Jump to content
The Education Forum

James W. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill


Recommended Posts

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, Francis X. O'Neill was sent to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland "to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen." J. Edgar Hoover then sent a message via Ed Tulley at FBI headquarters, to make sure that these two agents remained with Kennedy's body.

Sibert and O'Neill then accompanied the coffin to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The agents also attended the autopsy carried out by Dr. Joseph Humes. Sibert and O'Neill wrote up a FD 302 report on what they witnessed.

Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Specter was the man closely associated with the lone gunman theory. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document.

When Joseph Humes was interviewed by the Warren Commission he insisted "that the bullet penetrated the rear of the President's head and exited through a large wound on the right side of his head." His testimony gave support to the report's infamous single-bullet theory. The report eventually stated: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of the spine. It traveled downward and exited from the front of the neck, crossing a nick in the left lower portion of the knot in the President's necktie."

When the FD 302 report was eventually declassified it became clear why Sibert and O'Neill were not asked to appear before the Warren Commission. It included the following passage: "During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below his shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."

This evidence is supported by the bullet holes in Kennedy's clothing and completely undermined the lone gunman theory. As Jim Marrs points out in Crossfire: "If the President's wound was between the shoulder blades, this was lower than the position of the neck wound making for an upward trajectory - totally inconsistent with the idea of shots from sixty feet above and behind the President."

On 12th September, 1997, Frank O'Neill provided a deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). O'Neill rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye-witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there. This is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Sibert also rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know."

The evidence of O'Neill and Sibert confirms that the Warren Commission report was a cover-up. For nearly 40 years O'Neill and Sibert kept quiet about what they knew. William Matson Law's book shows that this period of silence has come to an end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, Francis X. O'Neill was sent to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland "to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen." J. Edgar Hoover then sent a message via Ed Tulley at FBI headquarters, to make sure that these two agents remained with Kennedy's body.

Sibert and O'Neill then accompanied the coffin to Bethesda Naval Hospital. The agents also attended the autopsy carried out by Dr. Joseph Humes. Sibert and O'Neill wrote up a FD 302 report on what they witnessed.

Arlen Specter, the assistant counsel to the Warren Report, interviewed both Sibert and O'Neill on 12th March, 1964. However, as a result of what they told Specter, they were not called to testify before the Warren Commission. Specter was the man closely associated with the lone gunman theory. Their FD 302 report also became a classified document.

When Joseph Humes was interviewed by the Warren Commission he insisted "that the bullet penetrated the rear of the President's head and exited through a large wound on the right side of his head." His testimony gave support to the report's infamous single-bullet theory. The report eventually stated: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of Kennedy's neck slightly to the right of the spine. It traveled downward and exited from the front of the neck, crossing a nick in the left lower portion of the knot in the President's necktie."

When the FD 302 report was eventually declassified it became clear why Sibert and O'Neill were not asked to appear before the Warren Commission. It included the following passage: "During the later stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below his shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."

This evidence is supported by the bullet holes in Kennedy's clothing and completely undermined the lone gunman theory. As Jim Marrs points out in Crossfire: "If the President's wound was between the shoulder blades, this was lower than the position of the neck wound making for an upward trajectory - totally inconsistent with the idea of shots from sixty feet above and behind the President."

On 12th September, 1997, Frank O'Neill provided a deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). O'Neill rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye-witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there. This is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Sibert also rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know."

The evidence of O'Neill and Sibert confirms that the Warren Commission report was a cover-up. For nearly 40 years O'Neill and Sibert kept quiet about what they knew. William Matson Law's book shows that this period of silence has come to an end.

"This evidence is supported by the bullet holes in Kennedy's clothing and completely undermined the lone gunman theory"

John:

Perhaps you sould read up on the various fallacies of the reasoning of man.

That the WC version of the assassination is a lie/misrepresentation of the facts, is merely that.

One can "read into" the reasoning for this lie, all that they would like to imagine. However, the mere fact that it (the WC) is a lie, does not provide adequate evidence as to the reasoning for the lie.

"Sibert also rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know."

Yes, they both had little, other than pure contempt and disgust, for Arlen Specter.

Which happens to demonstrate a proper reasoning of "man".

And, since LBJ was the initiating authority of the WC, then one could assume that "The Buck Stops" there!

But again, the "reasoning of man" has again led many astray as to the WHY?

"The evidence of O'Neill and Sibert confirms that the Warren Commission report was a cover-up."

The evidence, both spoken as well as written, is highly supportive of the fact that the WC was an intentional lie, as fostered, manipulated, and presented by Arlen Specter.

Tom

P.S. In order to "unlock" all of the doors, one must dig around and find all of the "keys".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When O'Neill testified to the ARRB in 1997, he was shown the autopsy photographs. When shown a photo of the back of JFK's head, he immediately remarked "This looks like it's been doctored in some way." Sibert expressed some satisfaction over the discovery that had come earlier, that Gerald Ford had altered the wording of the "back of the neck" wound to make it appear higher than Sibert remembered it. Sibert's memory of the back wound, in line with the clothing, the autopsy face sheet, Dr. Burkley's suppressed death certificate, and on and on, makes it too low for the single bullet theory to really work.

The ARRB testimony of Sibert and O'Neill is available online, and in O'Neill's case it can be listened to also (Sibert's audio is available at NARA, I just haven't had the time.....):

O'Neill's 12 Sep 1997 testimony:

Transcript - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Neill_0001a.htm

Audio - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...ARRB_ONeill.htm

Sibert's 11 Sep 1997 testimony:

Transcript - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk.../Sibert_01a.htm

Rex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When O'Neill testified to the ARRB in 1997, he was shown the autopsy photographs. When shown a photo of the back of JFK's head, he immediately remarked "This looks like it's been doctored in some way." Sibert expressed some satisfaction over the discovery that had come earlier, that Gerald Ford had altered the wording of the "back of the neck" wound to make it appear higher than Sibert remembered it. Sibert's memory of the back wound, in line with the clothing, the autopsy face sheet, Dr. Burkley's suppressed death certificate, and on and on, makes it too low for the single bullet theory to really work.

The ARRB testimony of Sibert and O'Neill is available online, and in O'Neill's case it can be listened to also (Sibert's audio is available at NARA, I just haven't had the time.....):

O'Neill's 12 Sep 1997 testimony:

Transcript - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Neill_0001a.htm

Audio - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...ARRB_ONeill.htm

Sibert's 11 Sep 1997 testimony:

Transcript - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk.../Sibert_01a.htm

Rex

"that Gerald Ford had altered the wording of the "back of the neck" wound to make it appear higher than Sibert remembered it."

Virtually anyone familiar with the final report of the WC, as compared with what witnesses actually stated, or the presented evidence actually represented, should be more than familiar with the fact that the WC went to great extremes in their "wording" in presentation of what they claimed to be the facts of the assassination.

Thus, and as example, is the 10 pages of circular reasoning as regards "The Shot That Missed".

Nevertheless, since according to the autopsy surgeons, as well as others present at the autopsy, there was an entrance wound in the head of JFK at the "back of the neck"/edge of the hairline, this will be left for others to figure out exactly what it was that Gerald Ford was up to on this "war of the words".

In event one wants to pursue how such wording was often manipulated to represent what the WC wanted it to, then a complete evaluation of the "edge of hairline" entry wound through the skull is an imperative/EEI (essential element of information) to understand, if one is to understand the assassination.

The WC conveniently took what was demonstratably an "slanting" upwards bullet trajectory which struck at the base of the skull and created the elongated vertically 6mm X 15mm entry, and thus made it appear that this was in fact some form of downward entry as acquired/fired from the TSDB.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm

When O'Neill testified to the ARRB in 1997, he was shown the autopsy photographs. When shown a photo of the back of JFK's head, he immediately remarked "This looks like it's been doctored in some way." Sibert expressed some satisfaction over the discovery that had come earlier, that Gerald Ford had altered the wording of the "back of the neck" wound to make it appear higher than Sibert remembered it. Sibert's memory of the back wound, in line with the clothing, the autopsy face sheet, Dr. Burkley's suppressed death certificate, and on and on, makes it too low for the single bullet theory to really work.

The ARRB testimony of Sibert and O'Neill is available online, and in O'Neill's case it can be listened to also (Sibert's audio is available at NARA, I just haven't had the time.....):

O'Neill's 12 Sep 1997 testimony:

Transcript - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Neill_0001a.htm

Audio - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...ARRB_ONeill.htm

Sibert's 11 Sep 1997 testimony:

Transcript - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk.../Sibert_01a.htm

Rex

"that Gerald Ford had altered the wording of the "back of the neck" wound to make it appear higher than Sibert remembered it."

Virtually anyone familiar with the final report of the WC, as compared with what witnesses actually stated, or the presented evidence actually represented, should be more than familiar with the fact that the WC went to great extremes in their "wording" in presentation of what they claimed to be the facts of the assassination.

Thus, and as example, is the 10 pages of circular reasoning as regards "The Shot That Missed".

Nevertheless, since according to the autopsy surgeons, as well as others present at the autopsy, there was an entrance wound in the head of JFK at the "back of the neck"/edge of the hairline, this will be left for others to figure out exactly what it was that Gerald Ford was up to on this "war of the words".

In event one wants to pursue how such wording was often manipulated to represent what the WC wanted it to, then a complete evaluation of the "edge of hairline" entry wound through the skull is an imperative/EEI (essential element of information) to understand, if one is to understand the assassination.

The WC conveniently took what was demonstratably an "slanting" upwards bullet trajectory which struck at the base of the skull and created the elongated vertically 6mm X 15mm entry, and thus made it appear that this was in fact some form of downward entry as acquired/fired from the TSDB.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0036a.htm

A good look at this, along with the FBI re-enactment photo's which demonstrate the upper neck/edge of hairline entry point, are a portion of the reason why the WC had to step in and "enlighten" us all as to what truly transpired on 11/22/63 in Dealy Plaza.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extract from William Matson Law's In the Eye of History (2005)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me. It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." When I suggested to O'Neill that his description to the ARRB of President Kennedy's hands being "clenched" was possible confirmation of Thorburn's position, he took pains to tell me, "his hands were sort of clenched, put it that way. Yes, in other words, they weren't laying down flat - I don't know whether they tried to arrange his hands or not, but they were in a clenched position. Not fully clenched at all." The single-bullet theory is key to the "lone-nut" scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-hullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

Governor Connally said, "it is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot - didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." To the end of his life Connally rejected the single-bullet theory. And Frank O'Neill said: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there-this is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, refused to identify it as Warren Commission Exhibit 399 and insisted that the bullet he found came from neither Connally's nor Kennedy's stretcher." There is evidence that the bullet was actually on a stretcher used that day by little Ronald Fuller. The FBI report by Sibert and O'Neill stated, "a bullet entered a short distance... the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

More metal remained in Connally's body, in the wrist and thigh wounds, than is missing from CE 399.

Surely this is enough evidence to damn the single-bullet theory!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extract from William Matson Law's In the Eye of History (2005)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me. It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." When I suggested to O'Neill that his description to the ARRB of President Kennedy's hands being "clenched" was possible confirmation of Thorburn's position, he took pains to tell me, "his hands were sort of clenched, put it that way. Yes, in other words, they weren't laying down flat - I don't know whether they tried to arrange his hands or not, but they were in a clenched position. Not fully clenched at all." The single-bullet theory is key to the "lone-nut" scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-hullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

Governor Connally said, "it is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot - didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." To the end of his life Connally rejected the single-bullet theory. And Frank O'Neill said: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there-this is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, refused to identify it as Warren Commission Exhibit 399 and insisted that the bullet he found came from neither Connally's nor Kennedy's stretcher." There is evidence that the bullet was actually on a stretcher used that day by little Ronald Fuller. The FBI report by Sibert and O'Neill stated, "a bullet entered a short distance... the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

More metal remained in Connally's body, in the wrist and thigh wounds, than is missing from CE 399.

Surely this is enough evidence to damn the single-bullet theory!

Yes, but!

Since no one came up with what was even a plausible alternative, (body kidnappings; wound alteration; planted bullets; etc; are not considered by most, as being plausible)

The SBT theory has remained.

Now, if we want the ONLY plausible answer to CE399; it anomalies; the wounds created in the back of JFK by this bullet; the damage to the vertebral column of JFK; the small 3mm to 5mm exit wound of the anterior neck, then the CORRECT answer to CE399 and the wounds which it is actually responsible for, is in fact relatively quite simple.

At least it is when one sticks with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

However, in event one wishes to continue to believe in body snatchers; wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; etc; etc; etc.

Then I would suppose that they will still be looking for the answers another 40 years from now also.

Extract from William Matson Law's In the Eye of History (2005)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me. It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." When I suggested to O'Neill that his description to the ARRB of President Kennedy's hands being "clenched" was possible confirmation of Thorburn's position, he took pains to tell me, "his hands were sort of clenched, put it that way. Yes, in other words, they weren't laying down flat - I don't know whether they tried to arrange his hands or not, but they were in a clenched position. Not fully clenched at all." The single-bullet theory is key to the "lone-nut" scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-hullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

Governor Connally said, "it is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot - didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." To the end of his life Connally rejected the single-bullet theory. And Frank O'Neill said: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there-this is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, refused to identify it as Warren Commission Exhibit 399 and insisted that the bullet he found came from neither Connally's nor Kennedy's stretcher." There is evidence that the bullet was actually on a stretcher used that day by little Ronald Fuller. The FBI report by Sibert and O'Neill stated, "a bullet entered a short distance... the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

More metal remained in Connally's body, in the wrist and thigh wounds, than is missing from CE 399.

Surely this is enough evidence to damn the single-bullet theory!

Yes, but!

Since no one came up with what was even a plausible alternative, (body kidnappings; wound alteration; planted bullets; etc; are not considered by most, as being plausible)

The SBT theory has remained.

Now, if we want the ONLY plausible answer to CE399; it anomalies; the wounds created in the back of JFK by this bullet; the damage to the vertebral column of JFK; the small 3mm to 5mm exit wound of the anterior neck, then the CORRECT answer to CE399 and the wounds which it is actually responsible for, is in fact relatively quite simple.

At least it is when one sticks with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

However, in event one wishes to continue to believe in body snatchers; wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; etc; etc; etc.

Then I would suppose that they will still be looking for the answers another 40 years from now also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extract from William Matson Law's In the Eye of History (2005)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me. It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." When I suggested to O'Neill that his description to the ARRB of President Kennedy's hands being "clenched" was possible confirmation of Thorburn's position, he took pains to tell me, "his hands were sort of clenched, put it that way. Yes, in other words, they weren't laying down flat - I don't know whether they tried to arrange his hands or not, but they were in a clenched position. Not fully clenched at all." The single-bullet theory is key to the "lone-nut" scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-hullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

Governor Connally said, "it is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot - didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." To the end of his life Connally rejected the single-bullet theory. And Frank O'Neill said: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there-this is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, refused to identify it as Warren Commission Exhibit 399 and insisted that the bullet he found came from neither Connally's nor Kennedy's stretcher." There is evidence that the bullet was actually on a stretcher used that day by little Ronald Fuller. The FBI report by Sibert and O'Neill stated, "a bullet entered a short distance... the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

More metal remained in Connally's body, in the wrist and thigh wounds, than is missing from CE 399.

Surely this is enough evidence to damn the single-bullet theory!

Yes, but!

Since no one came up with what was even a plausible alternative, (body kidnappings; wound alteration; planted bullets; etc; are not considered by most, as being plausible)

The SBT theory has remained.

Now, if we want the ONLY plausible answer to CE399; it anomalies; the wounds created in the back of JFK by this bullet; the damage to the vertebral column of JFK; the small 3mm to 5mm exit wound of the anterior neck, then the CORRECT answer to CE399 and the wounds which it is actually responsible for, is in fact relatively quite simple.

At least it is when one sticks with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

However, in event one wishes to continue to believe in body snatchers; wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; etc; etc; etc.

Then I would suppose that they will still be looking for the answers another 40 years from now also.

If one looks at the attached photo's, then perhaps an understanding as to the "how" the damage to the base of the copper jacket of CE399 came to exist, as well as the ultimate necessity to remove this portion of the base of the bullet.

Takes a pretty good "whack"/impact, to gouge into the hard copper, not to mention the ultimate gouging and scratching of the lead core in the base of the bullet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Extract from William Matson Law's In the Eye of History (2005)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me. It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." When I suggested to O'Neill that his description to the ARRB of President Kennedy's hands being "clenched" was possible confirmation of Thorburn's position, he took pains to tell me, "his hands were sort of clenched, put it that way. Yes, in other words, they weren't laying down flat - I don't know whether they tried to arrange his hands or not, but they were in a clenched position. Not fully clenched at all." The single-bullet theory is key to the "lone-nut" scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-hullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

Governor Connally said, "it is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot - didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." To the end of his life Connally rejected the single-bullet theory. And Frank O'Neill said: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there-this is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, refused to identify it as Warren Commission Exhibit 399 and insisted that the bullet he found came from neither Connally's nor Kennedy's stretcher." There is evidence that the bullet was actually on a stretcher used that day by little Ronald Fuller. The FBI report by Sibert and O'Neill stated, "a bullet entered a short distance... the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

More metal remained in Connally's body, in the wrist and thigh wounds, than is missing from CE 399.

Surely this is enough evidence to damn the single-bullet theory!

Yes, but!

Since no one came up with what was even a plausible alternative, (body kidnappings; wound alteration; planted bullets; etc; are not considered by most, as being plausible)

The SBT theory has remained.

Now, if we want the ONLY plausible answer to CE399; it anomalies; the wounds created in the back of JFK by this bullet; the damage to the vertebral column of JFK; the small 3mm to 5mm exit wound of the anterior neck, then the CORRECT answer to CE399 and the wounds which it is actually responsible for, is in fact relatively quite simple.

At least it is when one sticks with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

However, in event one wishes to continue to believe in body snatchers; wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; etc; etc; etc.

Then I would suppose that they will still be looking for the answers another 40 years from now also.

Extract from William Matson Law's In the Eye of History (2005)

O'Neill and Sibert are adamant that the single-bullet theory is wrong. "That's Arlen Specter's theory," O'Neill told me. It's quite evident from my conversations with them that they have no respect for the one-time assistant counsel to the Warren Commission, now Senator from Pennsylvania. When I questioned Jim Sibert about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, he went as far as to say, "What a xxxx. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." When I suggested to O'Neill that his description to the ARRB of President Kennedy's hands being "clenched" was possible confirmation of Thorburn's position, he took pains to tell me, "his hands were sort of clenched, put it that way. Yes, in other words, they weren't laying down flat - I don't know whether they tried to arrange his hands or not, but they were in a clenched position. Not fully clenched at all." The single-bullet theory is key to the "lone-nut" scenario. If, in fact, a bullet did not hit Kennedy in the back, come out his throat, hit Governor Connally in the back, exit his right chest, slam into his right wrist, breaking the bone and cutting the radial nerve, and then pierce his left thigh and fall out in remarkably pristine condition onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, then there was more than one assassin and, hence, conspiracy. The single-hullet theory is the linchpin of the government case against Lee Harvey Oswald. If the theory is false, the lone-assassin concept crumbles to dust.

Governor Connally said, "it is not conceivable to me that I could have been hit by the first bullet, and then I felt the blow from something which was obviously a bullet, which I assumed was a bullet, and I never heard the second shot - didn't hear it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and the third shot." To the end of his life Connally rejected the single-bullet theory. And Frank O'Neill said: "You go back to the veracity of the individuals who were eye witnesses - Governor Connally denied the single-bullet theory one hundred percent. He's an eyewitness. He's right there-this is the man who was there. He was the one who was hit. He should know what happened."

Darrell Tomlinson, who found the bullet at Parkland Hospital, refused to identify it as Warren Commission Exhibit 399 and insisted that the bullet he found came from neither Connally's nor Kennedy's stretcher." There is evidence that the bullet was actually on a stretcher used that day by little Ronald Fuller. The FBI report by Sibert and O'Neill stated, "a bullet entered a short distance... the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch."

More metal remained in Connally's body, in the wrist and thigh wounds, than is missing from CE 399.

Surely this is enough evidence to damn the single-bullet theory!

Yes, but!

Since no one came up with what was even a plausible alternative, (body kidnappings; wound alteration; planted bullets; etc; are not considered by most, as being plausible)

The SBT theory has remained.

Now, if we want the ONLY plausible answer to CE399; it anomalies; the wounds created in the back of JFK by this bullet; the damage to the vertebral column of JFK; the small 3mm to 5mm exit wound of the anterior neck, then the CORRECT answer to CE399 and the wounds which it is actually responsible for, is in fact relatively quite simple.

At least it is when one sticks with the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts.

However, in event one wishes to continue to believe in body snatchers; wound alteration specialists; multiple assassins; etc; etc; etc.

Then I would suppose that they will still be looking for the answers another 40 years from now also.

We truly should not omit this EEI (essential element of information), especially since it just may have some bearing on NAA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, Francis X. O'Neill was sent to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland "to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen."

Why would they have been sent to Andrews - is that explained somewhere?

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, Francis X. O'Neill was sent to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland "to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen."

Why would they have been sent to Andrews - is that explained somewhere?

- lee

I would guess it would be because the FBI didn't know for sure which hospital (Bethesda or Walter Reed) would be used for autopsy, and perhaps also whether Secret Service agents might be carrying evidence such as bullets or fragments. But that's just a guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When John F. Kennedy was assassinated on 22nd November, 1963, Francis X. O'Neill was sent to Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland "to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen."

Why would they have been sent to Andrews - is that explained somewhere?

In the interview Francis X. O'Neill gave to William Matson Law he claims that J. Edgar Hoover was very keen that the FBI got to the body as quickly as possible. Hoover knew the body was being flown to Andrews Air Force Base, therefore, he sent his two agents to meet it. The question is: why was Hoover so keen to get the FBI agents to the body. O'Neill was told: ""to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005)

Law: Were you surprised you were not called before the Warren Commission?

O'Neill: Yes. Because we had pertinent information and the information that was given to the Warren Commission as a result of our interview with Mr. Specter was not a hundred percent accurate.

Law: I've been told that there were officers of high rank in the autopsy room that night. Is that true?

O'Neill: There was the commanding officer of the hospital. There was a rear admiral. There was a General Godfrey McHugh, who was on the airplane with Kennedy and was his military attache; he was a one-star general. And there was a Major General Wehle who tried to enter and I kicked him out and he came back in and told me he was there to get another casket because the other one was broken. There was no one else.

Law: I have your testimony to the ARRB. They asked you about the bullet wound in the throat and you said, "Well, I question it. I'll tell you more later." Why did you question the bullet wound to the throat?

O'Neill: Because there was no such thing as a bullet wound in the throat at that particular time. We only learned about the bullet wound in the throat in particular - well, let me see-we learned about that after the doctors - not "we" - but it was learned by the doctors who performed the autopsy after they had called down to Dallas to speak to the hospital. Ah, I think it was Malcolm Perry?

Law: Malcolm Perry was the attending physician.

O'Neill: That's the only time that they became aware that there was a bullet wound in the throat.

Law: Do you believe there was a bullet wound in the throat?

O'Neill: I have no idea. It was not a question - I mean it was a question-there was not a question in my mind about a bullet wound in the throat, it just never came up. It was a tracheotomy, period, until we found out that it was performed over the bullet wound - over a wound-because they weren't sure it was a bullet wound at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the interview Francis X. O'Neill gave to William Matson Law he claims that J. Edgar Hoover was very keen that the FBI got to the body as quickly as possible. Hoover knew the body was being flown to Andrews Air Force Base, therefore, he sent his two agents to meet it. The question is: why was Hoover so keen to get the FBI agents to the body. O'Neill was told: ""to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview." James W. Sibert was also sent to the air base "so there would be two of us to be a witness to whatever might happen."

Thanks John - I guess we can imagine the reasons why - however, Andrews AFB is something that comes up a lot in my reading. For one, as per Prouty, it was used as the first stopping point for all 'Blowback' passengers - the continuation of the Paperclip project.

O'Neill was told: ""to assume jurisdiction over any violations that might fall within our purview."

I can't fathom what he would be talking about.

- lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Namebase entry for James W. Sibert:

http://www.namebase.org/main2/James-W-Sibert.html

DiEugenio,J. Pease,L. The Assassinations. 2003 (280)

Duffy,J. Ricci,V. The Assassination of John F. Kennedy. 1992 (345-6)

Fonzi,G. The Last Investigation. 1993 (22-3)

Groden,R. Livingstone,H. High Treason. 1990 (94, 235)

Marrs,J. Crossfire. 1990 (370-2, 375, 479)

Morrow,R. First Hand Knowledge. 1992 (248)

Summers,A. Conspiracy. 1989 (481)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...