JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[FISHY1118]

Head Games : The deliberate and fraudulent coverup of President Kennedy's head wound --- Part II


ACTUAL EVIDENCE . OF THE FAKERY OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS , WOW ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE LIARS , IDIOTS , MISTAKEN , OR NEVER EXISTED ACCORDING TO THE LONE GUNMAN GANG .


The morgue witnesses

Several witnesses who were present at Bethesda and saw the President's head wound described it as a massive wound to the right rear of the skull.

Chester Boyers was a Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda. He told the HSCA in 1978 that "there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head". ( ARRB MD 62 )

Boyers was never called by the Warren Commission.

One of the autopsists, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, told the HSCA that "the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound." ( ARRB MD 26 )

Dr. Boswell's Warren Commission testimony covered just a single page ( 2 H 377 ) and he was never asked to describe the wounds he saw.

Tom Robinson was the mortician whose job it was to prepare the body for burial. He was present during the examination of it. He told the HSCA that it was at "the base of the head, where most of the damage was done." Robinson described the wound in the back of the head as "ragged", about three inches in diameter and circular.

Tom Robinson was never called before the Warren Commission.

Floyd Riebe was a photographer who took pictures at the autopsy. He told the ARRB in 1997 that, "the right side in the back was gone. Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it." ( ARRB interview of Floyd Riebe, 5/7/97 )

Floyd Riebe was never called before the Warren Commission.

FBI agent Frank O'Neill told the ARRB that there was a "massive wound" in the rear of the head and there was bone missing. He stated that a portion of the skull was taken into the autopsy room as the autopsy progressed and that this piece was "found on the car floor in Dallas by one of the Secret Service agents." ( ARRB interview of Frank O'Neill, 9/12/97 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/FBI-man-saw-Massive-wound-in-right-rear-of-JFK-skull.mp4

O'Neill's recollection of a piece of skull recovered from the back of the limousine corroborates Secret Service agent Clint Hill's description of a piece of Kennedy's skull lying on the rear seat. ( 2 H 141 )

Frank O'Neill was never called before the Warren Commission.

Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front seat of the limo, saw Kennedy's head wound at Bethesda. He estimated the diameter at about 5 inches, located at the rear portion of the right side of the head. He said that it was "to the left of the ear and a little high" and testified that that part of the skull was "removed", clarifying that by "removed" that it was "absent when I saw him." ( 2 H 80-81 )

Jerrol Custer was the X-ray technician who took the x-rays of the President's body. He described the head wound as a "king sized hole...I could put my hands together and place my hands in the skull". ( ARRB interview of Jerrol Custer, 10/28/97 )

Jerrol Custer was never called before the Warren Commission.

In this essay, I've been able to document 19 witnesses who have claimed to have seen an enormous wound at the rear of the President's skull consistent with a wound of exit.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg

But the autopsy photo of the back of the head shows no such massive wound and there may have been a reason for that.


The autopsy photos: evidence of fakery


Witnesses claimed to have seen two different sets of autopsy photos after the autopsy. In one set, it is reported that there was an entry wound in the front of the head at the hairline and a massive exit wound at the rear. In the other, a small neat wound in the rear of the head and a blasted out "flap" on the right side.

The Warren Commission never published the autopsy photos. Instead, they published drawings to illlustrate the path of the bullet and its effects. For this they called on medical illustrator named Harold Rydberg, Head of Bethesda's Medical Illustration Department.

In March 1964, Rydberg had a meeting with Captain John Stover, the Commanding Officer of the Navy Medical School. Stover explained that Drs. Humes and Boswell were about to testify before the Warren Commission. Rydberg was ordered to prepare medical illustrations of the wounds sustained by John F. Kennedy. When he asked Humes why they were not using the photographs taken at the autopsy, he was told they were considered to be "too shocking" and had been sealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and were therefore not available for testimony.

Over the weekend of 14th/15th March 1964, Rydberg worked in a small office at Bethesda with Humes and Boswell. Rydberg was not allowed to take in any photographs of John F. Kennedy.

Boswell told him: "that they had no photographs, no X-rays, that I was going to have to do this one verbally... We'll tell you what to draw."

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrydbergH.htm

By March, 1964 they DID have the photographs and x-rays for reference so the only reason for not using them was because the autopsists sought to control what the drawings depicted.

Having confidence that the autopsy photos would never be seen by the public, the autopsists then had free reign to depict the wounds however they wanted.

Commission exhibits 385, 386 and 388 are the drawings Rydberg did according to the "memories" of Humes and Boswell.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/rydberg-drawings.jpg

The drawings, however, do not match the autopsy photos. They show a bullet wound at the base of the neck above the top of the shoulders. The autopsy photo of the back shows a bullet hole below the top of the shoulders.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE5_HI2.jpg

On this basis alone, the value of the Rydberg drawings as evidence is questionable, at best. At worse, they're a deliberate attempt to hide evidence that JFK was shot from the front and that Oswald was not involved in the killing.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s gave us a number of witnesses who had not been called by the Warren Commission.

Some were Bethesda witnesses who have come forward to describe what they saw in the morgue that night. When shown the official autopsy photos, they claimed that the photos did not depict the wound they saw.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/photos-faked.mp4

Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA that there was a wound in the right temple at the hairline, measuring about a quarter of an inch. ( ARRB MD 63, pgs. 2-3 )

Note: this is about the same size hole ( about a quarter of an inch ) described by Dr. Ronald Jones with regard to the throat wound ( 6 H 54 ).

Corroboration for Robinson's observation of an entry wound in the front of the head comes from autopsy attendee James Curtis Jenkins, interviewed by Patrick Bet David:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/james-curtis-jenkins.mp4

Further corroboration comes from Dennis David, who claimed that a few days after the assassination he saw slides from a video of the autopsy filmed by William Bruce Pitzer that showed an entrance wound in the front of the head and a massive exit wound at the rear.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/dennis-david.mp4

In addition to this evidence, White House Photographer Joe O'Donnell told the ARRB in 1997 that he saw two sets of photographs in the possession of Robert Knudsen, a Chief photographer for the Navy who was assigned to the White House. ( ARRB MD 231 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4

More evidence of a wound in the front of the skull comes from an autopsy photo of the back of the skull, showing a massive wound in the right rear and a smaller hole in the front of the head:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE7_HI1.jpg

Evidence of the coverup of that entrance wound in the front of the head comes in the form of one of the autopsy photos, where a black square was added to the photo:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE3_HI1_2.jpg

Faced with all of this evidence, that at least two shots ( one to the throat and one to the head ) of the same diameter were fired from in front of the President, the House Select Committee simply buried it.


"There is no medical evidence that President Kennedy was hit from the front and to the right".--G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel, HSCA.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

There is no evidence a ‘fake autopsy.’ You are simply shouting ‘fake’ at everything. And of course you asked questions which I have answered but I’ve asked questions which you ignore. A very familiar situation. I’ll ask again…

Why do you state the Parkland doctors as evidence of a ‘fake’ autopsy and accuse me, wrongly, of calling them liars, but you ignore those doctors that saw a wound at the side of Kennedy’s head and not the back? Why do you favour one group. If it’s because there is a majority my follow-up question is ‘why do you not follow the majority that thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBS? Why don’t you follow the majority who thought that there were only three shots? Why don’t you follow the majority that say that the President’s brain was present?

Conspiracy theorists work backwards. The rest of us work logically. A few people in Dealey Plaza gave an opinion on a split second, highly traumatic incident when there were more concerned with avoiding being shot and some of the Parkland doctors gave an opinion on a part of the Presidents body that couldn’t be seen, and in a highly traumatic situation where their focus was entirely on the throat and chest.

Against this we have the people in Dealey Plaza who disagreed with your witnesses, Parkland doctors who disagreed with your Parkland doctors (plus one of the two senior doctors [working at Kennedy’s head] who ‘absolutely’ accepted that they could have been wrong) along with 17 pathologists, autopsy photos independently checked by numerous experts with no evidence of fakery, x-rays independently checked by numerous experts with no evidence of fakers, the Zapruder film independently checked by numerous by numerous experts with no evidence of tampering. Simply shouting ‘fake’ at everything is playground stuff.

What are the chances of any reply (never mind a valid one) to the above? I won’t hold my breath.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Head Games : The deliberate and fraudulent coverup of President Kennedy's head wound --- Part II


ACTUAL EVIDENCE . OF THE FAKERY OF THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS , WOW ALL THESE PEOPLE WERE LIARS , IDIOTS , MISTAKEN , OR NEVER EXISTED ACCORDING TO THE LONE GUNMAN GANG .


The morgue witnesses

Several witnesses who were present at Bethesda and saw the President's head wound described it as a massive wound to the right rear of the skull.

Chester Boyers was a Chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda. He told the HSCA in 1978 that "there was a large wound to the right side and towards the rear of the head". ( ARRB MD 62 )

Boyers was never called by the Warren Commission.

One of the autopsists, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, told the HSCA that "the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound." ( ARRB MD 26 )

Dr. Boswell's Warren Commission testimony covered just a single page ( 2 H 377 ) and he was never asked to describe the wounds he saw.

Tom Robinson was the mortician whose job it was to prepare the body for burial. He was present during the examination of it. He told the HSCA that it was at "the base of the head, where most of the damage was done." Robinson described the wound in the back of the head as "ragged", about three inches in diameter and circular.

Tom Robinson was never called before the Warren Commission.

Floyd Riebe was a photographer who took pictures at the autopsy. He told the ARRB in 1997 that, "the right side in the back was gone. Just a big gaping hole with fragments of scalp and bone hanging in it." ( ARRB interview of Floyd Riebe, 5/7/97 )

Floyd Riebe was never called before the Warren Commission.

FBI agent Frank O'Neill told the ARRB that there was a "massive wound" in the rear of the head and there was bone missing. He stated that a portion of the skull was taken into the autopsy room as the autopsy progressed and that this piece was "found on the car floor in Dallas by one of the Secret Service agents." ( ARRB interview of Frank O'Neill, 9/12/97 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/FBI-man-saw-Massive-wound-in-right-rear-of-JFK-skull.mp4

O'Neill's recollection of a piece of skull recovered from the back of the limousine corroborates Secret Service agent Clint Hill's description of a piece of Kennedy's skull lying on the rear seat. ( 2 H 141 )

Frank O'Neill was never called before the Warren Commission.

Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode in the front seat of the limo, saw Kennedy's head wound at Bethesda. He estimated the diameter at about 5 inches, located at the rear portion of the right side of the head. He said that it was "to the left of the ear and a little high" and testified that that part of the skull was "removed", clarifying that by "removed" that it was "absent when I saw him." ( 2 H 80-81 )

Jerrol Custer was the X-ray technician who took the x-rays of the President's body. He described the head wound as a "king sized hole...I could put my hands together and place my hands in the skull". ( ARRB interview of Jerrol Custer, 10/28/97 )

Jerrol Custer was never called before the Warren Commission.

In this essay, I've been able to document 19 witnesses who have claimed to have seen an enormous wound at the rear of the President's skull consistent with a wound of exit.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE4_HI.jpg

But the autopsy photo of the back of the head shows no such massive wound and there may have been a reason for that.


The autopsy photos: evidence of fakery


Witnesses claimed to have seen two different sets of autopsy photos after the autopsy. In one set, it is reported that there was an entry wound in the front of the head at the hairline and a massive exit wound at the rear. In the other, a small neat wound in the rear of the head and a blasted out "flap" on the right side.

The Warren Commission never published the autopsy photos. Instead, they published drawings to illlustrate the path of the bullet and its effects. For this they called on medical illustrator named Harold Rydberg, Head of Bethesda's Medical Illustration Department.

In March 1964, Rydberg had a meeting with Captain John Stover, the Commanding Officer of the Navy Medical School. Stover explained that Drs. Humes and Boswell were about to testify before the Warren Commission. Rydberg was ordered to prepare medical illustrations of the wounds sustained by John F. Kennedy. When he asked Humes why they were not using the photographs taken at the autopsy, he was told they were considered to be "too shocking" and had been sealed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and were therefore not available for testimony.

Over the weekend of 14th/15th March 1964, Rydberg worked in a small office at Bethesda with Humes and Boswell. Rydberg was not allowed to take in any photographs of John F. Kennedy.

Boswell told him: "that they had no photographs, no X-rays, that I was going to have to do this one verbally... We'll tell you what to draw."

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrydbergH.htm

By March, 1964 they DID have the photographs and x-rays for reference so the only reason for not using them was because the autopsists sought to control what the drawings depicted.

Having confidence that the autopsy photos would never be seen by the public, the autopsists then had free reign to depict the wounds however they wanted.

Commission exhibits 385, 386 and 388 are the drawings Rydberg did according to the "memories" of Humes and Boswell.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/rydberg-drawings.jpg

The drawings, however, do not match the autopsy photos. They show a bullet wound at the base of the neck above the top of the shoulders. The autopsy photo of the back shows a bullet hole below the top of the shoulders.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE5_HI2.jpg

On this basis alone, the value of the Rydberg drawings as evidence is questionable, at best. At worse, they're a deliberate attempt to hide evidence that JFK was shot from the front and that Oswald was not involved in the killing.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970s gave us a number of witnesses who had not been called by the Warren Commission.

Some were Bethesda witnesses who have come forward to describe what they saw in the morgue that night. When shown the official autopsy photos, they claimed that the photos did not depict the wound they saw.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/photos-faked.mp4

Mortician Tom Robinson told the HSCA that there was a wound in the right temple at the hairline, measuring about a quarter of an inch. ( ARRB MD 63, pgs. 2-3 )

Note: this is about the same size hole ( about a quarter of an inch ) described by Dr. Ronald Jones with regard to the throat wound ( 6 H 54 ).

Corroboration for Robinson's observation of an entry wound in the front of the head comes from autopsy attendee James Curtis Jenkins, interviewed by Patrick Bet David:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/james-curtis-jenkins.mp4

Further corroboration comes from Dennis David, who claimed that a few days after the assassination he saw slides from a video of the autopsy filmed by William Bruce Pitzer that showed an entrance wound in the front of the head and a massive exit wound at the rear.

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/dennis-david.mp4

In addition to this evidence, White House Photographer Joe O'Donnell told the ARRB in 1997 that he saw two sets of photographs in the possession of Robert Knudsen, a Chief photographer for the Navy who was assigned to the White House. ( ARRB MD 231 )

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/joe-odonnell.mp4

More evidence of a wound in the front of the skull comes from an autopsy photo of the back of the skull, showing a massive wound in the right rear and a smaller hole in the front of the head:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE7_HI1.jpg

Evidence of the coverup of that entrance wound in the front of the head comes in the form of one of the autopsy photos, where a black square was added to the photo:

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/BE3_HI1_2.jpg

Faced with all of this evidence, that at least two shots ( one to the throat and one to the head ) of the same diameter were fired from in front of the President, the House Select Committee simply buried it.


"There is no medical evidence that President Kennedy was hit from the front and to the right".--G. Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel, HSCA.

Thanks for that Gil, and welcome to Casebook

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its called ''Evidence'' Herlock , remember ''you asked'' for Actual Evidence .. you got it [and will continue to get ] .I cant help it if makes a mockery of your theory of the lone gunman . Your problem, not mind .

For god sake why would you ever want to post anything from that phoney bugliosi ? i,ve shown you he was a fraud but you ignored it as usual. your problem again , not mind.

ACTUAL EVIDENCE .

You haven’t produced evidence. You have cut and pasted the opinion of Gil Jesus who is a conspiracy theorist. His opinions are of no importance for obvious reasons.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just some of the closest witnesses stating where Kennedy’s was hit.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

This is a huge issue in this type of conversation. Fishy is quite free and easy in calling the WC and the Bethesda pathologist liars but we only have to suggest that a witness or some witnesses might have been mistaken (a proposition that he would accept without quarrel on other threads) and he immediately accuses us of calling them liars. You can’t discuss the case sensibly with this approach (especially combined with the deluge of cut and pasting from conspiracist websites).

It certainly seems that way, Mike.

[Herlock Sholmes]

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head."

[GBinOz]

Against this we have the people in Dealey Plaza who disagreed with your witnesses, Parkland doctors who disagreed with your Parkland doctors (plus one of the two senior doctors [working at Kennedy’s head] who ‘absolutely’ accepted that they could have been wrong) along with 17 pathologists, autopsy photos independently checked by numerous experts with no evidence of fakery, x-rays independently checked by numerous experts with no evidence of fakers, the Zapruder film independently checked by numerous by numerous experts with no evidence of tampering. Simply shouting ‘fake’ at everything is playground stuff.[/B]

What are the chances of any reply (never mind a valid one) to the above? I won’t hold my breath.

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?

[Fiver]

There you have it , you see the problem now dont you ,yet you cant even admit that much . Everywhere you look ,the Magic Bullet, the Fake Autopsy photos , the Mauser rifle, the Tippet killing slugs , the 4th kill shot bullet , the Grassy knoll etc etc what do the all have in common .? They all contradict and show the lies and inconsistancies of the Bogus Warren commission conspiracy which you fell for .

What they have in common is they keep being stated as facts by Conspiracists who repeatedly ignore evidence.

* The Single Bullet Theory is possible. Testing using actual positions show it would not have to curve to inflict JFK's throat wound and the wounds to Connally. Anything that shows it having to curve in midair is deliberately false.
* The Stretcher Bullet is not pristine. Scientific testing proved that the bullet fragments taken from Connally's wrist matched the Stretcher Bullet.
* There's also basic logic. Why would the Conspiracy plant a bullet in the first place? Why would they plant a bullet where it was almost missed? Why would they plant a lightly damaged bullet instead of a heavily damaged one?
* The autopsy photos have been proven to be real by x-ray and dental comparisons.
* The 6th floor rifle was witness by multiple people on site. It was photographed by the police before being moved. It was marked on site by the police. It was filmed by the news while it was still on the 6th floor. It was photographed by two more newsmen as it was removed from the building.
* And more basic logic - why would the Conspiracy plant the wrong rifle?
* Eyewitnesses saw the shooter manually ejecting spent shells from a revolver and replacing them. They were found by civilians, turned over to the police, and marked at the scene. Testing would show they matched the bullets that struck Tippit and that the were fired from Oswald's gun.
* No evidence for a 4th bullet was found. Only 5% of witnesses thought that they heard 4 or more shots.
* The Grassy Knoll was a poor firing position. It was impossible to make the throat shot from there. Making the head shot would have been nigh-impossible due to high lateral motion and almost no time to lead the target. It also required blind luck to not hit any of the bystanders in the head. It would have struck JFK in the side of the head, so brain matter and bullet fragments would have been projected to JFK's left, yet all evidence shows the brain matter and bullet fragments were projected forward. A Grassy Knoll shooter would have had to retrieve all expended shells and then escape in broad daylight across open ground carrying a rifle in an area swarming with security.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?