JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

.. Maybe Frazier didn't know the difference between 2 feet and 3 feet?"

Maybe Frazier didn't pay too much attention to the package?

Mr. BALL - When you got in the car did you say anything to him or did he say anything to you?
Mr. FRAZIER - Let's see, when I got in the car I have a kind of habit of glancing over my shoulder and so at that time I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?"

Mr. BALL - Did it look to you as if there was something heavy in the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word.
Mr. BALL - Did it appear to you there was some, more than just paper he was carrying, some kind of a weight he was carrying?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, yes, sir; I say, because one reason I know that because I worked in a department store before and I had uncrated curtain rods when they come in, and I know if you have seen when they come straight from the factory you know how they can bundle them up and put them in there pretty compact, so he told me it was curtain rods so I didn't think any more about the package whatsoever.
Mr. BALL - Well, from the way he carried it, the way he walked, did it appear he was carrying something that had more than the weight of a paper?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, I say, you know like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all.

Mr. BALL - Now we have over here this exhibit for identification which is 364 which is a paper sack made out of tape, sort of a home made affair. Will you take a look at this. Does this appear to be anything like the color of the sack you saw on the back seat?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; I would say it was, it was more a color like this.
Mr. BALL - It was more like this color, correct?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did it have tape on it or did you notice it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, like I say, I didn't notice that much about it as I didn't see it very much.
Mr. BALL - Will you take a look at it as to the length. Does it appear to be about the same length?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - We will just use this. Was one end of the sack turned over, folded over? Do you remember that?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I was saying, when I glanced at it, but I say from what I saw I didn't see very much of it, I say the bag wasn't open or anything like it where you can see the contents. If you was going to say putting--to more or less a person putting in carefully he would throw it in carefully, you put it more toward the back. If he had anything folded up in it I didn't see that.

Mr. BALL - You will notice that this bag which is the colored bag, FBI Exhibit No. 10, is folded over. Was it folded over when you saw it the first time, folded over to the end?
Mr. FRAZIER - I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it.

Mr. BALL - But are you sure that his hand was at the end of the package or at the side of the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Like I said, I remember Ididn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.

Mr. BALL - Mr. Frazier, we have here this Exhibit No. 364 which is a sack and in that we have put a dismantled gun. Don't pay any attention to that. Will you stand up here and put this under your arm and then take a hold of it at the side?
Now, is that anywhere near similar to the way that Oswald carried the package?
Mr. FRAZIER - Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--
Mr. BALL - Turn around.
Mr. FRAZIER - I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there, the physical features. If you could see it from the front like when you walk and meet somebody you could tell about the package, but walking from behind you couldn't tell much about the package whatsoever about the width.

Why do you act as if Frazier measured and minutely examined the package?

[FrankO]

The Single Bullet Theory is one of many ballistic theories in this case. It fails in a major respect because Humes did not complete the Autopsy in tracing it's path.

The Single Bullet Theory fails the trajectory and alignment test in terms of acute angles and alignment of Kennedy and Connally. This is also proven using technology and photographic evidence.

I agree with you Fiver that the Single Bullet would be possible. But it would have to meet certain tests as mentioned. Humes own Autopsy sketches show an offset from the back wound and throat of several inches. The sketches that show a straight line path that Humes used in his testimony was not based on photographic evidence as access was not granted.

Because Humes failed to trace the neck wound, the possibility of the throat wound being an entrance wound is Possible.

The Single Bullet became invalid because Humes failed to trace the throat wound. But Specter and the WC needed Oswald to be guilty so the Country would not have to sit through months of trials, like OJ Simpson.

Hi Patrick,

I don't think the SBT becomes invalid because Humes failed to trace the throat wound. Of course, that's a great shame and not something to be proud of, but he did examine the thoracic cavity and found the bruising/concusion of the neck muscles and on the top of the right lung and the pleura.

And I'd like to see some of the technology and photographic evidence used/made during the trajectory and alignment test you speak of. Could you point me to that or share it here?

Cheers,
Frank

[FrankO]

It shows the throat incision and the bullet wound in the back, not the neck, which is clearly well below the neck incision. It also shows the small wound in the temple and the large wound in the occipital area at the back of the head.

Hi George,

If the sketch was accurate, then we’d have to believe the shot had come from below. Or if we, as you do, believe that the wounds to back & throat were caused by 2 different shots (one from the front & one from the back), then we’d have to believe that the one who fired the shot to the back had chosen a rifle and/or ammunition that wouldn’t much penetrate the president’s back. And one has to wonder what happened to the bullet causing the throat wound.

That aside, Dr. Burkley wrote that the back wound was at "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra". When I look at anatomical illustrations of the lungs and skeleton, they show that the top of the lungs are above the uppermost rib, which is attached to T1 (and attached at a lower level to the sternum). If a downward bullet would have hit just above the level of T3 and assuming it would traverse the upper body, then it would very likely have entered the right lung or at least clearly wounded it. This doesn’t correspond with Dr. Humes’ findings, who’d opened up the chest cavity and found that the top of the right lung was bruised, but not penetrated. If it would have hit at the level of T3, it would have hit the third rib and fractured it. So, it must have been above T3, quite possibly between T1 & T2 and the attached ribs.



Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

This one is a bit of a jaw dropper if I’m being honest. Here we have a photograph of the President immediately after being struck by the final bullet. So what can we all see?

On the left (the rear of Kennedy’s head) we see hair. To the right, and around the area of his ear, we see a huge explosion wound.

Only on planet conspiracy can someone even dream of suggesting that the left side of the head is the one that shows the head injury.

I’m sorry chaps but this one utterly beggars belief.

Then we get this:

”Patrick, the answer from the WC is simply...the truth can be adjusted.”

Another absolute jaw-dropper from the side that, to make their theories fit, conveniently yell fake, forgery, tampering and fit-up at every opportunity.

…

How many times, in ripper discussions, do we discuss witness fallibility? George, for example, believes that John Richardson was mistaken and missed a mutilated corpse lying a foot from his left boot. (Let me be clear, he’s not the only one that believes this and I’m not suggesting for a moment that this isn’t his honestly held opinion), but we have to ask why George, and others, are so reluctant to accept witness error in this case? So much so that they will rubbish actual, physical evidence like the ZF, autopsy photos and x-days?

Favouring a rear head wound are some Dealey Plaza witnesses and some staff at Parkland.

I would go so far as to say that I wouldn’t call any DP witness, no matter what side of the debate their testimony favours, as being particularly reliable. They were fallible human beings in an unbelievable stressful situation make judgment calls on things that happened in the blink of an eye. After the first and second shots these people would all have been more interested in protecting their own and their families lived. How can anyone suggest that these were good witnesses. If we apply the police ADVOCATE system for assessing the strength of witnesses not one of them would score anything but poor. And yet conspiracy theorists treat them as close to infallible.

Then we have this level of utter confidence in those Parkland doctors and staff. So much so that CT’s are quite happy to dismiss/ignore those staff that didn’t agree with the majority view. A group are largely inexperienced staff. None of whom could see the wound because Kennedy was lying on his back and no one turned him over or lifted his head. And let’s be totally honest here…how many of those staff were situated anywhere near Kennedy’s head? 3, 4, 5? Some were behind other doctors, some where in other parts of the room, many would have been around the table and the lower half of Kennedy’s body. And as the actual evidence tells us where the wound was and we all know about gravity then it doesn’t take a genius to consider the blood running from the actual wound to ‘pool’ at the base of Kennedy’s head. So those members of staff see a bloodied mess at the base of Kennedy’s head and with partial views and in the trauma of the situation combined with the fact that they were trying to resuscitate the President gives us a very clear, reasonable suggestion for what happened.

To recap….no police investigation EVER puts human witnesses above video and photographic evidence but this is EXACTLY what conspiracy theorists are doing because they want to make things ‘fit.’ And they do it as if they’re on some kind of higher ground.

Video, photographic and x-Ray evidence trumps human witnesses every time.

Kennedy was hit in the head from behind. The shot was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the 6th floor of the TSBD. All else is fantasy.

[GBinOz]

The sketch here illustrates serious problems with the WC. It does not matter what Parkland said as they had only 20 minutes to perform life saving techniques. Their were first impressions of wounds based on their experience that do not match WC findings...which were incomplete. Trauma Doctors are not inexperienced and these certainly were not.

The sketch shows the offsets and illustrates how the Single Bullet simply does not align on the vertical and horizontal planes. Plus the acute angles from above and to the sides were acute and moving.

Yet the government would have you believe there was a perfect alignment in this case. If that's true then please explain how?
unfortunately Humes did not trace the bullet path in the throat.

I know i keep repeating but so are the posts.

Patrick, the answer from the WC is simply...the truth can be adjusted.

The back wound being lower than the throat wound makes the SBT implausible? No problem. Just move the back wound up to the neck.

Connally being seated in front of the president makes the SBT implausible? No problem. Just move Connally's position 10" towards the centre of the car.

The position of a rear shot low on the skull would result in an unobserved exit wound in the face. No problem. Just move the position of the bullet wound.




Then this diagram can be proffered as a solution:



Just overlook the inconvenient fact that this diagram leaves the Harper fragment undamaged and the Temporal bone, clearly seen flapping in the Zapruder film, undamaged.





Zapruder film shows rear exit wound. No problem. Just deny it.



Ignore primary evidence from Boswell, Finck, Sibert, O'Neill, Bennett, Hill etc as "mistaken" in favour of lawyer interviews forty years after the event.

That said, the reconstruction model below is said to reflect what Humes stated that he saw:



It is this model that leads me to consider a shot from the front through the temple with the exit wound in the occipital, followed very quickly by a shot from the rear causing the injury to the top of the skull. IMO this sequence is visible in the Zapruder film.

YMMV.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Picture the scene. It’s 1pm on November 22nd 1963 and with great sadness Dr. Kemp Clark pronounced President John F. Kennedy dead after 22 minutes of frantic but ultimately futile effort, by a team of largely inexperienced doctors, to try and save his life. More than a few tears are shed and there’s an atmosphere of sombre disbelief in Parkland’s Trauma Room One.

The terrible silence is then broken again by Dr. Clark. “Ok, ladies and gentleman form an orderly queue because we don’t have much time before they remove the corpse.”

The staff form a queue which stretches around the room and into the corridor before the slow procession starts. At a jaunty pace they all walk past the table and as each one passed Dr. Clark lifted up the President’s head so that they could all get a good close look. Especially grateful are those doctors who had been situated at Kennedy’s feet or next to the lower half of the body or in areas behind doctors who were directly next to the table as they had never been able to get a good close view of the bloody mass. One of the Doctor’s is heard to say “Damn! If I’d only brought my camera with me.”

For future reference Clark makes a note to request a supply of glass top tables for trauma rooms to the hospital’s administration so that in future cases like this staff would be able to quickly duck under the table to view any potential back of the head wounds. This was the kind of spirit that was abroad at Parkland. They even considered any kind of future help that they might be able to provide for pathologists at other hospitals who might perhaps fail to spot cavernous head wounds whilst in the process of closely examining things like… well, head wounds.

In a later debrief Clark would question those young doctors about what they had seen at the back of Kennedy’s head.

“Well…nothing…he was lying on it so we couldn’t see,” said one keen, but nervous, young intern.


“Don’t be a smart arse!” replied Clark “What about all of that blood and gore and matted hair where his head rested on the table?”


“Well actually we thought it was blood and gore and matted hair from the wound above his right ear which had run down and made it look like there was a back of the head wound.”


Clark looked crestfallen. Then irritated.


“Don’t be stupid. Look, it was a wound…ok.”


“It guess it must have been,” said an anonymous voice from the back of the room.




‘This previous unreleased secretly recorded Iand certainly not faked) version of what went on in Trauma Room One has been kept from the public for 60 years by a cabal of Militant Knollists.’


….



Fast forward 60 years.



In a town somewhere in England two men fight on a pavement (sidewalk for some) Across the road 12 people are sitting outside a pub enjoying a drink. They all look over and watch the fight. One of them men end up on the floor unconscious while the other runs away.

The police are called and the drinkers are all questioned. All twelve of them describe the fleeing man as white and around 20, 5’9” tall, fairly slim, wearing a cap and with a rucksack on his back. The police notice that the building next to the pub has a CCTV camera so they seize the relevant footage.


Back at the station…


When they look they see the fight. They see the assailant knock the other guy to the ground and flee. He is actually Asian, around 45 years of age and over 6’ tall and pretty powerfully built. He’s wearing no cap and is carrying no rucksack.


Two officers are present…


Detective Constable Bob Sensible says “Well Guv, those witnesses were obviously mistaken. Probably drunk.”


Detective Inspector Jim ‘Grassy’ Knollington replied “ Are you serious!? That CCTV footage has obviously been faked. We’re looking for a guy around 20, 5’9”, slim, wearing a cap and carrying a rucksack.”


The investigation was clearly in safe hands.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The sketch here illustrates serious problems with the WC. It does not matter what Parkland said as they had only 20 minutes to perform life saving techniques. Their were first impressions of wounds based on their experience that do not match WC findings...which were incomplete. Trauma Doctors are not inexperienced and these certainly were not.

The sketch shows the offsets and illustrates how the Single Bullet simply does not align on the vertical and horizontal planes. Plus the acute angles from above and to the sides were acute and moving.

Yet the government would have you believe there was a perfect alignment in this case. If that's true then please explain how?
unfortunately Humes did not trace the bullet path in the throat.

I know i keep repeating but so are the posts.

Zapruder film shows no rear head wound. That’s end of story. The witnesses were wrong. This isn’t a mystery.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have presented the cover sheet from the autopsy. How is that accusative or trashing of Boswell? Is it because it doesn't represent what you consider to be the truth?

Because no one on the conspiracy side allows for human error.

The Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and the x-rays trump everything else. There is no rear head wound shown on the Zapruder film therefore even if 100 people felt that they had seen one they have to be dismissed as wrong.

[Patrick Differ]

The sketch here illustrates serious problems with the WC. It does not matter what Parkland said as they had only 20 minutes to perform life saving techniques. Their were first impressions of wounds based on their experience that do not match WC findings...which were incomplete. Trauma Doctors are not inexperienced and these certainly were not.

The sketch shows the offsets and illustrates how the Single Bullet simply does not align on the vertical and horizontal planes. Plus the acute angles from above and to the sides were acute and moving.

Yet the government would have you believe there was a perfect alignment in this case. If that's true then please explain how?
unfortunately Humes did not trace the bullet path in the throat.

I know i keep repeating but so are the posts.

[GBinOz]

You can produce any number of items and I’ll still say what’s the truth. The accusations levelled against Humes, Boswell and Finck are a pathetic, sick joke. Too many people over the years have had too little to do but try and trash the reputations of thoroughly decent men who have no stain against their characters.

I have presented the cover sheet from the autopsy. How is that accusative or trashing of Boswell? Is it because it doesn't represent what you consider to be the truth?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You can produce any number of items and I’ll still say what’s the truth. The accusations levelled against Humes, Boswell and Finck are a pathetic, sick joke. Too many people over the years have had too little to do but try and trash the reputations of thoroughly decent men who have no stain against their characters.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You have previously used the quote of "absolutely" regarding the testimony of Dr Carrico. His testimony from the Warren Commission here, but a search on "absolutely" has a zero return:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Carrico.pdf

What Specter does is present his wound in the back of the neck as fact (which it obviously isn't) and asks for a response based totally on the assumption that the fallacy is fact. This is typical of the devious badgering techniques used at the WC.

Mr. Specter. Permit me to add some facts which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion. First of all, assume that the President was struck by a a 6.5 mm. copper jacketed bullet from a rifle having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,00O feet per second at a .time when the President was approximately 160 to 250 feet from the weapon, with the President being struck from the rear at a downward angle of approximately 45 degrees, being struck on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula 14 centimeters from the tip of the right acromlon process and 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process. Assume further that the missile passed through the body of the President striking no bones, traversing the neck and sliding between the large muscles in the posterior aspect of the President’s body through a fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity, but bruising only the apex of the right pleural cavity and bruising the most apical portion of the right lung, then causing a hematoma to the right of the larynx which you have described, and creating a jagged wound in the trachea, then exiting precisely at the point where you observe the puncture wound to exist. Now based on those facts was the appearance of the wound in your opinion consistent with being an exit wound.
Dr. Carrico. It certainly was. It could have been under the circumstances.
Mr. Specter. And assuming that all the facts which I have given you to be true, do you have an opinion with a reasonable degree of medical certainty as to whether, in fact, the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound?
Dr. Carrico. With those facts and the fact as I understand it no other bullet was found this would be, this was, I believe, was an exit wound.

This is the autopsy cover sheet prepared by Boswell and signed off by Burkley.


It shows the throat incision and the bullet wound in the back, not the neck, which is clearly well below the neck incision. It also shows the small wound in the temple and the large wound in the occipital area at the back of the head.
Do I hear shouts of "fake" from the playground?

Who are the "17 pathologists" to whom you refer?

It was from an interview with Vince Bugliosi.

[Patrick Differ]

The Single Bullet Theory has been confirmed as possible by modern ballistic experts, such as Luke Haag.

The Single Bullet Theory is one of many ballistic theories in this case. It fails in a major respect because Humes did not complete the Autopsy in tracing it's path.

The Single Bullet Theory fails the trajectory and alignment test in terms of acute angles and alignment of Kennedy and Connally. This is also proven using technology and photographic evidence.

I agree with you Fiver that the Single Bullet would be possible. But it would have to meet certain tests as mentioned. Humes own Autopsy sketches show an offset from the back wound and throat of several inches. The sketches that show a straight line path that Humes used in his testimony was not based on photographic evidence as access was not granted.

Because Humes failed to trace the neck wound, the possibility of the throat wound being an entrance wound is Possible.

The Single Bullet became invalid because Humes failed to trace the throat wound. But Specter and the WC needed Oswald to be guilty so the Country would not have to sit through months of trials, like OJ Simpson.

[Fiver]

Just providing the evidence that proves the ''fake autopy'' photos , the Warren Commission lies , cover ups and conspiracy. .You do what you like .

You have provided no evidence. You have copy-pasted a mix of opinions and outright lies from a Conspiracist that Herlock showed has been condemned by other Conspiracists. You have posted at least four theories about the shooters that contradict each other and you still endorse all of them. You have condemned dozens of witnesses as liars, yet selectively insisted that some are telling the truth on points you agree with. You have insisted that witness accounts that contradict each other on all points agree with each other. You have accepted witness accounts that contradict themselves and contradict the evidence.

[Fiver]

As opposed to this 'Ballistic'' Expert.

The "ballistics expert" who invented the Single bullet theory was a young lawyer, Arlen Specter.

The Single Bullet Theory has been confirmed as possible by modern ballistic experts, such as Luke Haag.