Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Purloined Projectile


Ashton Gray
 Share

Recommended Posts

The autopsy was an out-take from a Fellini film.

It made the "tracheotomy" butchery look like ballet.

The participants certainly weren't in the pursuit of useful forensic evidence, producing a set of "evidence" and "testimony" that was "Larry, Moe, and Curly Do the Morgue."

So what were they looking for? Why all the lies about when the x-rays were made versus the removal of lungs and other organs? Why did the FBI's version of Tweedledee and Tweedledum—Sibert and O'Neill—cook up all the lousy spy-fi about the back wound projectile? Why did news of the serendipitous "finding" of CE399 (a.k.a. "The Stretcher Bullet," a.k.a. "The Magic Bullet") just happen to come through one of these lying FBI goons (but I repeat myself) at the very moment he went to make the spy-fi phone call, suddenly "explaining" why no back wound bullet had been found in the body during the autopsy?

What were they really trying to accomplish there in the bowels of Bethesda?

Simple enough: they had to locate the real back wound bullet and take it forever out of evidence and existence.

And they did.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Jerrol Francis Custer, the radiologist who actually set up and operated the portable x-ray machine for all the x-rays taken that night. It's probably the only true testimony that ever came out of that macabre room:

  • JERROL CUSTER: When I lifted the body up to take films of the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis, this is when a king-size fragment—I’d say, estimate, around three, four centimeters—fell from the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took— That’s the last time I ever saw it. Now, it was big enough. That’s about, I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger; my small finger. First joints. ...
    MR. GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the back of President Kennedy?
    JERROL CUSTER: That’s when I picked him up, and the bullet dropped out of there.

Along came the forceps, Simple Sibert made the spy-fi phone call, and just like that <SNAP!> the "throat wound" had an "explanation": CE399, found on the (wrong) stretcher at Parkland. Of course nobody has ever been able to make a particle of sense out of this "explanation," and of course it is utterly impossible that the "throat wound" was the result of any projectile going in any direction. But as soon as The Fink made off with the real back wound bullet, the world was handed the "Magic Bullet: happy solution for all your assassination needs."

The real bullet that was in the back never got to have a cute little "CE" number.

It's gone.

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Were it that the researcher who has given this fairy tale actually knew where the back/upper neck entrance wound of JFK actually was, then perhaps "MORE" may believe this.

Nevertheless, there are of course those who are so naieve of the facts, that they will still most likely swallow up this garbage as well.

Any competent researcher would know, from ALL of the testimony, that the back/upper neck wound found in JFK was not found until well into the autopsy.

In fact, it had been totally missed by all, and was not found until AFTER Pierre Finck had arrived.

Additionally, although this "fairy tale" writing may make good reading for those who have no interest in the facts, the continuation of posting of such as this, continues to take on the appearance to further "muddy" the absolute facts.

Too bad that Mr. Custer (assuming that he actually said such things) happens to be contradicted by EVERY other person who was attending and/or present during the autopsy of JFK.

One may want to read the later testimony of considerably more reliable witnesses, such as the FBI Agents who actually took possession of ALL bullet fragments removed.

But then again, that would constitute actual "research".

Reading such postings is about as "Educational" as watching the Saturday morning cartoons!

Much more and the name of this forum just may have to be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

P.S.

The true "Magic Bullet"/aka shot#3/aka the bullet which disappeared/aka the bullet which never got a CE number, was the one which was later removed from the left lower leg of JBC.

And, for those who have never seen it, it was considerably flattened on it's nose, as well as having the nose actually "bent" upwards considerably, most likely as a result of the glancing impact with the right 5th rib of JBC.

Too bad the WC did not help us out by admitting into evidence those last X-rays which were taken of JBC's leg when the Parkland Dr.s were attempting to locate the bullet in the thigh which had escaped the boundaries of those initial/first X-rays.

P.P.S.

The scar on the left lower leg of JBC was in fact a "surgical scar". NOT the result of an encounter with a barbed wire fence in his youth.

I do believe that the old saying is: "The cat's out of the bag"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton

I find your explanation of the back wound quite credible, I cannot however dismiss that CE 399 could have been reported in the mass confusion as a fragment. However my real opinion, is and always has been, that CE 399 was a very stupid and ill conceived "plant", and that Custers testimony is absolutely correct.

I was almost thrilled that I was "nearly" able to agree with an entire post of yours !

ALAS

Your statement of "...it is nearly impossible that the throat wound was the result of any projectile going in any direction........................." IS SUPPORTED BY NOTHING CREDIBLE ! I feel that this incident was one of the very few "credible" points in the ridiculous Zapruder film.

I think that it is time to move on from the "Silenced Parkland Trauma Team ASSASSINS" !

Although I agree that at times it is a very difficult task, we must actually "Believe" that a "few" of the things which we see pictured are exactly what they seem to be...ie JFK being struck in the anterior throat with "some kind" of projectile. And the report of the Parkland Staff (on the afternoon of 11/22/63) that the President suffered an entrance wound in the mid region of the anterior thoat.

Even in as ridiculous a conspiracy as this, a few things "are" exactly as they appear !

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ashton

I find your explanation of the back wound quite credible, I cannot however dismiss that CE 399 could have been reported in the mass confusion as a fragment. However my real opinion, is and always has been, that CE 399 was a very stupid and ill conceived "plant", and that Custers testimony is absolutely correct.

I was almost thrilled that I was "nearly" able to agree with an entire post of yours !

ALAS

Your statement of "...it is nearly impossible that the throat wound was the result of any projectile going in any direction........................." IS SUPPORTED BY NOTHING CREDIBLE ! I feel that this incident was one of the very few "credible" points in the ridiculous Zapruder film.

I think that it is time to move on from the "Silenced Parkland Trauma Team ASSASSINS" !

Although I agree that at times it is a very difficult task, we must actually "Believe" that a "few" of the things which we see pictured are exactly what they seem to be...ie JFK being struck in the anterior throat with "some kind" of projectile. And the report of the Parkland Staff (on the afternoon of 11/22/63) that the President suffered an entrance wound in the mid region of the anterior thoat.

Even in as ridiculous a conspiracy as this, a few things "are" exactly as they appear !

Charlie Black

Charlie, the quote used by Ashton to push his ridiculous theory was from Custer's ARRB testimony. Custer had been interviewed by the HSCA, Lifton, etc, for years before this and hadn't talked about any bullet falling out before. It's clear he had mixed up the theory that a bullet had fallen out with his actually having witnessed the bullet falling out. This kind of thing happens after 30 years. The solution to this case, IMO, will not come from grabbing isolated pieces of idiosyncratic testimony and holding it up as the truth but by latching onto the consistent testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses and those in attendance at the autopsy. It is incredibly significant for example that the two FBI agents at the autopsy have from day one held that the back wound was too low on the back to have represented an entrance to a bullet that exited the neck. To decide that they are both liars propping up some official fiction is ludicrous when they are in fact gigantic flies in Specter's ointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The autopsy was an out-take from a Fellini film.

It made the "tracheotomy" butchery look like ballet.

The participants certainly weren't in the pursuit of useful forensic evidence, producing a set of "evidence" and "testimony" that was "Larry, Moe, and Curly Do the Morgue."

So what were they looking for? Why all the lies about when the x-rays were made versus the removal of lungs and other organs? Why did the FBI's version of Tweedledee and Tweedledum—Sibert and O'Neill—cook up all the lousy spy-fi about the back wound projectile? Why did news of the serendipitous "finding" of CE399 (a.k.a. "The Stretcher Bullet," a.k.a. "The Magic Bullet") just happen to come through one of these lying FBI goons (but I repeat myself) at the very moment he went to make the spy-fi phone call, suddenly "explaining" why no back wound bullet had been found in the body during the autopsy?

What were they really trying to accomplish there in the bowels of Bethesda?

Simple enough: they had to locate the real back wound bullet and take it forever out of evidence and existence.

And they did.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Jerrol Francis Custer, the radiologist who actually set up and operated the portable x-ray machine for all the x-rays taken that night. It's probably the only true testimony that ever came out of that macabre room:

  • JERROL CUSTER: When I lifted the body up to take films of the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis, this is when a king-size fragment—I’d say, estimate, around three, four centimeters—fell from the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took— That’s the last time I ever saw it. Now, it was big enough. That’s about, I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger; my small finger. First joints. ...
    MR. GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the back of President Kennedy?
    JERROL CUSTER: That’s when I picked him up, and the bullet dropped out of there.

Along came the forceps, Simple Sibert made the spy-fi phone call, and just like that <SNAP!> the "throat wound" had an "explanation": CE399, found on the (wrong) stretcher at Parkland. Of course nobody has ever been able to make a particle of sense out of this "explanation," and of course it is utterly impossible that the "throat wound" was the result of any projectile going in any direction. But as soon as The Fink made off with the real back wound bullet, the world was handed the "Magic Bullet: happy solution for all your assassination needs."

The real bullet that was in the back never got to have a cute little "CE" number.

It's gone.

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

You know, there was an article in a newspaper years ago, which stated that the newspaper got a

bullet from a Dr. who had taken it from JFK's autopsy.

This paper made a huge squak about this piece of evidence, promised all sorts of testing would be

done, etc., and in the end..the story just kind of went away.

Maybe the Fink had a conscience after all? Too bad the newspaper learned the truth about "The Truth"

in America...

Paraphrasing Mr. Hunt...You don't have a right to know the truth..... I bet they were forced to drop everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there was an article in a newspaper years ago, which stated that the newspaper got a

bullet from a Dr. who had taken it from JFK's autopsy.

This paper made a huge squak about this piece of evidence, promised all sorts of testing would be

done, etc., and in the end..the story just kind of went away.

Maybe the Fink had a conscience after all? Too bad the newspaper learned the truth about "The Truth"

in America...

Paraphrasing Mr. Hunt...You don't have a right to know the truth..... I bet they were forced to drop everything.

I'd be very interested in anything else that can be turned up about it.

I find it so consistent with everything I know about these weasels that the story they flogged about the back wound bullet coming out on a stretcher in Dallas due to manipulations of the body was actually their brand of "truth"—just moved from D.C. to Dallas and from an autopsy table to a stretcher. In other words, they absolutely love to take a truth and twist it and pervert it so it becomes a trap like flypaper for anybody who touches it. It's the truth in it that is the attraction, and it's the lies in it that are gooier than any tar.

It's a sick, diseased sort of brilliance.

Ashton

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Pat

I wondered why I couldn't recall any testimony of this "large missile fragment"....I thought that "senility" had finally taken up residence with me.

In that it is Review Board testimony, that would explain it, as I have always placed highest credence on testimony given during the nearest time frame to 12:30 CST on 11/22/63.

As a matter of fact, I feel that in all instances in which I have referred to Parkland testimony and that at Bethesda, I have referenced that I am speaking only of that testimony given on 11/22. There was too much coercion and pressure placed on both staffs at later dates. I extend much credit to those however who did not waiver.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite the whirling dervish efforts of the resident forum spin doctor to keep the fictions alive and tubulent and confused, and to keep the rather simple truth suppressed, there isn't the slightest mystery over why Jerrol Custer kept his mouth shut for decades about what actually happened that night in the Bethesda military morgue. It's right in his AARB testimony:

  • MR GUNN: Was there ever a time at which you were asked or requested not to speak about the autopsy of President Kennedy?
    JERROL CUSTER: Well, there was two different situations. The next day, when Dr. Ebersole came back to Bethesda with the bone fragments and the bullet fragments that time; and the time in the morgue—there's three, actually—and in Galloway's office.
    MR GUNN: Maybe if we could go through those three events in order. The first time that you were asked not to discuss the autopsy was which time?
    JERROL CUSTER: In the morgue.
    MR GUNN: Okay, in the morgue. And that was when in the morgue? On the night of November 22nd or 23rd—
    JERROL CUSTER: On that night.
    MR GUNN: Okay. And who was it who asked you not to speak of—
    JERROL CUSTER: Dr. Ebersole. He made it perfectly clear that I was not to speak about this.
    MR GUNN: If you could convey the sense of the words that he gave to you as best you can, what—
    JERROL CUSTER: "Keep your mouth shut."
    MR GUNN: Okay. That's perfectly blunt.
    JERROL CUSTER: Plain and simple.
    MR GUNN: Okay. And the second time that you were asked, or requested, or instructed not to talk about the autopsy was when?
    JERROL CUSTER: That was the next day, after he had come back from the White House from being debriefed.
    MR GUNN: And that was, again, Dr. Ebersole who—
    JERROL CUSTER: Dr. Ebersole.
    MR GUNN: —who had said it to you. Then the third time was—
    JERROL CUSTER: Let's back up one thing.
    MR GUNN: Sure.
    JERROL CUSTER: At that time, he made it quite clear: this came from high level that I was not to say anything. And he reiterated "anything." If I did, I would be quite sorry.
    MR GUNN: Did he tell you whom he— You mentioned a moment ago that he had been to the White House.
    JERROL CUSTER: Right.
    MR GUNN: Did he tell you whom he had spoken with at the White House?
    JERROL CUSTER: Yes, he did.
    MR GUNN: Whom did he say he spoke with?
    JERROL CUSTER: The head of the Secret Service.
    MR GUNN: When he said that high-level people—
    JERROL CUSTER: Right.
    MR GUNN: —did not want anything to be discussed, did he tell you who those high-level people were?
    JERROL CUSTER: No. He just said high-level people.
    MR GUNN: ...You're acquainted with the name Edward Reed?
    JERROL CUSTER: Yes.
    MR GUNN: He was the one who's— The student whom you identified in the photograph.
    JERROL CUSTER: Correct.
    MR GUNN: Was Mr. Reed with you, either during the first time that you received the instructions from Dr. Ebersole or the second time?
    JERROL CUSTER: No. He was with me on the third time, when we were both in Dr.— Well, actually, Vice Admiral Galloway's office.
    MR GUNN: Okay. Could you tell me about the third time that you received instructions not to speak about the—
    JERROL CUSTER: Well, that was the most traumatic. After I signed the gag order, I was told if anything—no matter what—got out, it would be the sorriest day of my life. I'd spend most of my time behind prison walls.
    MR GUNN: And did that sound—that threat—sound credible to you?
    JERROL CUSTER: Very credible.
    MR GUNN: Let me show you a document that is marked Exhibit No. 195, and ask you whether you have previously seen that before?
    JERROL CUSTER: Yep, this is it.
    MR GUNN: Now, I note that that document does not appear to have a signature on that. Do you see any signature on it?
    JERROL CUSTER: No, I don't.
    MR GUNN: Is that the document—obviously, without the signature—that—
    JERROL CUSTER: Correct.
    MR GUNN: —that you ended up signing?
    JERROL CUSTER: Correct. I would not get out of that office unless I signed that signature, because there were armed guards. They were right behind me. And I know for a fact, if I did not sign that, I would have been gone. It was made quite clear.
    MR GUNN: Who else was— Who else received instructions about not speaking about the autopsy at the same time that you did?
    JERROL CUSTER: The only two people that were there was myself and Mr. Reed.
    MR GUNN: So, Dr. Ebersole was not there at that time?
    JERROL CUSTER: No, he wasn't.
    MR GUNN: Did you see Mr. Reed sign a statement similar to the one I just handed you?
    JERROL CUSTER: Yes, I did. He's another one that wouldn't have got out of the office, unless—
    MR GUNN: Okay.
    JERROL CUSTER: They don't have armed MPs standing there for nothing.
    MR GUNN: Is it your understanding now that the order of secrecy has been lifted?
    JERROL CUSTER: Yes, it is.
    MR GUNN: Do you have any hesitancy now about talking candidly about what you witnessed?
    JERROL CUSTER: Absolutely not.

"The land of the free."

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ashton, the men in attendance at the autopsy were ordered not to talk about it. Yes, there was a lot of bs involved in the medical evidence from day one. But... you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Sibert and O'Neill were a knowing part of the cover-up, and that Custer's ARRB testimony is the proof. Specter avoided Sibert and O'Neill like the plague, and failed to call them before the Warren Commission. Because they knew then and know now that the SBT is bs. While O'Neill, as Connally, refused to believe in the single-bullet theory, but still figured Oswald somehow managed to fire all the shots, Sibert eventually became a conspiracy theorist. Read William Law's In The Eye of History for the details. Law also interviewed Custer, but found his bullet rolling out of the back story unconvincing. as it was unsupported by all the other eyewitnesses to the autopsy, most of whom had become conspiracy theorists and had no interest in protecting an official fiction.

While some might conclude that Custer was a big fat xxxx, I think he was merely mistaken. After announcing that the x-rays in the HSCA report were fakes in the eighties and nineties, he changed his mind after being shown the originals by the ARRB. He noticed his personal marker on the jaw. I think this change of opinion proves he was trying to be truthful. It's just that remembering events accurately after 30 plus years is easier said than done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ashton, the men in attendance at the autopsy were ordered not to talk about it. Yes, there was a lot of bs involved in the medical evidence from day one. But... you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Sibert and O'Neill were a knowing part of the cover-up, and that Custer's ARRB testimony is the proof. Specter avoided Sibert and O'Neill like the plague, and failed to call them before the Warren Commission. Because they knew then and know now that the SBT is bs. While O'Neill, as Connally, refused to believe in the single-bullet theory, but still figured Oswald somehow managed to fire all the shots, Sibert eventually became a conspiracy theorist. Read William Law's In The Eye of History for the details. Law also interviewed Custer, but found his bullet rolling out of the back story unconvincing. as it was unsupported by all the other eyewitnesses to the autopsy, most of whom had become conspiracy theorists and had no interest in protecting an official fiction.

While some might conclude that Custer was a big fat xxxx, I think he was merely mistaken. After announcing that the x-rays in the HSCA report were fakes in the eighties and nineties, he changed his mind after being shown the originals by the ARRB. He noticed his personal marker on the jaw. I think this change of opinion proves he was trying to be truthful. It's just that remembering events accurately after 30 plus years is easier said than done.

Pat;

Your assessment is that of one who understands things.

May as well forget preaching to those who do not.

For repetition:

A considerable number of years back, I repeated "war stories" as regards events that happened in the jungles of South Vietnam.

Through time, the events had become "one", and in memory, I was absolutely correct in the actual events having occurred.

However, memory had "compressed" these events into singular happenings.

Were it not for the fact that I actually kept a daily diary which listed the date and the events, them my memory, would have been the "facts & truths" to me.

And, until such time as in old age, for specific reasons, I went back and looked at some of the daily events, I was absolutely certain that the memories were correct.

The events were in fact correct. However, they had not happened at the same time and in the same occurances with other events.

And, even faced with the "written record" of these events, written by myself on the exact day/date they occurred, my memories had said otherwise as to exactly when they had occurred, and it was a strange feeling to set and read the factual "truths" when in fact old memories had established contradictory "truths".

I might add that those such as Specter & Company are fully aware of such failings, and the prolonged pro-crastination of release of information and witness recollections is merely another of the manners in which the factual evidence of these events has been forced into a history of confusion and lack of immediate revelation of factual information.

Critical witnesses such as Mr. Robert West; FBI Agent Henry Heiberger; etc; etc; etc; are being lost in history due to their deaths and the complete failings of the adequate research into the critical information which these persons possessed.

All I might add, a part of the long term plan to keep the true facts lost and confused.

Tom

P.S. Mr. Custer reveals himself in many ways. And, unless one is familiar with the US Navy, then it too is not that obvious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sibert and O'Neill in the 302 report on the autopsy are bare-faced liars.

Sibert and O'Neill are responsible for more false information and impressions about the autopsy than any other single source.

Sibert and O'Neill mailicously planted the utterly false belief that the x-rays and photographs were made before the first incision, which is false on its face, and is proven beyond any doubt to be false by the record.

Sibert at all relevant times has played both sides of the game.

This thread promises yet another thorough and embarrassing exposure of who uniformly attempts in this forum to float and pump up the perverse fictions and falsehoods, and to lionize and validate the biggest liars in the record as having been the most pure and trustworthy sources.

Don't touch that dial.

Ashton Gray

Edited by Ashton Gray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The autopsy was an out-take from a Fellini film.

It made the "tracheotomy" butchery look like ballet.

The participants certainly weren't in the pursuit of useful forensic evidence, producing a set of "evidence" and "testimony" that was "Larry, Moe, and Curly Do the Morgue."

So what were they looking for? Why all the lies about when the x-rays were made versus the removal of lungs and other organs? Why did the FBI's version of Tweedledee and Tweedledum—Sibert and O'Neill—cook up all the lousy spy-fi about the back wound projectile? Why did news of the serendipitous "finding" of CE399 (a.k.a. "The Stretcher Bullet," a.k.a. "The Magic Bullet") just happen to come through one of these lying FBI goons (but I repeat myself) at the very moment he went to make the spy-fi phone call, suddenly "explaining" why no back wound bullet had been found in the body during the autopsy?

What were they really trying to accomplish there in the bowels of Bethesda?

Simple enough: they had to locate the real back wound bullet and take it forever out of evidence and existence.

And they did.

Here is an excerpt from the testimony of Jerrol Francis Custer, the radiologist who actually set up and operated the portable x-ray machine for all the x-rays taken that night. It's probably the only true testimony that ever came out of that macabre room:

  • JERROL CUSTER: When I lifted the body up to take films of the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis, this is when a king-size fragment—I’d say, estimate, around three, four centimeters—fell from the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took— That’s the last time I ever saw it. Now, it was big enough. That’s about, I’d say, an inch and a half. My finger; my small finger. First joints. ...
    MR. GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the back of President Kennedy?
    JERROL CUSTER: That’s when I picked him up, and the bullet dropped out of there.

Along came the forceps, Simple Sibert made the spy-fi phone call, and just like that <SNAP!> the "throat wound" had an "explanation": CE399, found on the (wrong) stretcher at Parkland. Of course nobody has ever been able to make a particle of sense out of this "explanation," and of course it is utterly impossible that the "throat wound" was the result of any projectile going in any direction. But as soon as The Fink made off with the real back wound bullet, the world was handed the "Magic Bullet: happy solution for all your assassination needs."

The real bullet that was in the back never got to have a cute little "CE" number.

It's gone.

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

And we all lived confusedly ever after.

Ashton Gray

I would hope that the "we" constitutes you and the mouse which you may have in your pocket.

As most who have paid attention on this forum are aware, to include all who have actually done any research into the subject matter,

When the autopsy ended, the conclusion was that the projectile which entered the back/upper neck of JFK had only penetrated a short distance before stopping.

There was ABSOLUTELY NO REFERENCE to this projectile having exited the anterior throat in the vicinity of the tracheotomy incision.

The conclusion was:

1. Tracheotomy incision of the anterior throat.

2. Bullet into back which only entered a short distance and thereafter apparantly came out of the back due to external cardiac massage; etc; administered at Parkland Hospital, where the bullet was found.

Therefore, your lack of factual reporting is exceeded only by your lack of research into the facts of the case.

Had you reviewed the FBI Report of Siebert & O'Neil, then you would have had some inkling as to this autopsy fact.

AFTER the autopsy was completed, the body was gone, and Finck & Boswell were also gone, Dr. Humes spoke with Parkland and first learned of the anterior throat wound (which the autopsy surgeons had completely missed and originally reported as being ONLY a tracheotomy incision).

Thereafter, Dr. Humes more or less "recalled" Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell to discuss this new knowledge and information.

The FBI (& everyone else at the autopsy) had gone home secure in the fact that the bullet which entered the back only penetrated a short distance and then stopped.

However, faced with the fact that they had completely missed a wound of the anterior neck during the autopsy, the autopsy surgeons were faced with the complexity as to how this wound may have occurred.

Thus, the originally destroyed autopsy notes, which would have stated that the back wound was created by the bullet/missile/projectile which went in only a short distance.

There was no body on which to now attempt to go back and re-evaluate the angle of penetration, and since there was in fact no complete penetration found during the course of the autopsy, Dr. Humes as well as the other two autopsy surgeons presumed that they had in fact missed the exit path of the bullet and that it must have exited out the anterior throat of JFK, as there was no other projectile present and no other plausible explanation at the time as to how this throat wound could have occurred.

So, the "fairy tale" scenario which you have painted in your mind, may represent factual information in your fairytale world.

It however lacks considerable information and research in coming even close to the events as they transpired in regards to how the back wound which was initially reported as a non-through & through wound, became the entry for the supposed bullet which exited the anterior neck.

Your fairytale also lacks considerable cohesive conspiracy in that you make it seem as if Parkland Dr's intentionally destroyed the anterior neck wound in order to confuse the autopsy surgeons into believeing that it was merely a tracheotomy incision, in order that they could make an initial error in their autopsy report in order that they could thereafter go back and change this original findings to an exit wound of the anterior neck, which was all apparantly done merely to confuse you.

Yep! You are most assuredly confused!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tom

I share with you the same sentiments regarding my recollections during this period. What I remember is factual, tho my time frame is sometimes off. What I could have sworn to that occurred on a Christmas Day, was recently corrected by several who also shared the experience, that it was in fact Thanksgiving. I had believed it was Christmas for probably 30 years. My facts were dead center, but the date was incorrect.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Ashton, the men in attendance at the autopsy were ordered not to talk about it. Yes, there was a lot of bs involved in the medical evidence from day one. But... you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Sibert and O'Neill were a knowing part of the cover-up, and that Custer's ARRB testimony is the proof. Specter avoided Sibert and O'Neill like the plague, and failed to call them before the Warren Commission. Because they knew then and know now that the SBT is bs. While O'Neill, as Connally, refused to believe in the single-bullet theory, but still figured Oswald somehow managed to fire all the shots, Sibert eventually became a conspiracy theorist. Read William Law's In The Eye of History for the details. Law also interviewed Custer, but found his bullet rolling out of the back story unconvincing. as it was unsupported by all the other eyewitnesses to the autopsy, most of whom had become conspiracy theorists and had no interest in protecting an official fiction.

While some might conclude that Custer was a big fat xxxx, I think he was merely mistaken. After announcing that the x-rays in the HSCA report were fakes in the eighties and nineties, he changed his mind after being shown the originals by the ARRB. He noticed his personal marker on the jaw. I think this change of opinion proves he was trying to be truthful. It's just that remembering events accurately after 30 plus years is easier said than done.

Pat: I beg to differ. When someone has been THREATENED I believe it has a tendency to stick in one's mind. This is hardly the first time we have heard of important witnesses being threatened in this case. And how many have died?

If the man says this is what he saw and was told to shut up or else face many years in jail I really do not believe this is something he was likely to simply "forget". Obviously he tried to, and then when witnesses started having heart attacks, karate chops, single car crashes and the like, I will bet that Custer's fear grew worse.

Time does not dull memory where threats are involved.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...