhaps starting with our exchange. I think visitors, to that particular link on your site, would enjoy seeing that debates over differences of opinions (and, on reaching critical-thinking conclusions) on issues surrounding this case, can be discussed in a courteous and respectful manner, even between a renowned university professor and a simple Alaskan wilderness guide, and judge for themselves which one of us is displaying true critical-thinking skills over the issues being debated. Thank you for taking time to debate these issues with me. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ Rahn's last reply: 8/25/01 (8:00pm) Chris, Please understand that I didn't let, "Replies from Readers" go because I wanted to. It was a casualty of general workload, including preparing the big monograph on NAA, which was a huge undertaking but very important to the JFK case. Also, the kinds of messages you write, with many questions and weak premises, take hours to answer properly. I seldom have that amount of time to spare these days. Lastly, if you are implying that I am not thinking critically in my class and my writings, I am out of this discussion immediately. I will discuss things, but I will not be put under the gun. Ken Rahn ************************************************************ And my most recent reply to Rahn: 8/28/01 (5:03am) Good Morning Mr. Rahn, I just finished reading your reply to my last email to you. I did not mean to put you on the defensive, and had thought that according to your WORLD WIDE WEBSITE that you defined your course analysis of the JFK as an objective one. Oh yes, Dr. Rahn, I have spent a considerable amount of my leisure time examining your site, and have thus directed my own VERY OBJECTIVE queries to you regarding THE EVIDENCE in a courteous, albeit, professional manner, as you might review throughout our correspondances. Your last response does you no justice as far as confronting the issues I brought forth backed up with solid, supporting WC, and/or HSCA testimony and evidence. "weak premises"????? Are you accusing me of providing false source references to you concerning the issues we have been debating? Please elaborate and don't try to tell me it would take hours, as I drafted my email to you in less than one hour, referencing everything with which you've confronted me concerning the issues I've brought forth to you with WC, and/or HSCA recorded testimony/evidence. In most of my emails I have not asked questions, simply provided the FACTS. If I asked you for source references regarding your unsupported replying statements to me - you should have been able to reference them, and cut & pasted them into your reply emails to me in a matter of minutes. After all, you're an acknowledged expert on the case and happen to have the ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY of providing AN OBJECTIVE presentation of the assassination events to numerous generations of our impressionable youth, some of whom may one day become leaders in various fields in our country. I waded through your very dated, "Reactions From Readers", page and enjoyed it very much. But, am I willing to bet (and, to be honest with you, I'm not a wagering man) that OUR CORRESPONDENCES will never see the light of day on any "Reactions From Readers" page on your website because you CANNOT (and SO FAR REFUSE) to refute ANY of the issues I have confronted you with in an OBJECTIVE way that would do justice to your website statement: "I can state with surety, and will demonstrate in the coming months, that anyone in command of the core physical data, and the principles of critical thinking, can circumscribe the right answer to the assassination in a matter of minutes." BUT YOU TOLD ME it would take HOURS to answer my questions???? I didn't really pose many questions to you, JUST FACTS, that you for one reason or another, REFUSE to refute. WHY? For example, (from our last correspondance): "But you fail to backup your statement: 'We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments, chemically.', with any available supporting source references concerning this issue." Is this an issue you can't support with any verifiable source references? C'mon DR. Rahn, you're an educator of this case - BACK IT UP, OR DON'T TELL ME my "premises" are "weak". When you take on the responsiblity of educating college students (WHO ARE PAYING YOU TO BE OBJECTIVE) then at least assume that responsibility, OBJECTIVELY, as you CLAIM you are. Your defensive attitude reeks of an official who thinks his "credentials" automatically enable him to preach his "gospels" in a manner that is unquestionable. Please, OBJECTIVELY, respond to my very ACCURATE source references concerning the FEW issues we have debated, in a professional manner, so that I may ponder ALL my "weak premises". Thank you for taking time to consider my statements. Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ************************************************************ From: Chris Dolmar To: Kenneth A. Rahn 8/28/01 (5:35am) Dear Dr. Rahn, I thought I would add a list of "objective" source references concerning various issues of this case for you to review. Although, they are manied and varied, as an objective historian of the case, they merit review. Sources and Notes: Oswald: Michael Benson, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination" (New York: Citadel Press, 1993), pp. 124, 329-352; John M. Newman, "Oswald and the CIA" (Carroll & Graf, 1995) Paul Brancato, "Coup d'etat" illustrated card set (Forestville, California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 1, 7, 10. Although we often assume that most of the American public initially accepted the lonegunman scenario, some of the following source references show that this was not necessarily the case. Public doubt: Paul B. Sheatsley and Jacob J. Feldman, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public", National Opinion Research Center, [stanford University Press, 1965] (a large majority expressing doubt over Oswald's guilt). For sources of public opinion for the period Nov. 1963 through Feb. 1977, see: "Studies of Public Reactions," items 1673-1714, DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone, "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy: A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979" [Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 198 pp. 174-177; hereafter cited as Guth and Wrone 174-177.] It's also interesting to note that on Sunday, Nov. 24, 1963, soon after Oswald had been shot, Gordon McClendon, owner of Dallas radio station KLIF, reported the following from Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, where 40,000 spectators were attending the Dallas Cowboys-Cleveland Browns football game: "People seem to think that the Dallas Police Department really had the wrong man, or that Oswald was being held for want of a better suspect...No one here that we've talked to -- taxi drivers, hotel employees, the various people we've had an opportunity to be around since we arrived here yesterday afternoon -- no one really thought that Oswald was the guilty party." ("The Fateful Hours: a Presentation of KLIF News in Dallas," Capitol Records, 1964; reissued on audiotape by KLIF, 1993.) For sources of public opinion just before and after the release of the Oliver Stone film; "JFK", see: Kenneth Auchincloss, "Twisted History," Newsweek Dec. 23, 1991, p. 46, and Ted Gest and Joseph Shapiro, "JFK: The Untold Story of the Warren Commission," U.S. News & World Report Aug. 17, 1992, p. 29. No "credible" evidence: Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) p. 374; hereafter cited as R 374. Official doubt: Chairman Warren: William M. Blair, "Warren Commission Will Ask Mrs. Oswald to Identify Rifle Used in the Kennedy Assassination," New York Times Feb. 5, 1964, p. 19; Richard Bartholomew discussion with Clint Richmond, Mar. 5, 1997; Commissioners Russell, Cooper and Boggs: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The Investigation of the Assassination of President Kennedy: Performance of the Intelligence Agencies [senate Report 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, Final Report, Book V] p. 80; cited in Bernard Fensterwald, "Coincidence or Conspiracy" (New York: Zebra Books, 1977) pp.74-75 (hereafter cited as Fensterwald 74-75); Edward Jay Epstein, "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (New York: Viking, Jun. 1966) pp. 149-50, (Bantam, Oct. 1966) p. 122; see also Fensterwald 86, 91, 96, 99; Commissioner McCloy: Hearings Before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. XI (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979) note 11 at p. 14; hereafter cited as 11 HH 14 n.11; see also Fensterwald 86; Griffin statements: Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, "The Declassification of Dealey Plaza: After Thirty Years, A New Disclosure Law At Last May Help To Clarify the Facts of the Kennedy Assassination," South Texas Law Review, Vol. 34:407, Oct. 1993; later published in "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" (ARCA), The Fourth Decade, Special Edition, 1994, pp. 411-12 n.8; hereafter cited as Sanders and Zaid 411-12 n.8; President Johnson: Walter Cronkite interview, CBS News, broadcast on Apr. 25, 1975 (President Johnson's doubt); see also Fensterwald 76, 124; FBI policy: Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, v. V) p. 99 ; cited hereafter as 5H 99 (Hoover?s policy); see also Sanders and Zaid, p. 412 n.11. Evidence problems: Robert Sam Anson, "They've Killed the President!" (New York: Bantam, 1975) p. 356; hereafter cited as Anson 356; Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993) pp. 58, 60-61, 69; hereafter cited as Scott 58, 60-61, 69; Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew, "The Gun that Didn't Smoke" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 19, November-December 1997); Karen Gullo, "No JFK Shirt Material on Bullets," Associated Press, January 21, 2000, (AP-NY-01-21-00 1120EST, www.wire.ap.org/); <http://www.wire.ap.org/);> Joe Backes, "Backes responds to NARA's blundered test report, and Gullo's AP piece" (self published critique, January 21, 2000, 19:32:42 EST); Charles E. O'Hara, "Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation" (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas Books, 1956, 1970, 2nd ed., 2nd printing) pp. 5-6, 30, 67, 69, 80, 197, 199, 438, 450, 493, 562, 575, 681, 684-85, 687; hereafter cited as O'Hara with page number(s). As if speaking to the crime-scene investigators of the JFK assassination, O'Hara wrote the following in a brief preface to his second edition: "On review, however, it would appear that insufficient attention had been given to the role of the investigator in establishing the innocence of persons falsely accused. It was thought that this aspect of investigation was too obvious to stress; that the continued insistence on objectivity and professionalism in the investigator's conduct should meet this requirement. After all, the process of establishing innocence is hardly separable from the task of detecting the guilty. One does not, that is to say, prove guilt by the method of exhaustion." (O'Hara vii) See also: Walt Brown, Ph.D.,"The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald" (Carroll & Graff, 1994). "Two Oswalds": John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee," A lecture by John Armstrong, including text and documents; Introduction by Jim Hargrove (Self published, 199 100 pgs.; Deb Riechmann, "Tape: Call on JFK wasn't Oswald," Associated Press, Nov. 21, 1999, 1246EST; Joe Nick Patoski, "The Two Oswalds," Texas Monthly magazine, November 1998, pp. 135, 160. Conflicting single bullet theories: Warren Commission: Sanders and Zaid 410-12 n.8; House Committee: Guth and Wrone xxvii-xxx; American Bar Association: Gerald Posner, "Case Closed" (New York: Random House, 1993) p. 317, 326,-35, 474, 477, 478-79; hereafter cited as Posner with page number(s) (Posner's theory is taken from the American Bar Association Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald prosecution single bullet theory. It was presented uncritically and without credit to the A.B.A. by Posner. The entire, unabridged transcript of the 1992 American Bar Association's two-day mock trial presentation: "The United States v. Lee Harvey Oswald" can be found in American Jurisprudence "Trials" Volume 56, published by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing). JFK and Vietnam: L. Fletcher Prouty, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1992); John M. Newman, "JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue and the Struggle for Power" (New York, NY, 1992), CIA - Oil industry & Wall Street connections: Darwin Payne, "Initiative in Energy: Dresser Industries, Inc. 1880-1978" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), Appendix C; Donald Gibson, "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994) The Assassination and Academic History: Michael L. Kurtz (is a Professor of History at Southeastern Louisiana University and has taught a course on the assassination for several decades), "Crime of the Century: The Kennedy Assassination from a Historian?s Perspective"(University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 2nd ed); Kenneth A. Rahn, "The Academic JFK Assassination Website": karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html<http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html> which supports the University of Rhode Island's Political Science course: "The JFK Assassination." The Assassination in the Media: Dr. George Michael Evica produces a weekly half-hour radio program on the assassination and related matters, "Assassination Journal," which is broadcast by the University of Hartford's radio station WWUH. It is the Longest-Running Public Affairs Program in the United States. Live webcasts are broadcast every Tuesday from 12noon-12:30pm EST & repeated(sameday)from 8:30-9:00pm EST at: uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/<http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/> The program focuses mainly on the JFK assassination, but has covered coups, murders, and mysteries such as TWA 800, the Gulf War Syndrome, and the failed war on drugs. Dr. Evica is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Hartford, Connecticut. He has been interested in the JFK assassination from its inception. He is the author of one book, "And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence And Analysis In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy," published in 1978 by the University of Hartford. For several years he was Editor of "Assassination Chronicles", published by JFK Lancer, Inc., in Dallas, Texas. During the last decade, he has published several articles and has lectured at many JFK conferences. Len Osanic, "Black Ops Radio", webcast live: Thurdays, 6pm PST / 9pm EST Call in... 1 604 525- 4167, see: www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm <http://www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm> Misc. Assassination-related topic sources: David G. Armstrong, "Where Was George?," Austin Chronicle, February 28, 1992, pp. 20-22; Richard Bartholomew, "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy" (self-published manuscript, 1993, p. 63; Fair Play Magazine, Issue 17, July-August 1997). Malcolm Wallace Fingerprint: John Kelin, "JFK Breakthrough?", (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 23, July-August 1999 ; "A. Nathan Darby's Affidavit" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 24, September-October, 1999; Barr McClellan, "Mac Wallace Update: Statement Regarding Print Evidence" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 28, May-June 1999). And finally, a couple of notes to conclude with: Let's consider that a bullet fired from the 6th floor window of TSBD entered the back of JFK's head and killed him. The building in question was horizontally located to the President's rear, while the 6th floor of that building was considerably, vertically above the President's head. Therefore, any such bullet must have entered the President's head from above and behind. That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President's injuries were published at the time, but the Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) did provide drawings (which can also be found in James H. Fetzer's, Ph.D. [editor] "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK", p 38, Catfeet Press, 199. Since these illustrations are published in the Warren Report, we must assume they are official and accurate portrayals of the President's injuries. The drawings of the head wound do therefore, appear to show a trajectory from above and behind, as the official account requires. In what I consider to be a solid study of the most basic evidence in this case by Stewart Galanor for his work "Cover-Up" (Kestrel Books, 199, he has juxtaposed the official WC drawing with frame 312 of the Zapruder film, which the WC itself regarded as the instant before the fatal head shot incident to frame 313, with the following result: when the images of the WC head wound drawing and Zapruder frame 312 are super-imposed over each other and the President's head is properly positioned, the WC's own drawing displays an upward rather than downward trajectory. If the official WC drawing of the injury to the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President's head wound was sustained from a hit from above and behind cannot be true. The Zapruder film itself confirms this. Let's also consider that the bullets that hit JFK & JBC were fired by LHO using a high-powered rifle, which the WC also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. The President's death certificates, The Warren Report, articles published in the Journal of the AMA, as well as other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high velocity missiles. (Some of these articles are reprinted in Fetzer's, "Assassination Science") The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only weapon that LHO is alleged to have used to kill the President, but the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon: its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 fps indicates that it qualifies as a medium to low velocity weapon. This issue is especially noteworthy, because the extensive and severe damage sustained by JFK's skull and brain, could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind. The ammunition that LHO is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round which is supposed to have been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears as CE 399. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but pass through the body leaving a fairly clean, small wound, as far as bullet wounds go. I In other words, this type of ammo does not explode on impact. Yet, if you examine the lateral cranial X-ray of the President's head, it reveals an obvious and definitive pepper-like display pattern of metallic debris which classically exhibits the effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind LHO was alleged to have used. The axis of the debris in the above mentioned X-ray also appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley's, Ph.D. "The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries", The Third Decade (March 1993) pp 1-15, in David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. research on the X-rays published in James Fetzer's "Assassination Science"(199, in his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in his present study of the medical evidence. The major fatal trauma the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high velocity weapons. Any comments? Sincerely, Chris Dolmar ****************************************** <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. This article is considerably more "long winded" than even I am. 2. I pay absolutely no attention to Col. Fletcher Prouty, considering my limited experience with "real" covert opns warriors such as Col. Bull Simons, as well as still having a very close personal friend (Full Colonel) serving in Special Operations Forces.*, to include many, many others, Pentagon Coffee makers "don't impress me much". *Dumb-A**, retired full Colonel, volunteered for re-activation and is now again serving in Iraq. 3. Bullets can and do continue to amaze persons with what they achieve in human injury. A review of "Every Bullet has it's Billet" will provide insight into this. And, the mv of approximately 2,360 fps is considered as medium to the lower range of high on the velocity scale if recalled correctly. As regards the Carcano, any serious researcher should know that it carries the name of the "Italian Mauser". It is in fact built on the Mauser design. 4. Ken Rahn is one of those "rigid" researchers who can not seem to see or grasp that we are dealing with humans. Physical Science may be exact, and as I have frequently informed him, the NAA is quite accurate. Still does not mean that the SBT is fact. Tom Tom, I don't want to distract from other things, but I wonder if you could point to a comprehensive description/discussion of the rifle and scope as it was when found, prior to any adjustments/testing? That I am aware, there is no "comprehensive" description or discussion of the rifle and/or scope when found. There is the evidence which fully demonstrates the rifle having been found on the sixth floor of the TSDB. There is the evidence which fully demonstrates the rifle being carried from the TSDB. There is the evidence which fully demonstrates the rifle being held up for all to see at Dallas Police Headquarters. There is the photographic evidence of the rifle as made by the Dallas Police Dept. There is not any record that I am aware of which states anything which the Dallas Police Department may have done in examination of the rifle and scope, to include any "adjustments" etc, or any "testing". 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