JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

As Fishy yet again avoids a response (why change the habits of a lifetime?) I’ll ask a general question (with little hope of a meaningful response from anyone - I’ll probably get another 6 questions)

Scenario - a police investigation.

A woman’s scream is heard followed by a shout of “help, mugger!” The mugger runs around the corner and away at close to midday.

4 witnesses come forward. They all heard the shouts at around midday and saw the man round the corner and run away. They all describe him as tall, slim built and wearing a baseball cap.

The police naturally check the cctv footage. It shows a man running in that direction at 11.58 (they run the footage back to 11.00 and forward to 1.00, no one else runs past) he’s tall and slim built but he’d not wearing a baseball cap.

The same day a woman comes forward who was across the road at midday. She’d just taken a photo of her friend as a man ran passed on the opposite side of the road. The police check the photograph. It’s logged at 11.58, the man is tall and slim built but he’s not wearing a baseball cap.

Question - what is the normal, sane, logical response here? What would the Police have done?

1. Accepted that the witness were clearly mistaken under the circumstances, as witnesses can be? Or,

2. Insist that the witnesses simply cannot have been wrong therefore both the ccctv footage and the photograph have been faked? As a precaution they get the footage and the photo checked and there’s no evidence of fakery.


None conspiracy theorist - the witnesses were clearly honest but mistaken.

Conspiracy theorist - the witnesses were infallible so, despite the lack of evidence, the cctv and photo must have been faked.

A fair snapshot of the conspiracist mentality.

[Herlock Sholmes]

‘Are there any other cases that can we name where there is such a Mount Everest of evidence that is simply dismissed by cries of ‘forgery?’

What evidence? There was no criminal investigation into either the JFK or Tippit murders. There was no proper cross examination of eyewitnesses or experts.

There’s nothing irregular in this under the circumstances. An investigation was set up. Nothing else could be done.

The Warren Commission was established in order to prove the lone gunman theory, not to unearth the truth. So the conclusion of the WC investigation was decided before any ‘evidence’ was actually heard, a reversal of established procedure I would suggest. This is a matter of public record as stated by LBJ.

No, this is the opinion of conspiracy theorists determined to confirm their theories. LBJ was clearly talking about making sure that the case was watertight. You can find not one single sentence from anyone suggesting dishonesty apart from deliberate misinterpretation.

All the evidence gathered was to be tailored to this end, much to the relief of the Dallas Police, the FBI and the CIA who were now effectively investigating themselves.

Such a massive wide-ranging cover-up would be inconceivable. No one, and I really do mean no one would have been so careless of outcomes as to have left so much to chance and reliance of fraud and fakery and the complicity of so many corrupt officials and pliant witnesses that were beyond control. It’s not just that a cover-up of this magnitude didn’t take place, it couldnt have taken place.

The biggest security **** up since Caesar was stabbed in the Senate was, absurdly, being investigated by those guilty of criminal negligence, allegedly in the interests of national security. That is why, as Joseph McBride has explained clearly, questioning the LG theory has since become the responsibility of private citizens.

If there was a **** up it in no way implies conspiracy. Is every **** up a conspiracy or just the one’s you choose?

So it’s not so much a case of the WC bearing false witness, more a case of tailoring evidence and shaping the narrative.

Opinion, not fact.

The ‘magic bullet’ theory is the most egregious example of this.

Proven. And what happened to the ‘magic bullet’ that allegedly missed Connally and headed straight for the guy in the passenger seat? Even Cyril Wecht didn’t have an answer for that one. Do you?

Bugliosi, who came late to the game, was a lawyer so grasped this fully.

Yes, he grasped how to evaluate evidence.

His apparent ignorance of Oswald’s CIA connections is of a king, as is his dismissal of a conspiracy on the spurious grounds that any competent conspiracy would not have involved Oswald.

He dismissed conspiracy because there was no evidence of one. And no one would have used Oswald. Why do conspiracy theorist want there cake and to eat it too? They claim that he was a poor shot and that the rifle was no good. Yet they frame him for the murder? A man that could be connected to them. Really? A man who it was common knowledge had defected to the Soviet Union. Could they have possibly found anyone less likely to have drawn the attention of doubters?

The notion that a conspiracy might have been well organised and served up the hapless Oswald as a convenient ‘patsy’ seems to elude him.

It’s not a case of being well-organised. Why can’t you grasp this? The level of pre-planning would have been insane. And in such a short space of time. Just impossible.

Much the same blindness applies to all the tainted ID evidence of Oswald, a man whose photo was being shown on national TV from midday onwards.

So what? He was known to the CIA and FBI. He defected. Why wouldn’t they have a photo on record?

He tells us Oswald lied about eating lunch with Junior Jarman; according to Fritz’s notes Oswald merely said that Jarman walked through the lunch room when he was eating.

According to Fritz. Why do you only go for Fritz? Oswald lied. As he lied about the curtain rods. And he lied about not knowing that Kennedy was coming (the only person in Dallas that was unaware of this. Take the conspiracy goggles off.

A minor point obviously (and Jarman did not remember seeing Oswald) but how is he so certain Oswald was lying? Bugliosi says Oswald alone ‘fled’ the scene. Fled? He was drinking a coke, walked out of the front door and even offered his taxi to an elderly woman. And four workers at the TSBD were unaccounted for up till 3pm, not just Oswald. This is how narratives are shaped.

No, narratives are shaped by framing innocuous comments by LBJ as evidence of deception and the childish squealing of ‘fake’ at every single piece of evidence that doesn’t support the CT’s narrative?


Why did he get the taxi driver to drop him blocks from home?

Why did he go to the Paine’s on a Thursday for the first time ever?

Why did he tell Giverns at 11.55 that he was staying on the 6th floor?

Why did an innocent man pick up his revolver?

Why did an innocent man lie about owning a rifle?

Why did an innocent man refuse a Lie Detector?

I don’t know why I responded. Clearly I’m the only poster on this thread who is actually answering questions. At a rate of around 15 for every 1 answer I get - and that answer is usually not even a proper one.

[FISHY1118]

As Fishy yet again avoids a response (why change the habits of a lifetime?) I’ll ask a general question (with little hope of a meaningful response from anyone - I’ll probably get another 6 questions)

Scenario - a police investigation.

A woman’s scream is heard followed by a shout of “help, mugger!” The mugger runs around the corner and away at close to midday.

4 witnesses come forward. They all heard the shouts at around midday and saw the man round the corner and run away. They all describe him as tall, slim built and wearing a baseball cap.

The police naturally check the cctv footage. It shows a man running in that direction at 11.58 (they run the footage back to 11.00 and forward to 1.00, no one else runs past) he’s tall and slim built but he’d not wearing a baseball cap.

The same day a woman comes forward who was across the road at midday. She’d just taken a photo of her friend as a man ran passed on the opposite side of the road. The police check the photograph. It’s logged at 11.58, the man is tall and slim built but he’s not wearing a baseball cap.

Question - what is the normal, sane, logical response here? What would the Police have done?

1. Accepted that the witness were clearly mistaken under the circumstances, as witnesses can be? Or,

2. Insist that the witnesses simply cannot have been wrong therefore both the ccctv footage and the photograph have been faked? As a precaution they get the footage and the photo checked and there’s no evidence of fakery.


None conspiracy theorist - the witnesses were clearly honest but mistaken.

Conspiracy theorist - the witnesses were infallible so, despite the lack of evidence, the cctv and photo must have been faked.

A fair snapshot of the conspiracist mentality.

Just how does this rubbish, gibberish post of your , have anything to do with you calling Jackie clint and McClelland all liars?

Oh wait, thats right it doesn't.

Who's doing the avoiding one might ask?

Just like the Richardson thread which you butchered single handedly, your up to your old tricks on this one.

But just like the Richardson topic you again have been found out by George cobalt myself and now p.i

The fake jfk head autopsy pic showed you up as proof you swallowed the WC hook line and sinker.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just how does this rubbish, gibberish post of your , have anything to do with you calling Jackie clint and McClelland all liars?

Oh wait, thats right it doesn't.

Who's doing the avoiding one might ask?

Just like the Richardson thread which you butchered single handedly, your up to your old tricks on this one.

But just like the Richardson topic you again have been found out by George cobalt myself and now p.i

The fake jfk head autopsy pic showed you up as proof you swallowed the WC hook line and sinker.

You forgot to provide the evidence for fakery. Easily done since it doesn’t exist.

Good answer though….by your standards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just a few witnesses.

I meant to make this point earlier but forgot. So let’s look at this in the interests of accuracy shall we? On the location of the exit wound.


Lets use none medical language for clarity. I’ll describe 4 locations:

1. Side right - this is the area shown on the Zapruder film and the area the 17 pathologists agreed was the exit wound. Generally the temple area.

2. Side left - the area around Kennedy’s right ear or slightly behind it.

3. Right side rear - the area behind Kennedy’s ear but to the rear of Kennedy’s head

4. Rear - the centre back of Kennedy’s head. Basically the location of the bullet hole in the autopsy photo or above it.


Ok - simple enough?


I go for number 1. George, Fishy and PI go for 3. I assume that Cobalt goes for 3. too but I can’t recall him stating this explicitly so I won’t put words into his mouth.


So let’s look at the photos and list where they’re pointing.


Theran Ward is clearly indicating his right ear……………2

Aubrey Rike is clearly indicating the back of his ear but still not quite the back of his head……..2

Frank O’Neill is indicating above and behind his right ear toward the rear……..3

Jerrol Custer is indicating behind and at the level of his right ear and toward the rear……..3

Paul O’Connor is indicating behind and at the lever of his right ear and toward the rear…….2

Floyd Riche is indicating behind the ear but clearly at the rear of his head………4

Beverly Oliver is indication above and behind the ear toward the rear………3

Phillip Willis is clearly indication the rear of his head…….4

Marilyn Willis is clearly indicating the rear……..4

Ed Hofmann is clearly indicating the rear………4

Dr. McClelland (on this occasion) is indicating the rear……4

Dr. Peters is indicating the rear……..4

Dr. Salyer is indicating behind the right ear and above……3

Dr. Carrico is indicating behind and above the ear, almost the top of the head……3

Dr. Dulaney is harder to quantify because he’s indicating the rear top of the head, but I’ll give him…….4

Dr. Crenshaw is indicating behind the right ear toward the rear…….3

Dr. Jones is indicating behind the right ear……..2

Nurse Bell’s hair is in the way but I’ll say behind the right ear toward the rear…….3

……..

Ok, so summing up these particular witnesses we have:


Number 1 (side right) - 0

Number 2 (side left) - 4

Number 3 ( right side rear) - 7

Number 4 (rear) - 7

……


Let’s finish with a brief assessment of the witness and the circumstantial strength of their opinions.


Theron Ward was a young Justice of the Peace for the Third Precinct of Dallas County who was called in at Parkland to make decision as to who had jurisdiction over the body to perform the autopsy. Dr. Rose wanted it done at Parkland whilst Neurosurgeon Dr. Kemp Clark concurs with the Kennedy family who want it done at Bethesda. By the time Ward arrived (Admiral Buckley notes his arrival) Kennedy was in his coffin. Ward sides with the Kennedy’s and Dr. Clerk opinion. Was the coffin, awaiting removal, left open for some reason? If someone can post evidence of this then I’ll look at it of course but at the moment I have no way of knowing and it would appear strange if it was. Also, if it was open, why would a JP look closely and how could he have made an accurate assessment? He had no medical knowledge and he no reason to look anything more than fleetingly as he was at the centre of a heated dispute with the casting vote.


Aubrey Rike was an ambulance driver at Parkland who with his assistant helped put Kennedy in his casket. He also kindly helped Mrs Kennedy put her wedding ring on Kennedy’s finger. A normal, genuine guy but someone with no reason to examine the President’s head wound. His head was badly damaged of course and bloody and with badly matted hair. So how accurate could his assessment possibly have been? Also I have to ask the question, and I don’t know the answer, it was stated that the Presidents body was wrapped at Parkland, so was that done by Rike and his assistant or was it done by Parkland staff before the ambulance arrived? If the former wouldn’t that also make any viewing less likely or accurate?

PS, I just read that FBI agent Sibert said that when the casket arrived in the autopsy room the body was indeed wrapped in 2 sheets. One around his body and one around his head.


Frank O’Neill was an FBI agent who along with Sibert was assigned to the Presidents body. I can’t fail to point out that whenever and conclusions by FBI agents are mentioned they are accused of being ‘in on it’ and liars but when one says something that conspiracy theorists like he becomes an infallible paragon of virtue which of course is how conspiracy theorists work. Was O’Neill there? Definitely. Was he there to analyse wounds (when looking at the horrible mess that was Kennedy head - bloodied, with brain matter and matted, bloody hair)? No. Was he qualified in any way to provide an assessment? No. It’s also worth pointing out Nevill’s conspiracist leanings as he appears to suggest a surgical alteration of the wounds (promoted by David Lifton)


Jerrol Custer was an x-Ray technician at Bethesda. He claimed that the autopsy was filmed and that he didn’t come forward with them because of a ‘gagging order.’ In actual fact a simple order, applied to all, not to talk. This was the President after all. Where was this film? He destroyed it. Was he told to destroy it? No, this mere technician made the decision to destroy a film of the President’s autopsy.


Paul O’Connor was a 21 year old Lab Technician at Bethesda. He claimed:” Everything was gone. There were bits of brain matter laying around inside the cranium, but….that was it.” When interviewed by Bugliosi at the London Trial, Bugliosi told him about the pathologists writing that they’d sent the brain to be fixed in formalin - taken by Sibert and O’Neill and asked him if this actually happened? Answer: “Not to my knowledge.” He further asked O’Connor if it was true that he’d bought and read the Warren Commission report, and virtually every book on the case and that they all mentioned the brain, and that the absence of the brain (according to him) would have been massively important but none of the books mentioned it ? O’Connor agreed. Bugliosi then asked him why he didn’t mention this fact at his interview at the HSCA? O’Connor claimed that: “He was not allowed to talk until that time.” But he did know that he was allowed to talk to the HSCA because he knew that Defence Secretary Harold Brown had rescinded the purely verbal order from the Surgeon General Edward Kenney in 1963 that personnel present at the autopsy could talk about it except under court order (clearly no cover up there then) Why do people give O’Connor a seconds credence?


Floyd Riche was a Naval Corpsman and medical photography student. At the moment I can find nothing else about him without looking through books which I’d have to get down from the loft.


John Stringer, Chief Medical photographer for the Navy at Bethesda that there was: “No question the large exit wound in the President’s head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear.” In a 1996 interview he said: “ There was a fist sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear.”


Beverly Oliver is a proven fantasist who supposedly took photographs for a camera which wasn’t available in the US among other things. We can’t even be anything like certain that she was actually in Dealey Plaza that day. I have serious doubts.


Phillip Willis was an executive car salesman who was standing near the corner of Huston and Elm taking photographs. He can be seen on the Zapruder film. No reason at all for questioning his integrity. He didn’t believe that the shot came from the TSBD. His location doesn’t seem that great to me.


Marilyn Willis was the above wife, with him at the time.


Ed Hofmann is a proven liar and fantasist. No one gives any weight to what he said. Even his own family.


Dr. McClelland, as I’ve said, at 4.45 on the afternoon of the assassination placed the wound on the left side of Kennedy’s head. This alone should eliminate him. He then changed to the back of the head, producing his famous drawing for Josiah Thompson, then admitted at was misleading and that the wound was more to the side. Then he changed back again. McClelland simply cannot be taken seriously. But some do of course.


Dr. Peters was one of the Parkland Doctors. When he arrived Perry and Jones were performing the tracheotomy he tried to find the appropriate sized tube. Perry noticed a bubbling sensation in the presidents chest and requested that Peters make an incision and put in a tube. He took of the presidents trousers and focused on his torso down seeing that he had on a brace and pelvic bandages. He did other things too. When asked about the head wound he described it as in the:” right occipital parietal area.”


Dr Salyer was a first year resident Doctor at Parkland who went on to have a distinguished career. He believed that the wound was in the right temporal area. At the side and behind the ear as he indicated in the photograph.


Dr Carrico was another young Parkland Doctor. He totally accepted the possibility that he could have been mistaken on the exact location of the head wound considering the condition of Kennedy’s head. He concurred the the WC findings.


Dr Dulaney is rarely mentioned and for good reason. His observation is even out of sync with the doctors that disagreed with Humes, Boswell and Finck.


Dr. Charles Crenshaw was an inexperienced young doctor at Parkland who exaggerated his role in events at Parkland so that he could write a conspiracy book. Even McClelland accuses him of exaggerating his role. He also went on to make increasingly far out conspiracy claims.


Dr. Jones was chief resident of surgery at Parkland. He wouldn’t finish his training until July 1964. No suggestion at all of incompetence. He had little or no experience of bullet wounds though. We certainly can’t simply dismiss his opinion for that though.


Nurse Bell (Fishy’s heroine) She was Nurse Supervisor and was definitely in the room but it’s difficult to see under what circumstances she saw the head wound and for how long. She certainly wasn’t involved closely as there was another Nurse there and Bell was the supervising nurse. She had no reason to look closely at the wound or to make a detailed judgment on a head that was a bloodied mess.


……


So, of 18 witnesses.




We have Hofmann and Oliver who were proven liars and fantasists.

We have Crenshaw who lied about his level of involvement and wrote a conspiracy theorist book.

We have O’Connor who didn’t bother telling that there was nothing of the brain left.

We have Dulaney who places the wound where even those that dispute the pathologists don’t go for.

We have Custer, a technician only who, according to himself, destroyed a film of the autopsy despite no one telling him to.

We have Dr. McClelland who at 4.45 on the day of the assassination not only noted that the head wound was on the side of Kennedy’s head but he put it on the wrong side. He later moved it to the rear. Then back to the side. Then back to the rear. No reasonable person could take him seriously (Fishy does though)


So I completely dismiss 7 on good grounds leaving 11.


The two Willis’s honesty I have no reason to doubt but they were a distance away on the opposite side of the road seeing a traumatic incident that was over in seconds.

Rike seems honest but we have to question how closely he saw the head wound. And we have to remember that Agent Sibert said that when the president arrived at Bethesda his head was wrapped in a sheet. Would an ambulance driver have done this? Or is it more likely that Parkland staff would have done it (so people couldn’t see the horrible sight, like Jackie?) …if so then he couldn’t have seen the head.

O’Neill is a strange one. An FBI agent who became a bit of a conspiracy theorist. Not a medical man so wouldn’t have examined the head wound. Saw a bloodied, matted mess and made a simple mistake?

Riche, I have nothing to go on.

Stringer placed the wound over his ear.

Bell was a nurse supervisor who had no cause to examine the wound and I can’t imagine the doctors requesting her opinion. We don’t know under what circumstances she saw the presidents head but we know that it was a bloodied mess needing close scrutiny to analyse. Close scrutiny that Bell wouldn’t have applied.

Theron Ward was a young JP who was there to make a decision on the custody battle for the body and that’s all. If he did see the head wound, and I can find no evidence that he did, he saw it while it was in the coffin. So a brief look, in poor circumstances at a bloodied mass that needed close scrutiny to analyse.

Dr Carrico openly admitted that he could have been wrong.

That leaves Jones, Salyer and Peters. All apparently honest men. All focused on resuscitating the President. None of who were tasked with or focused on the location of a bullet wound on a head that was bloodied and covered in brain tissue and matted hair.




By any reckoning this is not a strong batch of witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was wrong……it wasn’t Oswald.

It was Lemmy from Motörhead.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

PI, I’m trying to keep a lid on my irritation but, do you actually read what you’re writing? Do you think…..I was going to add something but I’ll leave it there……do you think?

How can you talk about how I treat evidence? What about how you treat the evidence of the Zapruder film which shows no rear head wound? Or the Moorman photo which shows no rear head wound? Or the 3 pathologists who saw no rear head wound? Or the Drs, scientists and military rifle experts who all disagree with your assertion about the head movement? Or the evidence of conspiracy theorist forensic pathologist Cyril Wecht who said categorically that the two wounds received by Kennedy could only have come from the rear? Or the evidence of 3 men on the 5th floor who, through an open window, heard e shots from the floor above, from a window so close that the gunman could have passed the rifle down to them?

I could quote pages of evidence and ask why YOU treat it in the way that you do?

Use judgment. A general question. Forget JFK for a minute.

Who would be the best and most reliable of these three witnesses:

1. A man reacting in a second to an incredibly traumatic situation? Who duty and raining kicks in….protect the President and the other VIP’s in the car. Get the car moving to hospital. Even a trained officer would be acting in a bit of a blur in that situation….wondering if another shot was coming.

2. A Doctors who, out of the blue, is summoned to a trauma room to help try and save the Presidents life. By the time that he arrives the President is lying on his back and another Doctor has just completed a tracheotomy. Most of the doctors are young and inexperienced. McClelland had only qualified a year before. His job wasn’t to analyse or measure wounds, it was to try and save the President in 22 minutes of heart-stopping effort. The President’s life is in their fairly inexperienced hands. Until they move the body later the back of Kennedy’s head is hidden and McClelland didn’t see him brought in.

3. A pathologist whose sole job was to determine the cause of death and to analyse the wounds. Yes, in unique circumstances and in an autopsy of many mistakes, but he still had hours with the President lying there on front of him.

Forget conspiracy or non-conspiracy we’re talking about the measured assessment of witnesses with no preconception. Which of the above would be the best placed and best qualified to give an accurate assessment and opinion?

Thank you for your reply.

Dr John Ebersole, who saw the wound during the autopsy, estimated it to be about six inches below the neckline.

In the official death certificate, Dr Burkley placed it at about five to six inches below the neckline.

Glen A. Bennett testified that the shot hit Kennedy about four inches down from the right shoulder.

Diana Bowron, who washed Kennedy's body, estimated that the wound she saw was about five to six inches below the neckline.

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill estimated that the wound was about six inches below the neckline.

FBI agent Frazier examined the President's jacket and shirt and recorded that the bullet holes were 5 3/8 and 5 3/4 inches below their respective collars.

FBI agent Sibert viewed the autopsy and reproduced the relative positions of the back and throat wounds:











So did FBI agent O'Neill:











They reported that it was determined by Dr Hume that the missile entered at a downward angle of 45-60 degrees, and that the bullet could not therefore have exited Kennedy's throat.

Their diagrams flatly contradict the diagram and photo reconstruction provided by the Warren Commission, which show the back wound at a higher level than the throat wound.


Ebersole, Burkley, Bennett, Bowron, Hill, Frazier, Sibert, and O'Neill all placed the back wound five to six inches below the neckline.

You say that Hume's estimate of six inches, recorded in his diagram of the autopsy, was a mistake.

It was a mistake only in the sense that he made the mistake of recording the truth.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thank you for your reply.

Dr John Ebersole, who saw the wound during the autopsy, estimated it to be about six inches below the neckline.

In the official death certificate, Dr Burkley placed it at about five to six inches below the neckline.

Glen A. Bennett testified that the shot hit Kennedy about four inches down from the right shoulder.

Diana Bowron, who washed Kennedy's body, estimated that the wound she saw was about five to six inches below the neckline.

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill estimated that the wound was about six inches below the neckline.

FBI agent Frazier examined the President's jacket and shirt and recorded that the bullet holes were 5 3/8 and 5 3/4 inches below their respective collars.

FBI agent Sibert viewed the autopsy and reproduced the relative positions of the back and throat wounds:











So did FBI agent O'Neill:











They reported that it was determined by Dr Hume that the missile entered at a downward angle of 45-60 degrees, and that the bullet could not therefore have exited Kennedy's throat.

Their diagrams flatly contradict the diagram and photo reconstruction provided by the Warren Commission, which show the back wound at a higher level than the throat wound.


Ebersole, Burkley, Bennett, Bowron, Hill, Frazier, Sibert, and O'Neill all placed the back wound five to six inches below the neckline.

You say that Hume's estimate of six inches, recorded in his diagram of the autopsy, was a mistake.

It was a mistake only in the sense that he made the mistake of recording the truth.

I was talking about the head wound when I mentioned Humes.

You are quibbling about nothing.



This is how to assess if the wounds were entrance or exit wounds. You do three things.

1. Ask Drs Humes, Boswell and Finck what they were.

2. Look at the autopsy x-rays and autopsy photos.

3. Watch the Zapruder Film.

Everything else can and should be ignored.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I was talking about the head wound when I mentioned Humes.

You are quibbling about nothing.



This is how to assess if the wounds were entrance or exit wounds. You do three things.

1. Ask Drs Humes, Boswell and Finck what they were.

2. Look at the autopsy x-rays and autopsy photos.

3. Watch the Zapruder Film.

Everything else can and should be ignored.

I am not quibbling about nothing.

The drawing which you have reproduced shows the back wound higher than the throat wound.

Sibert and O'Neill's drawings show the throat wound higher than the back wound - and they were present at the autopsy.

Are you saying that they were wrong?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not quibbling about nothing.

The drawing which you have reproduced shows the back wound higher than the throat wound.

Sibert and O'Neill's drawings show the throat wound higher than the back wound - and they were present at the autopsy.

Are you saying that they were wrong?

If their drawing makes a rear entrance bullet wound then yes. They must have been. Why were they right and yet the pathologists were wrong? I thought the FBI was ‘in on it.’ Did they forget to tell Sibert and O’Neill?

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question for conspiracy theorists….though I doubt I’ll get an answer…..certainly not a sane one.

We know that the President was taken to Bethesda for the autopsy (decided by the family I believe because at least one other hospital was suggested) Parkland was different, it was the only choice so any conspirators would of course have known this. So……

How and why did our brilliant plotters manage (in advance) to gather together a team of 3 corrupt pathologists plus corrupt photograph forgers and x-ray fakers (at a hospital that they couldn’t have been certain was going to be the President’s destination) and yet at Parkland (where they knew for absolute certain that the President would be taken) they either forgot or didn’t bother? What would have been the point in having an autopsy report saying one thing whilst at the same time having uncorrupted Parkland Doctors, nurses and technicians (far more in quantity than at Bethesda) running around telling the world that the autopsy findings were bogus?

Answer, they blatantly wouldn’t have done. A child could see it’s a preposterous suggestion.

[Aethelwulf]

These question can, and have been answered, numerous times PI. I’m experiencing a fair bit of Deja vu here. Just as with George and Fishy you pile on question after question expecting me to jump through hoops with answers but you won’t give meaningful responses to mine.

Ill answer one part even though I don’t feel disposed to. Humes explained his error in placing the bullets entrance wound in the wrong place. When he wrote up the report it was late, he was extremely tired after a long and stressful autopsy, his rough notes didn’t contain a measurement and whilst he was writing the report he didn’t have access to the x-rays. Weave a conspiracy into that if you want to but it would reek of irony when Dr McClelland is quoted - a man who first placed the wound on the left side of the head, then moved it to the back, then further forward on to the side then back to the rear again. And conspiracy theorists believe him more reliable of the two.

Evening Herlock, just popping back to add some info to the bullet wound locations. I've been having a look through the published peer reviewed academic papers on this and there are quite a lot that deal with revisiting the medical data, although a lot of them aren't open access and there aren't any reprints available to view online. However, there is a paper here in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons) (http://www3.med.unipmn.it/papers/201...isiting.54.pdf). It is written for a general audience and all fairly clear to understand. As I suspected, and as you have posted, the original wounds were poorly recorded and there is a good deal of scope for uncertainty and error (not something you'll find in the CT dictionary). Here is some for the text from page 1345 (Size and Location of the Wounds):

First, there had been no communication between the Parkland medical team and those conducting the autopsy—so the doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital did not know the details of the tracheostomy. Second, the autopsy diagram had this wound marked much lower on the back, in a location not that did not correspond with the written description. Finally, the official death certificate, signed by the president’s personal physician, Dr. George Burkley (who did not perform the autopsy but was present), stated that the president was struck in the back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. All these issues were a direct result of poor communication and poor documentation. Appropriate communication between the treating physicians and the forensic pathologist did not take place, the autopsy diagram was not drawn to scale (but no mention of this was made on the drawing itself), and Dr. Burkley’s death certificate did not match either the autopsy description or the photographs, likely from a lack of attention to detail.

So we have some uncertainty. However, and I think quite crucially and fatal for the CTs, I would ask everyone to have a long hard look at Figures 11 and 12 in the above paper. Figure 11 is a still from the film before the first shot. Take a good hard look at JFK's (poor) posture, the position of his back and his throat, and his position and posture relative to his wife. Where does a shot from Oswald's position enter his back below the neckline and exit his throat.......Also note the rucked up nature of JFK's suite that would account for the location of the holes in the shirt.

Well, what we are told is impossible becomes possible after all. In fact, the relative positions of the entry and exit wounds are located in the only logical positions for JFK's posture. Had he been shot from the front in this position, the exit wound would likely have been far lower down, probably below his shoulder blade. Add in the uncertainly and poor recording of the wounds and margin for error, and: nothing to see here folks.

Not that we should be surprised:

• We were given proof of the serial number that it was a different gun (oops)
• We were told the gun photos don't match. Again, not much use of the old grey matter going on here
• We were shown the puffs of smoke which are nothing more that artifact of a very poor quality photo
• We were told it was impossible that the movement of JFK was consistent with being shot from behind. Yet we find that the laws of physics can recreate exactly what we see
• Now the bullet that doesn't line up, is entirely possible.

The real issue here is that Fishy, GB, Cobalt and PI are incapable of any critical thought. They simply repeat what they find on conspiracy sites that cherry pick data and are heavily biased. Given what I have read on this thread, it is clear that the posters above couldn't muster an original idea on this topic if they tried, for a very long time.

As an aside, I wonder if JFK's rather poor posture was related to his long history of back pain and repeated surgeries? Something new that I just read as well, on the day of the assassination JFK was wearing a very tight corset that went around his lower back and on his thighs. There is a theory that had he not been wearing this, he would have crumpled further forward after the first shot and thus been out of Oswald's sights for the fatal shot.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

If their drawing makes a rear entrance bullet wound then yes. They must have been. Why were they right and yet the pathologists were wrong? I thought the FBI was ‘in on it.’ Did they forget to tell Sibert and O’Neill?

Ebersole, Burkley, Bennett, Bowron, Hill, Frazier, Sibert, and O'Neill all placed the back wound five to six inches below the neckline.

Are you saying they were all wrong?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Evening Herlock, just popping back to add some info to the bullet wound locations. I've been having a look through the published peer reviewed academic papers on this and there are quite a lot that deal with revisiting the medical data, although a lot of them aren't open access and there aren't any reprints available to view online. However, there is a paper here in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (Journal of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons) (http://www3.med.unipmn.it/papers/201...isiting.54.pdf). It is written for a general audience and all fairly clear to understand. As I suspected, and as you have posted, the original wounds were poorly recorded and there is a good deal of scope for uncertainty and error (not something you'll find in the CT dictionary). Here is some for the text from page 1345 (Size and Location of the Wounds):

First, there had been no communication between the Parkland medical team and those conducting the autopsy—so the doctors at Bethesda Naval Hospital did not know the details of the tracheostomy. Second, the autopsy diagram had this wound marked much lower on the back, in a location not that did not correspond with the written description. Finally, the official death certificate, signed by the president’s personal physician, Dr. George Burkley (who did not perform the autopsy but was present), stated that the president was struck in the back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra. All these issues were a direct result of poor communication and poor documentation. Appropriate communication between the treating physicians and the forensic pathologist did not take place, the autopsy diagram was not drawn to scale (but no mention of this was made on the drawing itself), and Dr. Burkley’s death certificate did not match either the autopsy description or the photographs, likely from a lack of attention to detail.

So we have some uncertainty. However, and I think quite crucially and fatal for the CTs, I would ask everyone to have a long hard look at Figures 11 and 12 in the above paper. Figure 11 is a still from the film before the first shot. Take a good hard look at JFK's (poor) posture, the position of his back and his throat, and his position and posture relative to his wife. Where does a shot from Oswald's position enter his back below the neckline and exit his throat.......Also note the rucked up nature of JFK's suite that would account for the location of the holes in the shirt.

Well, what we are told is impossible becomes possible after all. Add in the uncertainly and poor recording of the wounds and margin for error, and: nothing to see here folks.

Not that we should be surprised:

• We were given proof of the serial number that it was a different gun (oops)
• We were told the gun photos don't match. Again, not much use of the old grey matter going on here
• We were shown the puffs of smoke which are nothing more that artifact of a very poor quality photo
• We were told it was impossible that the movement of JFK was consistent with being shot from behind. Yet we find that the laws of physics can recreate exactly what we see
• Now the bullet that doesn't line up, is entirely possible.

The real issue here is that Fishy, GB, Cobalt and PI are incapable of any critical thought. They simply repeat what they find on conspiracy sites that cherry pick data and are heavily biased. Given what I have read on this thread, it is clear that the posters above couldn't muster an original idea on this topic if they tried, for a very long time.

As an aside, I wonder if JFK's rather poor posture was related to his long history of back pain and repeated surgeries? Something new that I just read as well, on the day of the assassination JFK was wearing a very tight corset that went around his lower back and on his thighs. There is a theory that had he not been wearing this, he would have crumpled further forward after the first shot and thus been out of Oswald's sights for the fatal shot.

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that Kennedy's jacket and shirt were bunched up and in a higher position than normal and that that is why the holes in them were so low compared with the location of the entrance wound claimed by the Warren Commission.

Is that correct?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ebersole, Burkley, Bennett, Bowron, Hill, Frazier, Sibert, and O'Neill all placed the back wound five to six inches below the neckline.

Are you saying they were all wrong?

If anyone contradicts the findings of the autopsy doctors then they were mistaken.